# Do not pressure posters into ingoring professional reporting requirements **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 7, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979 "2010-02-07T01:29:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/41 "2010-02-07T11:14:52Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I already explained how it is. There is no other interpretation. This statement is provably false. Someone here already interpreted it differently. I think you might want to rephrase. ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/42 "2010-02-07T11:46:42Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Long as we’re on that subject, **Muffin** , how do your experiences apply to _U.S._ law? Being that you’re based in Canada I’m wondering how well they compare here. How do you know that Muffin is in Canada? It doesn’t appear in location. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/43 "2010-02-07T14:14:06Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > How do you know that Muffin is in Canada? It doesn’t appear in location. It’s in his profile. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/44 "2010-02-07T15:46:00Z")
My location no longer appears on my posts because this feature is reserved for people who are not guests. I am a guest rather than a charter member because I got tired of paying for craptacular moderation by a mod and an admin, and some truly ludicrous rules decreed by Ed Zotti concerning what particular words were permitted and what particular phrases were forbidden. Since the location feature and the number of posts feature are conveniences for the benefit of people reading my posts, as opposed to being features that somehow might benefit me, I think it is rather silly for those features to have been pulled, but then that is to be expected here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/45 "2010-02-07T16:07:25Z")
It seems to me that **SmartAleq** was not advocating reporting **Cesario**. **SmartAleq** was advocating reporting the SDMB for harboring **Cesario** or promoting **Cesario** ’s views. Now, could that campaign create legal trouble for the SDMB? **Muffin** says no, based (presumably) on the First Amendment. But when asked about reporting **Cesario** directly, **Muffin** acknowledges that the hope is that police would take an interest in **Cesario** , investigate **Cesario** , and “proactively” be on top of anything illegal. So why wouldn’t a natural outcome be that the SDMB itself would be the target of “proactive” investigation? In my view, being the target of “proactive” police interest falls into the ambit of “legal trouble.” ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/46 "2010-02-07T16:24:46Z")
If the SDMB were to turn into a pedophile website, then yes, I expect that the police would take an interest in the SDMB. Since the SDMB is not a pedophile website, I expect that the police would not take an interest in it, thus no legal trouble for the SDMB. If the SDMB is concerned that legal trouble might arise out of it being used as a platform by Cesario, then the best solution would be to stop being a platform for Cesario. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/47 "2010-02-07T16:34:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It seems to me that **SmartAleq** was not advocating reporting **Cesario**. **SmartAleq** was advocating reporting the SDMB for harboring **Cesario** or promoting **Cesario** ’s views. :dubious: Normally, I’m a fan but I must say that’s not only stretching, it’s straining with a side order of wishful thinking. If motivations are in question, why not ask for clarification rather than ascribe intent? SA inadvertently omitted two words from her post. I’d link to the correction, but I’m not allowed. In addition, I would say that calling attention to mandatory reporters such as yourself of their legal duties is neither spam nor a threat so much as a reminder. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/48 "2010-02-07T16:35:58Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > This statement is provably false. Someone here already interpreted it differently. I think you might want to rephrase. You’re right. I’ll rephrase: there is no other interpretation that is supportable by any kind of consistent or reasonable logic based on what was posted. > [@Muffin](#): > > If the SDMB were to turn into a pedophile website, then yes, I expect that the police would take an interest in the SDMB. Since the SDMB is not a pedophile website, I expect that the police would not take an interest in it, thus no legal trouble for the SDMB. > > If the SDMB is concerned that legal trouble might arise out of it being used as a platform by Cesario, then the best solution would be to stop being a platform for Cesario. This is vague and self-contradictory, and also doesn’t address the questions I asked: if **SmartAleq** was talking about reporting obligations and not creating a problem for the board, why did she tell people to report the board, and how did my post advising her not to start a campaign of reporting the board (to whom I don’t know) discourage anyone with a reporting obligation from following their obligations? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/49 "2010-02-07T16:48:17Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You’re right. I’ll rephrase: there is no other interpretation that is supportable by any kind of consistent or reasonable logic based on what was posted. Thank you for your interpretation of what is and what is not consistent and reasonable. How is it a campaign? Did she provide a link you had to remove? Did she name a commercial corporation? Did she represent herself as an agent of that corporation? If you’re going to claim spam or campaign, do you think you could do so a little less broadly? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/50 "2010-02-07T17:01:56Z")
> [@Syntropy](#): > > How is it a campaign? A campaign is “a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose.” **SmartAleq** said “if TPTB let this nasty individual continue on his merry way, especially if they allow him his own little fapfest, that every person who reads this board who is also a mandatory reporter get on the stick and inform law enforcement that there’s a venue that is encouraging his behavior.” So she’s encouraging people to take a specific aggressive off-board action. ---
**Author:** ![kathmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kathmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kathmandu)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/51 "2010-02-07T17:09:52Z")
**Muffin** , with all due respect, you look to be beating a dead horse. There’s clearly no professional reporting requirement here, and your assertion that there’s a moral requirement is a bit silly. Who are you going to report it to? The police? If you’ve been a criminal lawyer you should know they’re not going to take any action on a report about someone on a message board who may or may not be a pedophile and who may or may not have actually molested children, who can’t be identified in any event. I absolutely agree that permitting **Cesario** to post here makes this board a worse place. I am a defender of free speech, but if someone came to my dinner party and started talking about how great it would be to be able to fuck children, I’d unceremoniously boot him out. I don’t post here often, but I do like reading the posts on this board. I’ve missed one poster in particular, and often wonder why she stopped posting. I suspect it’s the same poster that **Muffin** is referring to, and if so, it’s really unfortunate that the board lost such a valuable member in order to protect **Cesario’s** “right” to spew tripe that is morally repugnant and extremely offensive to most of the members of this community. I suspect that that board will lose a few more posters over this nonsense. That’s unfortunate. Depending on how things pan out, I may be one of them. My departure won’t be a great loss as I don’t post much, but TPTB should be aware that allowing this type of person to remain part of this community will undoubtedly have a deleterious effect. I suspect the mods probably don’t like him any more than the rest of us do, but I get the impression that they’re waiting for some specific action they can point to to be able to ban him. But this isn’t a court of law. The mods don’t need to follow due process to ban someone for being a jerk. And I think this is a pretty clear example of someone being a jerk. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/52 "2010-02-07T17:11:08Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > A campaign is “a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose.” **SmartAleq** said “if TPTB let this nasty individual continue on his merry way, especially if they allow him his own little fapfest, that every person who reads this board who is also a mandatory reporter get on the stick and inform law enforcement that there’s a venue that is encouraging his behavior.” > > So she’s encouraging people to take a specific aggressive off-board action. You mean, a legally required action? (Incidentally, the words ‘I hope’ should have been posted between the words ‘fapfest,’ and ‘that.’) Have we really come to the point where you are reprimanding a poster for reminding other posters to do that which they are legally required to do, and couching it in such a way that you appear to be dismissing that reminder as a campaign? Is the board administration really so terrified of some phantom threat of legal retribution that you’re willing to defend that position? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/53 "2010-02-07T17:17:13Z")
> [@Syntropy](#): > > You mean, a legally required action? How is it legally required? ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/54 "2010-02-07T17:20:40Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > A campaign is “a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose.” **SmartAleq** said “if TPTB let this nasty individual continue on his merry way, especially if they allow him his own little fapfest, that every person who reads this board who is also a mandatory reporter get on the stick and inform law enforcement that there’s a venue that is encouraging his behavior.” > > So she’s encouraging people to take a specific aggressive off-board action. Kinda like encouraging people to take the specific agressive action of changing the laws to allow people to rape kids? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/55 "2010-02-07T17:25:46Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > How is it legally required? [All 50 states require that professionals who work with children report reasonable suspicions of abuse.](http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/sexual-assault-issues/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse) ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/56 "2010-02-07T17:43:20Z")
> [@Syntropy](#): > > [All 50 states require that professionals who work with children report reasonable suspicions of abuse.](http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/sexual-assault-issues/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse) And this situation pretty clearly does not meet reasonable suspicions, for the sole fact that you can say anything you want on a message board without regard to reality. But let’s run with this for a moment. That site says the standards for reporting differ from state to state. Which state’s law governs a message board? In the SDMB’s case, I’m presuming Illinois. The PDF for Illinois states: > [@](#): > > Standard of knowledge: Reasonable cause to believe a child known to them may be an abused or neglected child. We do not have reasonable cause, because again, any damn fool can say any damn thing online, and the individual in question has not even mentioned anything close to serious abuse of a child beyond “flirting,” as reprehensible as that may sound to the rest of us. Because of this, we can’t fulfill the criteria of “a child known to [us].” This is simple hysteria. ETA: Oh, and to add something I just noticed: > [@](#): > > Timing/Other Procedures: Must report suspected abuse or neglect _immediately_. **Cesario** has been posting on this board for months now. I don’t follow his posts except when other people point them out, but I know the flirting thing is months old. So we’re kind of past the point of reasonable response here. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/57 "2010-02-07T17:54:57Z")
‘Reasonable suspicion’ does not mean ‘iron clad proof.’ Cesario has admitted to being a pedophile, to engaging in actions with children which are suspicious. In addition, we’re not discussing Cesario’s actions. We’re discussing SmartAleq’s. She did nothing remotely wrong, and it’s up to mandatory reporters to decide whether or not his actions are reportable. Not you, not me and certainly not Marley. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/58 "2010-02-07T18:06:06Z")
> [@kathmandu](#): > > I suspect the mods probably don’t like him any more than the rest of us do, but I get the impression that they’re waiting for some specific action they can point to to be able to ban him. But this isn’t a court of law. The mods don’t need to follow due process to ban someone for being a jerk. And I think this is a pretty clear example of someone being a jerk. As we are often reminded by TPTB, the registration agreement clearly states – > [@](#): > > Please remember that you are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever. They don’t even need to justify it with the “jerk” rule, and it is disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/59 "2010-02-07T18:11:32Z")
> [@Syntropy](#): > > In addition, we’re not discussing Cesario’s actions. We’re discussing SmartAleq’s. She did nothing remotely wrong, and it’s up to mandatory reporters to decide whether or not his actions are reportable. Not you, not me and certainly not Marley. I could almost see the outrage if he had said “Do not do this,” or “You will not do this,” but “Please don’t do this” doesn’t seem like all that offensive a request, especially if he doesn’t think it rises to the level of a reportable situation. Besides, the problem wasn’t that **SmartAleq** ’s post was telling people to report suspicious activity. It was that she did it in a very torches-and-pitchforks rabble-rousing inciteful manner. Parties who have a legal obligation to report child abuse already know they do, and if they believe there is a need here they would have done so already. **SmartAleq** ’s post did nothing but fan the flames of hysteria over a situation that clearly does not meet the standards of reasonable cause. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/60 "2010-02-07T18:25:52Z")
Really. Aren’t we being just a _tad_ hyperbolic? 1. Marley quoted the registration agreement and called SA’s post a campaign on the level with spam. That’s not ‘please don’t do this.’ And he wasn’t worried about ‘fanning the flames of hysteria.’ He was worried about this board getting into (legal) trouble for allowing a pedophile to talk about having sex with kids should a mandatory reporter actually report Cesario and the medium he was using (here) to do so. Let’s not do the White Knight thing, huh? 2. Can we dispense with the whole ‘storming the castle’ scenario? It’s very romantic but hardly factual. What SA said was nothing more and nothing less than ‘I hope if a mandatory reporter sees something in his posts worth reporting, they do so.’ 3. Who died and made you arbiter of what is and is not the standards of reasonable cause? No, really. What position do you hold to say? I’ve already said I don’t know if they constitute reasonable cause or not, nor is it my place. Do I have an opinion? Yes. But my opinion may or may not be fact. Is YOUR opinion fact? Are you a mandatory reporter? If not, then you need to stop asserting that opinion as if it were. Yes, SA was telling people to report suspicious activity. That’s what they’re _supposed to do_. So what is wrong with her telling them to do that? Does that mean they have to listen to her? Does that mean they’re going to jump straight away and involve the authorities? No. Again, it is up to mandatory reporters to decide whether or not his posts qualify, and SA’s pointing at those posts and saying ‘could you do something about this.’ doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. As you said, it’s the internet. People say shit all the time. I would hope that most mandatory reporters are well trained enough to determine with some degree of accuracy and intelligence whether or not his posts qualify. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979.md?page=4)