Online pedophiles & their expectations of success when setting up meetings with kids

In My Humble Opinion
41

Bricker, I have to admit that I am still confused with your stance. Given that I have seen evidence on these boards of the depth and quality of your legal knowledge, I assume that my take on what constitutes legal actions is skewed.

Let me see if I can try to get clear in my mind the questions that I want to have answered (to help me see where you’re coming from).

1.) Dosen’t what PJ do constitute harassment? Calling people’s family, friends, boss, etc. and saying so and so is a pedophile. Are they escaping suits by not saying that word and only reading the transcripts of the logs? If I understand your POV, you are OK with this as the accused has the right to file suit against PJ (or the individual) if PJ cannot prove what they say. (Do I understand correctly?)

2.) Do we have any expectation of privacy regarding our phone numbers and personal information? (I.e. are they legally ok with posting said info on line?) Some specifics: House number in phone book - obviously (to me) public. Unlisted number (or cell phone) - no so obvious to me.

3.) Are they interferring with police procedure? Do their stings create viable evidence that is being (not can be) used to prosecute child molesters?

4.) [Let’s take it out of the realm of soliciting a minor online and into the realm of another online crime and see if their actions still hold.] Let’s say that there was another group called “Harmonic Justice.” HJ feels that the RIAA is right and all illegal music sharing is bad enough that it warrents some form of vigilanteism. They set up stings, obtain personal information about people whom they feel are violaters of the law, post said information, use said information to contact the (supposed) violators and their friends/family/employers, and use procedures very similar to PJ. Are they right in what they do?
I know that we are getting way off topic from the OP, but I still have a hard time believing that a vigilante group with practices being questioned by former members is a good thing.

42

I hesitate to opine on the laws of all fifty states.

In my home state of Virginia, it’s illegal to “…falsely utter and speak, or falsely write and publish, of and concerning another person, any words which from their usual construction and common acceptation are construed as insults…” But please note the key word there is falsely.

“Harassment” is not a crime. It’s illegal to stalk… but this does not meet the definition of stalking. It’s illegal to defame, but truth is a defense against defamation.

As a general principle, if you think conduct is illegal, then you should be able to point to the law being violated. What law do you feel the PJ people are violating?

“Expectation of privacy” is a term that usually is used when defining what the government can do. The government needs a serach warrant to search an area in which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A private citizen does not.

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:

[ul]
[li]False light - a false representation, statement or claim that places the target in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. For example, posting my picture on a website that features pictures of up-and-coming gay male porn stars would likely give me a good false light claim. [/li][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][li]Appropriation - the use of my name or likeness for public or commercial purposes without my consent.[/li][li]Intrusion of solitude - Under this tort, privacy is invaded when one intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon a person’s solitude or into his private area. This generally requires some sort of trespass.[/li][/ul]

See WJLA-TV v. Levin for details on Virginia’s view of this tort.

Not unless their sting interrupts a police operation.

It’s legal for them to do what they do. Why not?

43

Bricker,

Thank you very much for your reply.

I think I can see your views, however, I am still quite leary of what PJ does. Basically, I am still concerned with any vigilante group that tries to punish people instead of acting solely as information gatherers. I would much prefer that anything incriminating they obtain were forwarded to the athorities and not made public until after a fair an impartial trial.

Well, see now, that’s the problem. Folks like you actually study the laws and have detailed knowledge of what the laws actually state. I don’t think that it is possible for the common citizen (as opposed to law enforcement, judges, lawyers, politicians, and possibly paralegals) to know what the laws are. We all have some sort of nebulous notion of “don’t break any laws.” But, when questioned, we would not be able to state accurately what those laws are. But then, we are now way off-topic, so I will thank you again for your answers and end my hyjack.

44

Not entirely. You could have been chatting with someone who said they were 25, who claimed to be 25 when they called you and invited you to their house, and you believed them to be 25 when you went there. After the fact, the 25 in the log could very easily be changed to 15. By the time you get your say, your life’s pretty much in the toilet.

My objection is that a chatroom log is so easily manipulated to say something other than what occurred during the chat that it is worthless.

What state do you think your life, career and family would be in after the false allegation has been made with your name and picture splashed across the paper and the evening news?

Specifically that they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, as determined by a jury. The right to even have a trial rather than be punished by a bunch of vigilantes with pre-paid calling cards. Those rights mean anything to you?

But you see nothing wrong with harassment, threats and stalking?

I’m sure the few bucks someone would get out of them in a defamation suit (if you can even find out who actually did it, given perverted justice’s obsession with aliases and pre-paid calling cards) would mean a whole lot after his career and family are ruined.

Are you seriously saying that harassing someone is not a crime? It’s not at all an actionable offense?

45

I don’t know how to quote numerous folks, so bear with me.

Although I indicated that I would be ok going after my father in several violent ways. I may point out the difference between desire and action. I don’t even speed. I did go after him in the legal channels available to me. Our system failed. I have not had voluntary contact with him in 19 years. Involuntary, 17 years.

I thank all of you for your kind words. I am a well person, who has issues. I am happily married. I was able to overcome my greatest fear (being a mother) to have my first child, I would gladly give my life for hers. I know good people are out there. I know good men are out there, I have thankfully, met many in my life. My husband is my staunchest supporter and has done much to heal me. It’s nice growing up in a world of grey, to marry Mr. Black And White. He has a pretty succinct way of laying things out there in a way that can’t be disputed.

I don’t care if 99% of people have fantasies about having sex with children. Fantasize all you want. But keep your mitts off of kids.

I had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a 34 year old when I was 17. Why yes, my father encouraged it, thanks! He ended up dying. I still have a hard time thinking he was a bad person precisely because we spent so much time talking about so many things. In my head, I can say how screwed up it was and certainly I can’t see how it could be anything other than dramatically screwed up, and yet…here I am.

I have checked out both perverted-justice.com and corrupted justice. I have not participated in either site as yet. I know how chat logs can be faked. Although in my experience as a Sysadmin on a BBS, an IRCop on irc chat, #root admin to an ISP and as an MMORPG customer rep in game, the only people I have ever heard cry “FAKE LOGS” are the ones that are causing the problems. I’ve seen some pretty racy logs in which folks say “yep, I said that.” so it isn’t just the “crime.” It’s unfortunate that there is not a better way to validate logs, I know there are ways to packet sniff, trace etc, but I doubt large systems like yahoo do anything of the sort, it’s a barrel of monkeys to be certain. I know that AOL never once responded to any sort of reported abuse, not even when it came from our uplink provider (Sprint, one hop off of Mae East). Like most things, folks are so busy trying to dodge blame and responsibility, we have no one that will take responsibility. Like most things, it’s usually the weakest, poorest that have the fewest resources to fight it.

I don’t think that Yahoo should be held responsible. I think the child molesters should. I just wish we lived in a society where justice could be served, without resorting to vigilanteeism. We do love us some vigilante movies though, just don’t do it in my backyard, right?

Why are our laws so lax? Why do they get off so easy? WHY? Do they have some hella lobbyists out there? What kind of screwed up world do we live in, anyway? Does anyone really think that screwing kids is mildly ok? Check the punishments in your state, compare them to other crimes. See what the sentencing guidelines are.

More importantly, what steps can I as a citizen do to change it?

46

I’ve watched a couple of those Dateline episodes, and have decided I’m uncomfortable with the whole idea of these perps being entrapped and then arrested on national TV. Even human scum, IMO, are entitled to a modicum of discretion in being arrested. I’m not saying that these dangers to society should be handled with soft gloves and that the police need to wait until there’s nobody around to arrest them, of course. But should we be watching this on television? Even courtroom proceedings are often not available for TV viewing, so why should arrests be? I recall one perp, a big, young guy with a high squeaky voice, and who didn’t seem to have a lot of spare gray matter in his head. He’d probably never gotten a bit of respect from anyone in his life, and now he was getting arrested before millions of viewers.

In regard to age, I was surprised how young many of the pedophiles are. I’d thought they were mostly middle aged men, but that is not at all the case.

47

I hasten to add that I don’t mean that I consider it entrapment in the usual sense, and I’m not criticizing the strategy of luring these people to the supposed victim’s house. It’s just the broadcasting that I object to.

48

Yes, that could have happened.

And if you could show me some evidence that it WAS happening with this group, I might well change my mind about the value of what they’re doing. But it’s not happening.

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. And they had no trouble getting dozens of men to visit their sting home looking for underage sex. This shows that the real thing is out there in such concentration that there appears to be no need to fake the records. It’s like a cop running a radar trap on a busy highway. Sure, he COULD lie about the radar reading and write a ticket. But why, with so many actual targets that are speeding, would he bother to take that additional risk and lie?

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?

It simply doesn’t make sense. You have no evidence that they have actually edited a chat log to create guilt where there was none. Your entire objection seems to be that they COULD do it.

Well, again, cops COULD lie about a radar reading. I COULD lie about the description of the man that mugs me. You COULD Photoshop your neighbor so it appears he’s peeping in your window. But we still admit radar readings, witness descriptions, and photos as evidence. If there is a particular reason to doubt the authenticity of a particular piece of evidence, that can be addressed. But as a general proposition, the mere fact that evidence COULD be altered is not enough to destroy its value.

All that is damages to me, damages that are cured when I win my libel suit.

They mean a great deal to me. But they seem to confuse you.

“Innocent until proven guilty.” What, precisely, do you believe it means? Do you think it means that no one can accuse another of a crime until their guilt is proven in court? That’s not a very workable system; we MUST accuse someone in order to try them. And the burden that the state must carry to find them guilty is a heavy one: beyond a reaosnable doubt. What if I have evidence that you’re guilty of a crime, but it’s only a preponderance of the evidence? Must I remain forever silent?

No. I can accuse you, and sue you, and win, without you ever being “proven guilty.”

Pay close attention: “Innocent until proven guilty” means that in a criminal prosecution, the state has the burden of persuasion. That’s all. It doesn’t have any application to what we’re discussing here. Stop using the phrase. You don’t understand it.

Similarly, they have no “right” not to be punished by people with calling cards. If those people commit crimes, or torts, against them, they can file charges or sue. They have NO RIGHT to avoid being accused of something they did. NONE.

The law against stalking does not apply to these actions. This does not fit the definition of stalking. Threats are generally not illegal when they threaten something the actor is legally entitled to do.

It depends on the intent. If you take actions like these with the intent to harass, annoy, extort, or coerce, then they are illegal. If you take these actions with the intent to warn others in the community about the existence of a sexual predator, they are perfectly legal.

49

My understanding of this is that a crime is commited by arranging the meeting and then showing up at the house. So, as long as the people who show up really are the people who arranged the meetings, then they’re already guilty. I suppose misunderstandings aren’t impossible, and they are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. But they don’t need to actually have sex with, or molest the victim to be guilty of something.

50

Because these people have collaborators.

Some are in our justice system. Why do you charge a father who fucks his 14 year old daughter with the Class 1 misdemeanor of incest instead of the Class 3 felony of statutory rape? It’s a great deal: you grow your own victim, you get a discount.

Some are simply willing to bend over backwards for reasons completely unclear to me – witness catsix’s impassioned defense of these people here.

Some are social workers, who pursue “reunification of the family” as though it must always be the best goal, no matter what has happened.

Someday, if I ever feel enough self-loathing, I’ll share why I stopped being a criminal defense lawyer. But suffice to say that another reason is that our system affords these people protections even without the collaborators. That’s something I agree we cannot and should not change… but it is something that doesn’t always produce the best, most just result.

51

vigilantism I keep seeing that word used with PJ, and I have yet to see a single cite that proves that. Does anyone have evidence of a nuisance lawsuit of some kind being brought against PJ? A police complaint of harassment? Anything? Besides Catsix’s vauge descriptions of being “invovled” with them?

If not, how about we stop using that word, and jumping down Bricker’s back for supporting a vigilante group.

52

In complete seriousness, and without any sarcasm, who doesn’t? It would be wonderful to know that all the horrible people were properly punished, and that the innocent were always proven innocent in court.

Actually, my problem with vigilantes is that they generally end up hurting innocent people.

I’ll have to check my state laws, but I don’t have the impression that they are lax. IIRC penalties for child molestation are roughly the same as for rape. Add to that Megan’s Law, and I don’t see convicted molesters living an easy life.

I blame It. Do you think it would help if I gave out bumper stickers that said “Have you hugged Charles Wallace today?” ?

53

I missed the requirement of a lawsuit to call something “vigilante.” Generally vigilantes work outside the law. Which is what these people are doing. Unless you have a better word, I think I’ll keep using that one.

54

So, Catsix’s statements against PJ are an impassioned defense of child molesters?

I expect better than that from you Bricker. I expect well organized logic, not logical fallacies. I expect detailed arguments, not empty appeals to emotion.

I was going to make another post adressing some of your earlier points in order to continue a reasoned debate. I’m no longer sure that is possible.

55

catsix’s defense is passionate. She is defending a principle, not molestors. I have not lost sight of that, and I don’t begrudge catsix her point of view.

But the principle she is defending makes life easier for the molestors. My statement is correct - one of the reasons that molestors have it easier is the fact that they can hide behind worthy principles and compel people like catsix to defend the principle.

In this particular case, catsix’s defense is misplaced.

56

Well unless you have some proof they are doing this, and a random poster on the SDMB is not proof, you are assigning a defination to a group incorrectly. And while a lawsuit may be a bit much, I would expect a group that carries on in this way might have had at least a few documented complaints. Do you know of any?

57

You so get a cookie from me. :slight_smile: It’s not a bad idea.

There was recently a case in Texas, IIRC, where had the crime been committed on a male child, the punishment was WAY worse than if it was done to a girl. Not to bring drug laws into it, per se, but when you compare the sentences, drug crimes get way more time. Yes, progress is being made. It is better now than it was in my era. There is still a long way to go.

I forgot to respond to a post about the years of “regression therapy” that had all these wackjob therapists implanting memories. I called bullshit on that bullshit even back then. I remember very little from my early childhood, but I will never forget the things that was done to me, no matter how much I may have wanted to blank them out.

Bricker: Being an attorney, especially criminal defense, is an underappreciated field. I certainly hope it was an offhand comment about your self loathing, because regardless of who you have to defend, I whole-heartedly, with my entire brain, every fiber of my being, believe that everyone deserves competent, vigilant, honorable counsel. I doubt very seriously that you have any reason to deserve self-loathing. Maybe because I am outside the legal field (and radar) I do have a very fervent belief in our justice system. I like it. I think for a lot of things, it functions well. I like it’s ability to change and grow. It is an amazing organism, for good or for bad.

DocCathode: What I love about SDMB is the fact that outside the pit, even on issues as touchy as this, we can discuss things with a modicum of rationality. I have read every post and tried to understand from whence they came. I don’t understand some, and I consider myself thankful. Maybe bricker is standing on a different set of shoulders than you are. Regardless of ones profession, sometimes emotion is all you have. Sometimes, reason doesn’t soothe.

I LOVE THE SDMB! WOOT!

58

Question: is a neighborhood watch group an example of vigilantism? How about a college service that provides volunteers to walk female students to their dorm rooms after dark? How about a church group that carries video cameras and walks down the open-air drug market? How about a victim of a mugging who identifies her attacker in a line up and then testifies in court?

To my way of thinking, a vigilante must illegally suppress and punish crime in a summary fashion. But if any citizen involvement in the suppression or punishment of crime counts as “vigilante,” then we simply disagree on the meaning of the word.

59

Some proof they’re doing what? Continually calling people who talked dirty to adults who were pretending to be minors? Calling and emailing their bosses, family members, friends, neighbors? It’s all there on their site. Other than that, I’m not sure what kind of proof you’re looking for.

And yes, there has been a complaint filed against them. It was a restraining order filed against two men who posted a chat log against another man. It lost. Know why? The court said it didn’t have jurisdiction because the men sued lived in (and chatted from) another state. Know why? P-J.com requires it, ostensibly for “security” reasons. It also lost because the only person who can remove material from the site is the “mysterious” owner, who wasn’t named in the suit. (cite (ironically from a site opposed to corrupted-justice.com)

To quote you from earlier, “You and I have very ideas about what “citizen involvement” is.”

If the neighborhood watch volunteers saw a guy dressed in black carrying a crowbar walking down the street, jumped out from behind the bushes and started bashing him over the head with a lead pipe, yeah, that’s vigilantism. If the college service dressed up as women, walked through campus at night, had people stealthily following to use a taser on any man who came within ten feet of “her,” yeah, that’s vigilantism.

60

One suspects that the arrogant smirk would be rapidly replaced with nauseated panic if our dear friend Richard of Virginia were fingered by someone “out there”, using publicly available data that anyone with a brain and the Internet can find out. Creating IM logs is cake, and heck- there ya go, right? I’m far from advocating such a thing, I find the entire process horrifying and am highly cautious of who I talk to and what I say as a result. However, it is easy to do these things and it’s foolish to insist otherwise.

You and I lock horns all the time but I’ve never once doubted the correctness of your moral stance, just the stance you may or may not take in a thread ( and always accurately back up with legal cite, of course ). I don’t particularly like the way you are but I - until now- have surely respected your legal acumen.

This…this is beyond the pale, Bricker. Sue for defamation of character??? Sue whom? The newspapers? The cops? The neighbors? My former employer who will now do everything they can to insure I never work again? Sue whom?

Sounds to me like Doc Cathode had a nice fun visit with some Dopers and their kids. Kid probably had a blast showing the good Doc the toys in his room. A couple of well-placed comments, some faked IM logs and voila- he , or I, or any other adult of either gender, would be in deep waters- and would never have back the life they had before they were wrongly accused.

It is way beyond disingenuous to tell the Dopers reading this that of course, their legal recourse if wrongly accused it to sue for defamation of character. You know full well the tone of our country, the posts in this thread alone confirm it. Defamation of character? We won’t have a public character left to defend, if someone really decided to put the screws to one of us- using wholly ficticious materials.

And you know it.

Cartooniverse