[an0n]

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,62676,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

And they say vigilantiieeisism is bad........

[redsniper]

that's awesome!

[Kazan]

that's awesome and at the same time that's horse**** - because you can easily frame someone elsa

If I were the hoster or the domain registrar for perverted-justice i would take them down immeidately

[an0n]

Yeah, obviously it's open to abuse, but I'd rather traumatise 10 innocent men than 10 stupid kids.


And the fact that they never use the same nick more than once means you could never really expect to find one of the PeeJ guys to frame someone.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kazan
that's awesome and at the same time that's horse**** - because you can easily frame someone elsa

If I were the hoster or the domain registrar for perverted-justice i would take them down immeidately

I agree 100%

This is the kind of nonsense that ended up with a paediatrician getting beaten up a few years ago!

"Well he had a plate on the side of his house that said John Smith, paediatrician! It's like he's proud of the fact that he abuses children"

We have police in this country to deal with this sort of thing.

[Kazan]

******slaps* an0n man you're stupid - just getting LISTED on their ruins your life - it doesn't matter if it's true or not

stop this viral "think of the kids" **** and just make parents teach their kids some responsibility like it always should have been.  

they may not use the same nickname but they do use the same IP - and they take volunteers for doing thet rolling - so guess what - the person doing the framing could be one of their volunteers

[an0n]

Originally posted by Kazan
******slaps* an0n man you're stupid - just getting LISTED on their ruins your life - it doesn't matter if it's true or not

You realise of course that the 'ruining your life' thing is the whole entire point.

stop this viral "think of the kids" **** and just make parents teach their kids some responsibility like it always should have been.

I agree with this 100000%. Everyone under 17 should be banned from using the internet. It'd make the cyber world a better, safer, utopian place.

they may not use the same nickname but they do use the same IP - and they take volunteers for doing thet rolling - so guess what - the person doing the framing could be one of their volunteers

Hmmm. I dunno about that.

I'm assuming if they're going to go to the trouble of organising such a group that they'd take even the most basic of precautions.

And then there's the fact that getting someone's IP over AOL or ICQ shows a level of technical proficiency that would allow you to **** someone up without having to involve PeeJ.

[01010]

Originally posted by Kazan

stop this viral "think of the kids" **** and just make parents teach their kids some responsibility like it always should have been.  

Damn ****ing straight man, too many kids are pandered too nowadays and it's making them whiny little pussies who need everything done for them or just complete assholes.

[Janos]

^ Agreed.

How many of you have seen Storytelling?

[Martinus]

Originally posted by an0n
Yeah, obviously it's open to abuse, but I'd rather traumatise 10 innocent men than 10 stupid kids.

[color=66ff00]I'd rather that neither were truamatised, a priest here was implicated in 'indecent' acts by his sister. He recieved a greater proportion of their father's possessions in the father's will. She was so jaded by this that she claimed that he molested her when they were children. He resigned his priesthood simply because if a story is spread about a priest molesting someone it's almost automatically believed due to the number of previous incidents.
He was a really nice guy and although I no longer share his religious beliefs I had respect for him, the whole parish asked for his reinstatement but I don't know if he has reconsidered.


Someone should put a hacking challenge up on slashdot, have them frame one of the guys from perverted justice. Then they'll see exactly what the term means. The laws are there for a reason.
[/color]

[Rictor]

Age doesn't arbitrarily determine your maturity and readiness for sexual relations. Mnay, many 18-20 years old are no more ready for sex than a 13 year old (mentally anyway). On the flipside, many 14-16 year olds are mature enough to understand the whole thing, and act responsibly.

Age alone is not enough for me to judge the appropriateness of a relationship. I mean, if its a use/abuse relationship, than its not right, no matter how old you are. But if its what might be thought of as "love", and the relathionship is a genuine one based on shared values, intimacy and understanding, then I see no reason why a 15 year old should not be able to date a 30 year old.

Its a culture stigma, which has no real logical explaination. Its like when one black guy calls another black guy nigger, and thats OK. But its not OK for anyone else to do it. The difference in age is not the sole measure of the worthiness of a relationship.

Needless to say, this only goes up to a certain point. If a 40 year old goes after a 10 year old, I say society has every right to **** him up. Its has to be determined on a case by case basis. However, I am all for shutting down kiddy pron websites and chatrooms. 16+ is OK,maybe 15, though its a sort of touchy subject. But anything less than 15 is out of the question, atleast online.

[Flipside]

Sorry, but quite frankly, the sick bastards that nearly pushed the teacher to suicide are no better than the sick bastards they are trying to catch. What happens if this DOES push an innocent man to suicide? Is that ok because he MAY have been guilty?
Of course those sad twats remain anonymous so they don't have to take the flak for it.

[Rictor]

I do support vigilante justice in some cases, especially when it comes to sexual acts, which are mostly protected and/or ignored by the law. But before I condone such actions, or before I would myself get involved (in theory), I would make damn sure that you're going after the right person. For example, pimps are more or less ignored by the law, despite the fact that they are the scum of the Earth and amass fortunes based on the exploitation of others. If some guy wants to get a group of his buddies together and go postal on them, they have my blessings. Nail their ass to the wall, as an example to others.

But not in this case, especially 'cause its over the Net, so its very, very suspect to abuse and/or misinformation.

[an0n]

I find it strange that you all flock to a thread about paedophiles but completely ignore the thread about the President and Vice President of Taiwan nearly being assasinated.

[kasperl]

Taiwan = far away
"suspect"' people getting nailed to the wall over suspicions = both closer to home and more important.

[Rictor]

I didn't comment on the Taiwan thread 'cause I know nothing about Taiwan's politics. Generally, if I know squat about the situation, I try to keep my mouth shut until such a time as I learn enough to comment inteligentlly.

I could for example say "I'm glad me got out alive", but what do I know. He may be a tyrant who deserved to be asassinated.

[mikhael]

Man, this is ****ed up. Vigilante activity IS ****ed up. **** like this shouldn't be allowed to take place. I have to say I agree with Kaz completely on this one. Unreservedly.

As for Taiwan: I haven't got that far down the front page yet. I probably won't read it: what's Taiwan to me? On the other hand, I opened this thread because I expecting to see something that vaguely resembled justice, not the bull**** it turned out to be.

[SadisticSid]

I echo Kazan's and Maeg's sentiments, and it's just as awful an innocent man being falsely accused of this **** as for a child who suffers it. And I hope these vigilante idiots get sued if they do make such an accusation.

[an0n]

They're not making any accusations.

They're posting chat-logs and such.

They can't even get done with slander as they're not showing a 'reckless disregard for the truth'.

[mikhael]

Nice semantic splitting of hairs there.

I hate my form CEO, Moe. I've got pictures of the guy. I know his house, cellphone and fax numbers. I know his email addresses. It would take ****all effort to generate a chat log that showed this guy perving on some underaged boy.

If I took all that information and posted it on some bull**** page like 'pervertedjustice.com', I would, in fact, be accusing him of doing exactly that.

Let's take children out of the equation. I know the guy embezzled money. I know that he funneled some of the money back to his brother in Egypt. If were to post that on a website about crooked, embezzling CEOs, I would be accusing him of being a crooked embezzling CEO.

Don't play silly semantic games. Its an accusation, no matter how you look at it.