Are you being sarcastic?
He has served his sentence.
No. I’m not a fan of hysterical pitchforks and torches.
That’s not how rights work.
And the child victims will suffer from this experience the rest of their lives.
Under the ECHR he has those rights. Just because the US believes something different does not invalidate European law and morality. Europe has addressed universal rights two centuries later than the Founding Fathers did. The two answers reflect the views of their tomes. The US has an eighteenth century sensibility, Europe one has a twentieth century one.
Agreed.
What does that mean?
Given that the US may have a system that allows vigilante encouraging sites and Europe does not, what does Facebook need to do to earn profits in both jurisdictions?
Do you support these crazy “right to be forgotten” laws?
How about sex offender registries?
In Europe he has a right to privacy of personal information including his location.
You may not like it but it is the case.
They are not allowed to be public in Europe.
It means what it says. “He served his (short) sentence” doesn’t provide any aid or comfort to the child victim, nor does it protect future victims.
Under UK and European Law he has the right after serving his sentence to live a private life unhindered by vigilante action. That is a fact.
It is a fact that Facebook needs to accept if it is going to trade profitably in Europe.
That’s not how discussions work, either. If there is such a right, then it doesn’t get weighed against the rights of anyone else. If there isn’t such a right, then asking how to weight it against someone else’s rights is similarly foolish.
That doesn’t exempt him from the social consequences of his actions. The public should be perfectly free to find these people disgusting and communicate that disgust (and danger) to others.
That’s a false dichotomy. Of course people deserve to live lives free of crime, but that’s not what this case was about. Facebook and the operator of the page were punished for “misusing private information” (from one of the linked articles).
But it does, in European law, ban the publication of information intended or likely to result in the person’s right to privacy being shared publicly.
There is no problem saying ‘John Doe’ aged 30was convicted of abusing children. Publishing his address and movements is private information that cannot be shared publicly as it is deemed likely to cause a criminal act and to invade unlawfully a person’s right to privacy.
The private information was misused by being broadcast with the possibility of causing a criminal offence.
But just falling back to “Europe does it differently” isn’t any better than Americans saying “America is different” when arguing guns or healthcare or whatever. Positions need to be actually justified, in the sense that they are better for the population than the alternative. And this policy of severely restricting the public’s information about sex offenders seems to fail that premise– that is, it results in a worse outcome for Europe. Specifically, it reduces the costs to committing sex offenses–because an offender’s life is not ruined–and it increases the risks to the populace at large, all for a substantial benefit in the lives of very bad people. That’s a poor bargain if I ever saw one.
What rights of the victims? The victims aren’t involved at all in this case.
Maybe, maybe not, but it’s irrelevant. Society has decided that his crime was “worth” X years of jail. Not X years of jail + whatever any indignant random person feels like throwing at him.
This is vigilantism, which is always bad news (I’m pretty sure by the way that there was a case in the UK where a published list of pedophiles with names and addresses, included people who weren’t in fact, pedophiles and nevertheless suffered the consequences…vigilants aren’t people you want to rely on).
If society wants the location of convicted sex offenders to be a matter of public knowledge, this has to be decided by elected representatives of the people, implemented by independent courts following due process, and controlled by sworn in and accountable law enforcement officers. If the Irish people decided against having such a public register, it’s not up to some presomptuous nobody to decide otherwise.