Facebook faces another privacy vs freedom of speech problem- pedofile wins £20,000 damages

[Pjen]

“Child abuser awarded £20,000 damages after being ‘named and shamed’ on Facebook paedophile page in first case of its kind”

Outline- person posts a Facebook page aimed at naming and shaming pedofiles.

He and Facebook found jointly guilty of invasion of privacy for page and for comments posted by third parties on the page.

What are the gains and losses for Privacy and Freedom of Speech, not to mention Facebook and page editors?

[Ravenman]

Is this guy a child abuser?

[Czarcasm]

What is the source of this story?

[Malthus]

The account is lacking any details that would make the story debate-worthy.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Czarcasm

What is the source of this story?

If it helps I found this:

Child abuser awarded £20,000 damages after being ‘named and shamed’ on Facebook paedophile page in first case of its kind

A convicted child abuser who featured on a Facebook page set up to monitor paedophiles in Northern Ireland is to be awarded £20,000 in damages, a High Court judge ruled today.

In a landmark verdict, Mr Justice Stephens held that both the social media giant and page operator Joe McCloskey were liable for misusing private information.

SOURCE: Belfast Telegraph

[Quartz]

Link.

Key parts:

Ruling for the sex offender who brought the privacy action, the judge said information published indiscriminately could have threatened public order and incited violence and hatred…

The plaintiff, identified only as CG, was released from jail in 2012 after serving a sentence for gross indecency and indecent assault offences against a young girl and a teenage boy.

Now aged in his forties, he remains under supervision by the authorities and has been assessed as posing no significant risk to the public.

Note that the man has served his sentence.

In evidence CG also claimed he has been threatened with being thrown off a pier during a fishing trip, hounded out of a cinema and had to use a supermarket trolley to fight off another tormentor.

His lawyers argued that the campaign had reached the level of dangerous vigilantism.

Mr McCloskey told the court he has “named and shamed” 400 sex offenders through the page.

He denied being responsible for a witch-hunt or hate campaign, stressing that he included a disclaimer opposing any violence of intimidation.

But delivering judgment in the action, Mr Justice Stephens said an insight into Mr McCloskey’s attitude and purpose can be gained from other internet comments.

In one he stated: “Instead of Hunger Games it should be Paedophile Games, we could hunt them down on live TV and slaughter them.”

Elsewhere he suggested that abusers should be “destroyed” in the same way as a dog who attacks a child.

Later the defendant offered online praise to those whose actions led to a sex offender having to get a police escort out of his neighbourhood.

“He took pride in driving an individual out of his home,” the judge said.

[Whack-a-Mole]

The guy was tried, convicted and did his time. To be hounded after-the-fact seems lousy. How long and how much should he pay for his crime above and beyond the given penalties he already had imposed?

[Pjen]

Sorry, I thought I had pasted the link.

Two years ago Facebook was given a take down instruction by the High Court in Belfast. The site named and shamed many pedofiles.

The appellant had asked Facebook to pay damages to a child abuse charity and take down the page. They refused to pay but did remove the page.

Because Facebook refused to settle, this is now a landmark case and anyone similarly treated will have the opportunity to require Facebook to comply or be similarly faced with further damages.

[Ravenman]

It boggles my mind how a criminal conviction could be considered private information.

But this in no way excuses those who threaten violence against him.

[Pjen]

@Ravenman

It boggles my mind how a criminal conviction could be considered private information.

But this in no way excuses those who threaten violence against him.

It was not the details of the conviction. They published his identity and location (address) and some posters urged vigilante action. Neither the page author or Facebook removed those details.

[The_Joker_and_the_Thief]

@Pjen

It was not the details of the conviction. They published his identity and location (address) and some posters urged vigilante action. Neither the page author or Facebook removed those details.

If you don’t want your life ruined don’t commit sex crimes. In the US many states have laws that require pedophiles to report this information to the state and require the government to publish this information to the public. I guess Europe just cares more about the well-being of pedophiles than does the US.

[Ravenman]

You misunderstand – I wasn’t saying that it boggled my mind to prevent someone from publishing something like, “Mr. X was convicted of molesting a child in 2008.” I’m saying, it boggles my mind that someone could be prevented from publishing something like, “Joe Smith was convicted of molesting a child in 2008.” Of course his identity shouldn’t be considered private in this sort of context.

Somewhere there’s a line about identifying where he lives. On one side of the line, I feel perfectly fine if neighbors are alerted to a convicted child molester living on their block. On the other side of the line, it is not fair to throw details out there to insinuate that someone should do him harm.

But if I were Facebook, I would probably tell the judge to cram his order. At some point, unless there are really egregious violations of laws, there ought to be a general understanding that social media is sort of like a public square. In a public square, if you don’t like what someone is saying, you go after that person, not the city parks department that operates the square.

[buddy431]

The court already told facebook to take down the page, and they refused. I don’t have problems with the court awarding damages since they refused to take it down. If facebook doesn’t do any business in the country I guess that they can tell the court to shove it, but I would have thought they’d have something in the UK that can be seized. If you do business in a jurisdiction, you should be expected to follow the law there, even if you disagree with it.

[Pjen]

@The_Joker_and_the_Thief

If you don’t want your life ruined don’t commit sex crimes. In the US many states have laws that require pedophiles to report this information to the state and require the government to publish this information to the public. I guess Europe just cares more about the well-being of pedophiles than does the US.

We have this strange idea called human rights. Universal human rights.

[Pjen]

@Ravenman

You misunderstand – I wasn’t saying that it boggled my mind to prevent someone from publishing something like, “Mr. X was convicted of molesting a child in 2008.” I’m saying, it boggles my mind that someone could be prevented from publishing something like, “Joe Smith was convicted of molesting a child in 2008.” Of course his identity shouldn’t be considered private in this sort of context.

Somewhere there’s a line about identifying where he lives. On one side of the line, I feel perfectly fine if neighbors are alerted to a convicted child molester living on their block. On the other side of the line, it is not fair to throw details out there to insinuate that someone should do him harm.

But if I were Facebook, I would probably tell the judge to cram his order. At some point, unless there are really egregious violations of laws, there ought to be a general understanding that social media is sort of like a public square. In a public square, if you don’t like what someone is saying, you go after that person, not the city parks department that operates the square.

Facebook crumbled with the take down order from the ECHR. If it wants to make money in Europe it needs to comply with European law.

[Pjen]

@Ravenman

You misunderstand – I wasn’t saying that it boggled my mind to prevent someone from publishing something like, “Mr. X was convicted of molesting a child in 2008.” I’m saying, it boggles my mind that someone could be prevented from publishing something like, “Joe Smith was convicted of molesting a child in 2008.” Of course his identity shouldn’t be considered private in this sort of context.

Somewhere there’s a line about identifying where he lives. On one side of the line, I feel perfectly fine if neighbors are alerted to a convicted child molester living on their block. On the other side of the line, it is not fair to throw details out there to insinuate that someone should do him harm.

But if I were Facebook, I would probably tell the judge to cram his order. At some point, unless there are really egregious violations of laws, there ought to be a general understanding that social media is sort of like a public square. In a public square, if you don’t like what someone is saying, you go after that person, not the city parks department that operates the square.

Facebook took down the page two years ago.

They have been ordered to pay £5000 damages (the editor was ordered to pay £15,000) and if they do not, their British assets can be seized for that amount using simple lower court procedures- CCJ followed by bailiff enforcement. They will pay to enable them to continue business in the UK.

[levdrakon]

Should have been £20,000,000.

[The_Joker_and_the_Thief]

@levdrakon

Should have been £20,000,000.

That’s how much the privacy rights of a pedophile are worth to you?

@Pjen

We have this strange idea called human rights. Universal human rights.

What “universal human right” does a sex offender have to privacy? How is this right universal if it doesn’t exist in much of the world, and didn’t exist anywhere until a few decades ago? And does the privacy of an objectively awful person trump the safety and security of a potential victim?

[D_Anconia]

@Pjen

We have this strange idea called human rights. Universal human rights.

Do the rights of the pedos outweigh the rights of the victims?

[levdrakon]

@The_Joker_and_the_Thief

That’s how much the privacy rights of a pedophile are worth to you?

At least. Let’s make it 200,000,000. We need to set an example.