# Online pedophiles & their expectations of success when setting up meetings with kids **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 8, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897 "2006-05-08T15:34:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/81 "2006-05-11T20:23:19Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > I actually have no interest in your quiz because it doesn’t relate to what the people from perverted justice do. But it relates very specifically to the phrase you keep using - that there is a presumption of innocence that the PJ people are denying to their targets. I have contended that you’re mistaken in the way you use the phrase “presumption of innocence,” and I think your answers to the thought experiment I’ve proposed will make clear precisely where your misunderstanding lies. So why not indulge me? Answer the questions, even if they are irrelevant. > [@](#): > > You might as well save your effort if you’re trying to make me think that what they do is acceptable, or hoping that someone finally has the balls and information to take Phillip Eide (aka Xavier Von Erck) for all he’s worth. You have your own standards about what’s acceptable and not acceptable. That’s a course for your own moral compass to chart. But that’s not quite the issue here. You’ve asserted that the PJ people are doing something that has legal implications. When you play that card, you leave the realm of “it’s your opinion” and enter a more defined and objective arena. When you say that the PJ people deprive their targets of their right to the presumption of innocence, you’re making a legal claim. It is in this area that I wish to correct the record, and I do believe I can convince you otherwise. You may leave this discussion still convinced that they are acting reprehensibly; you may not (I hope) leave it convinced that they are depriving others of their legal rights. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/82 "2006-05-11T20:30:48Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Fatty Arbuckle. Whose point are you proving? Arbuckle weathered the storm of a false accusation and made a successful comeback after his acquittal. In addition, he never sued – his rehabilitation was on the back of a jury acquittal alone, not his own lawsuit for damages. Moreover, Arbuckle faced an official accusation – a criminal prosecution – not simply a an accusation from a private party. This presumably carries more weight. Yet still, despite these differences, Arbuckle is remembered as a man who was falsely accused and vindicated. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/83 "2006-05-11T20:31:22Z")
**Garfield** are you kidding me? That is your site? A harassment suit brought by the parents of a kid who showed up (and he did show up) in a mall expecting to have sex with a 14yr old girl? Did you even read the whole finding? Even if they had the jursdiction to rule, they would have still ruled against the family. As it was not [PJ.com](http://PJ.com) that was harassing him, it was people who saw the site. I see, have seen nothing yet, that points to PJ being a vigilante group. Try again with that one. > [@](#): > > Same recommendation I make to everyone else: join, lurk, read. If it doesn’t open your eyes, then nothing will. You made the accusation, why do I now have to do work to prove you right? Either you have something to back up your bold claims, or you dont. im guessing you dont? ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/84 "2006-05-11T20:49:00Z")
**Bricker** I think that’s a matter of opinion. Fatty is first thought of as that guy who used a coke bottle on a chick; I don’t think and this is a matter of MY opinion, the public at large even thinks about the rest of his life. YMMV…of course. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/85 "2006-05-11T21:00:15Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > **Bricker** I think that’s a matter of opinion. Fatty is first thought of as that guy who used a coke bottle on a chick; I don’t think and this is a matter of MY opinion, the public at large even thinks about the rest of his life. > > YMMV…of course. I absolutely disagree. And the Coke bottle thing was never even alleged in court. I don’t think there are too many people that have or had that reaction to Arbuckle’s name. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/86 "2006-05-11T21:02:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Arbuckle weathered the storm of a false accusation and made a successful comeback after his acquittal. Not according to the author of such books as The Brief Madcap Life Of Kay Kendall and Vamp > [@Eve](#): > > Arbuckle’s acting career was ruined, but he continued to write and direct steadily for the rest of his life and was acting again for a couple of years before he died “His acting career was ruined.” If Eve Golden can’t be cited as an authority on a silent film star, who can? > [@](#): > > Moreover, Arbuckle faced an official accusation – a criminal prosecution – not simply a an accusation from a private party. This presumably carries more weight. Yet still, despite these differences, Arbuckle is remembered as a man who was falsely accused and vindicated. I’d say (Though this is a matter of opinion more than fact), he’s remembered as ‘that fat guy who killed a woman with a bottle’. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/87 "2006-05-11T21:05:39Z")
Sorry I missed this: > [@](#): > > On April 18, 1922, Hays issued a statement saying, “After consulting at length with Mr. Nicholas Schenck, representing Mr. Joseph Schenck, the producers, and Mr. Adolph Zukor and Mr. Jessy Lasky of the Famous Players-Lasky Corporation, the distributors, I will state that at my request they have cancelled all showings and all bookings of the Arbuckle films. They do this that the whole matter may have the consideration that its importance warrants, and the action is taken notwithstanding the fact that they had nearly ten thousand contracts in force for the Arbuckle pictures.” **Hays would officially lift this ban on December 20 of that same year but Arbuckle would not be able to find work in front of a camera for a decade.** > > He was able to obtain work behind the camera as a director when working under the pseudonym “William B. Goodrich.” I don’t call this a ‘successful comeback’ **Bricker** do you? Yes, he made few more films, but the damage to his career and his name was real and lasting…believe it. [Fatty](http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/fatty_arbuckle/8.html) ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/88 "2006-05-11T21:08:29Z")
[An Old Fatty Arbuckle Thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=311282&) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/89 "2006-05-11T21:11:17Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Sorry I missed this: > > I don’t call this a ‘successful comeback’ **Bricker** do you? > > Yes, he made few more films, but the damage to his career and his name was real and lasting…believe it. > > [Fatty](http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/fatty_arbuckle/8.html) From your cite: > [@](#): > > For a while, he returned to the stage. He made a tour on the old Vaudeville circuit. There he found affectionate crowds laughing and applauding at his old antics. Having the public accept him once again was wonderfully gratifying. > . > . > . > Apparently believing that the scandal had finally died down, Warner-Vitaphone hired Arbuckle to work onscreen in the early 1930s. He made a series of two-reelers. One of them, Buzzin’ Around, showed that he still had a special gift for light-hearted slapstick. Audiences flocked to these delightfully funny movies, showing that there were many who remained his fans and that he could make new ones as well. > > Meanwhile, he also found a new love, pretty dark-eyed actress Addie McPhail. The couple was married in June, 1932. It seemed like things were finally looking up for Arbuckle. He was making movies that people loved and enjoying a good marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/90 "2006-05-11T21:30:34Z")
Lordy. Now everyone’s arguing about Fatty Arbuckle. Aren’t internet discussions grand? Anyway, thought I’d pop in and gently remind **Bricker** that, while harassment might not be an offense in _his_ state, it sure is in others, including mine. See [Texas Penal Code section 42.07](http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.009.00.000042.00.htm#42.07.00). So, if you plan to cause the telephone of an alleged pedophile to ring repeatedly, better not do it in Texas, y’hear? ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/91 "2006-05-11T21:45:04Z")
**Bricker** inbetween your cut: > [@](#): > > He met lovely, dimpled Doris Deane and the two fell in love. Minta divorced him in 1925 and four months later he wed Deane. However, the marriage was not successful. He was still depressed because of his travails and, as he had before, sought comfort in alcohol. They divorced three years after getting married. Two marriages in the crapper. After your cut: > [@](#): > > Warner Brothers offered Arbuckle a feature film contract. He eagerly accepted but never got a chance to fulfill its terms. He and his wife Addie went out to dinner for a double celebration – the contract and their first wedding anniversary. > > At the age of 46, he died in his sleep, shortly after he and his wife returned from their night on the town. The cause of death was medically heart disease. His close friend Buster Keaton said, “He died of a broken heart.” > > However, it should be remembered that he had made a successful comeback. He was also happily married. Thus, it is realistic to believe that, for all his bad luck, including dying at a young age, Roscoe Arbuckle died a happy man. He certainly deserved to. Now “I” don’t consider that a succesful comeback, but that’s my opinion and you and the author are welcomed to yours…however even the author realizes what Fatty is remembered for… > [@](#): > > \*\*Sadly, Arbuckle is often remembered today as “the man who raped a girl with a Coke bottle” or “the man who tried to rape an actress and killed her.” \*\*He was neither of these things. Sometimes people recall him, correctly, as falsely accused of a murder. It would be most appropriate if he were remembered as a genius of comedy. Those smart enough and lucky enough to see his films will know him as a brilliant comedian. Roscoe Arbuckle loved to make people laugh and he was very good at it. Several decades ago, on a horrible day, the laughter stopped. It is long overdue for it to start again… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/92 "2006-05-11T22:01:40Z")
> [@Max Torque](#): > > Lordy. Now everyone’s arguing about Fatty Arbuckle. Aren’t internet discussions grand? > > Anyway, thought I’d pop in and gently remind **Bricker** that, while harassment might not be an offense in _his_ state, it sure is in others, including mine. See [Texas Penal Code section 42.07](http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.009.00.000042.00.htm#42.07.00). > > So, if you plan to cause the telephone of an alleged pedophile to ring repeatedly, better not do it in Texas, y’hear? Sure. But are you aware of any actions undertaken by any PJ members that would, if done in Texas, constitute harassment under Texas Penal Code section 42.07? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/93 "2006-05-11T22:03:18Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > **Bricker** inbetween your cut: > Two marriages in the crapper. I’m sorry, but as I look at the absymal record of Hollywood stars and their marriages, I’m afraid I cannot conclude that, but for the accusations against him, Arbuckle would have had a single, long-term happy marriage. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/94 "2006-05-11T22:09:51Z")
Yet you’re willing to conclude his sucessful marriage is proof that he was making a comeback. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/95 "2006-05-11T23:19:17Z")
> [@](#): > > **Bricker** said: > So why not indulge me? Answer the questions, even if they are irrelevant. Because I don’t dance on your cues. > [@](#): > > You’ve asserted that the PJ people are doing something that has legal implications. When you play that card, you leave the realm of “it’s your opinion” and enter a more defined and objective arena. Harassment, stalking, and threats of violence **do** have legal implications. I’d love to see you claim otherwise. > [@](#): > > You may leave this discussion still convinced that they are acting reprehensibly; you may not (I hope) leave it convinced that they are depriving others of their legal rights. By acting as judge and jury outside a court of law, they are depriving people of their rights. I don’t much care if the right not to be harassed, stalked and threatened by internet vigilantes isn’t written down in some dusty book somewhere. There is such a thing as harassment by communication, there is such a thing as stalking, and there is such a thing as terroristic threats, and if one of these assholes from perverted justice was the defendant, I would vote to convict. I think that when someone says ‘Don’t contact me anymore.’ and the other person goes out of their way to do just that, by phone and/or email and/or in person, it meets my (a juror type person’s) definition of 'harassment by communication. ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/96 "2006-05-12T00:11:08Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Now, there is a _tort_ - a civil wrong, not a crime - called invasion of privacy. This allows you to sue someone who invades your privacy. There are four versions of this tort: [li]Public disclosure - the revelation of private facts that are truthful but not of public concern, and which release would offend a reasonable person. If you published the fact that I masturbate to still pictures of Helen Hunt from “AS Good As It Gets,” and if that were true, I would still likely have a claim against you. In this case, however, the facts are in fact “of public interest” since they involve attempted sexual crimes against minors.[/li][/QUOTE] So does this include phone numbers, addresses, social security numbers, and such? It seems to me that any reasonable person would be offended at having their contact information released for purposes of targeting them for telephone harrassment. Are they of public interest simply because someone SAYS they attempted a crime? re: Perverted Justice members hiding their identities: > [@Bricker](#): > > I imagine they are frightened of _extra_-legal consequences. Pedophiles exposed by their tactics may well decide to exact revenge on them without recourse to the law. And that’s bad, but it’s not a problem if PJ’s targets are frightened of _extra_-legal consequences of having their names and addresses posted on a site that says they molest children? If having one’s identity posted publically is dangerous, then what they’re doing is dangerous. They can’t have it both ways. If they’re not putting people at risk then they have no reason to hide their own identities. You’re saying they’re not vigilantes and they don’t threaten people? > [@Bricker](#): > > They do have a way of confirming the identity of the person they are chatting with - they call the person at home, and verify that the person they’re chatting with is actually associated with that phone number. I grant that this is not foolproof, but neither is it fairly described as “absolutely no way of confirming”. And of course, the stings they have done in concert with NBC Dateline have a pretty rock-solid method of confirmation: the people actually physically show up and are captured on camera (and by police). Like the other person said, PJ can make the logs say anything at all that they want and they could tell a person he’s meeting an adult and then change it. That’s far from rock-solid. Now, if they have them on video or phone tapes actually talking about sex with minors that’s another story. > [@Bricker](#): > > Consider the Dateline stories. Now, the crew from Dateline is watching the chat along with the PJ volunteer. There is no meaningful opportunity for the PJ person to falsify that record – unless you’re claiming that the Dateline people ALSO are involved in the conspiracy. Believe it or not some reporters do lie and this has been shown on numerous occasions. NBC stands to make a hell of a lot of money of these shows. Besides, most of PJ’s targets have nothing to do with the Dateline show. > [@Bricker](#): > > For that matter, what possible motive would the PJ people have to lie? Their entire reason for existence is targeting peodphiles. Do they have some sort of secret vendetta against ALL people cruising sex chat rooms? Motivation? Money. A lot of people would do a lot of things to get $100,000 from NBC and whatever else they’re being paid for. Also you’re crazy if you don’t think there could be people who would pay to get their names taken off that site. Power. There are a lot of people who would love to be able to join a website and destroy the lives and reputations of people they have a beef with. There are allegations by the Corrupted Justice people, as well as a Pravda reporter, that when they’ve criticized PJ they’ve been called by PJ members trying to lure them into chats. They say that PJ edits their forums to remove all records of their failures, mistakes, and criticism of them. I see no reason at all to doubt these allegations any more than someone should doubt the allegations that PJ makes. Why should THEY lie? > [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. But are you aware of any actions undertaken by any PJ members that would, if done in Texas, constitute harassment under Texas Penal Code section 42.07? “(7) sends repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another.” That’s pretty much what they do. Embarrass, offend, torment. They say they’d be fine if their communications drove someone to suicide, and that they should not stop in order to prevent that. Is that not torment & repetition? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/97 "2006-05-12T00:16:54Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Yet you’re willing to conclude his sucessful marriage is proof that he was making a comeback. Fair point. His marriages are not relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/98 "2006-05-12T00:31:23Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Because I don’t dance on your cues. That’s fine. But your refusal to discuss what is meant by “presumption of innocence,” combined with your insistence on continuing to use the term, suggests that you have no real interest in clarifying precisely what you mean by it. You’re spouting it as buzz-phrase, a meaniingless platitude designed to elicit sympathy for your position. Everyone agrees that people should be presumed innocent, after all! But you don’t know what you mean when you say it. You’re unwilling to explain precisely what you mean, but you keep using the phrase anyway. This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation. > [@](#): > > Harassment, stalking, and threats of violence **do** have legal implications. I’d love to see you claim otherwise. Yes, those terms do. But they have specific legal meanings. Do the actions taken by the PJ members constitute “stalking” within the legal meaning of the term? > [@](#): > > By acting as judge and jury outside a court of law, they are depriving people of their rights. I don’t much care if the right not to be harassed, stalked and threatened by internet vigilantes isn’t written down in some dusty book somewhere. There is such a thing as harassment by communication, there is such a thing as stalking, and there is such a thing as terroristic threats, and if one of these assholes from perverted justice was the defendant, I would vote to convict. I think that when someone says ‘Don’t contact me anymore.’ and the other person goes out of their way to do just that, by phone and/or email and/or in person, it meets my (a juror type person’s) definition of 'harassment by communication. Luckily, then, the question isn’t likely to get to you, the juror, until a judge first decides that the legal standard for the charge is met. You need to allege more egregious conduct than simply “Don’t contact me any more,” and subsequent contact. You sneer at the concept of “some dusty book somewhere,” without seeming to realize the contradiction you’re claiming: in one breath, you zealously defend “rights;” in the next, you disregard the due process right for everyone to know what, precisely, the law says so that they can conform their conduct to it. If the “dusty book” doesn’t criminalize an act, it’s not a crime. You would be willing to vote to convict PJ volunteers even though they didn’t transgress any written law, in violation of their actual legal rights, while protecting a mythical “right” of the pedophiles that exists only in your imagination. Nice work. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/99 "2006-05-12T00:39:11Z")
> [@riker1384](#): > > So does this include phone numbers, addresses, social security numbers, and such? It seems to me that any reasonable person would be offended at having their contact information released for purposes of targeting them for telephone harrassment. Are they of public interest simply because someone SAYS they attempted a crime? Are they releasing such information for the purpose of targetting them for telephone harassment? What evidence do you have of that? I suspect they would say they are releasing the evidence for the public safety purpose of informing the public about the presence of a child molestor. > [@](#): > > If having one’s identity posted publically is dangerous, then what they’re doing is dangerous. They can’t have it both ways. If they’re not putting people at risk then they have no reason to hide their own identities. You’re saying they’re not vigilantes and they don’t threaten people? You miscast - or miss - what I said. They are at risk because criminals that they have exposed are likely to take revenge. The criminals, to the extent that they are at risk by virtue of their criminality being exposed, have brought that risk on themselves. The two cases are not analogous. The PJ people have acted legally to expose a criminal. The criminals have acted ILLEGALLY and the risk of arrest, prosecution, and the shame that those results bring are a consequence of their illegal actions. > [@](#): > > Like the other person said, PJ can make the logs say anything at all that they want and they could tell a person he’s meeting an adult and then change it. That’s far from rock-solid. Now, if they have them on video or phone tapes actually talking about sex with minors that’s another story. Do you have any evidence that they HAVE changed any logs, even once? > [@](#): > > “(7) sends repeated electronic communications in a > manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, > embarrass, or offend another.” > > That’s pretty much what they do. Embarrass, offend, torment. They say they’d be fine if their communications drove someone to suicide, and that they should not stop in order to prevent that. Is that not torment & repetition? They send REPEATED electronic communications? Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/100 "2006-05-12T00:59:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > WHO ARE THE INNOCENT PEOPLE ACCUSED BY PJ? For all the finger-wagging you do in political threads over posters demanding jail time for people who have not yet stood trial, the answer to this should be obvious. Innocent until proven guilty. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897.md?page=6)