There are a number of discussions in which Cesario advocates for an illegal and culturally reviled activity to be normalized and accepted both legally and culturally. The activity he has advocated for is considered pretty much the worst crime one can commit in civil society. He has stipulated that he has an urge to commit this crime but won’t because it’s illegal.
Now let’s flip the script a little bit. What if he were talking about hating the government and wanting to blow things up, stipulating that the only reason he doesn’t is because he doesn’t want to face the consequences. He knows that it’s futile and doesn’t want to get caught but thinks that everyone should wake up and overthrow the government, implying that if this cultural change came about he WOULD act upon his desires.
Do we as users have a right to privacy in this regard? It’s a public message board and Federal agents can obviously browse our posts at leisure, but what about the SDMB itself reporting us with our IP records to authorities? What then? Is that something that Creative Loafing would never do? Is is something Creative Loafing might do?
To be clear, I am not asking about how Creative Loafing would respond to a subpoena, I am asking about what the policy is about certain speech that can be deemed dangerous.
If SDMB felt it were acceptable to reveal people’s identities without specific requests from properly empowered law enforcement… you can say goodbye to me.
You agreed to conditions in the Registration Agreement that specifically permit this - the time for you to get upset about this passed when you signed up.
If you want to leave, go ahead, but it seems unwise IMHO for you to get this upset over a provision you agreed to a while back.
Mr. Moto, you know that no one really reads that, right?
I mean, my dad taught me to never sign anything without reading it. That burned into my brain, so to this day, I read every damn thing before I sign. But you know something? For the life of me I can never comprehend what I am signing. For some reason, it just never sticks. The whole time I’m reading, I’m thinking over and over again, “mustreadbeforesigningmustreadbeforesigning”.
Well, I haven’t noticed anything untoward in your posts, surely. I don’t think most of us have much to worry about.
But the fact remains that those provisions are in the agreement, and if the Powers That Be became skeeved enough about a poster to tip off the cops (or concerned about their safety, alternatively) they’d be covered, from the looks of it.
Just something to keep in mind if you’re a certain poster with unorthodox interests.
You’re not looking at the big picture, here: he’s not saying “cunt” in the Pit, and he’s not a panhandling Marxist rabble-rouser, so our delicate sensibilities are safe.
Regardless of any agreement that was signed, I just want to remind everyone that the SDMB is not a confessional priest. It is not your doctor. It is not even your parents. There is absolutely no expectation of privacy here. If subpoenaed, Creative Loafing is going to give it up. Now, whether or not they report a poster without a subpoena is up to Ed. But, again, there is NO legal expectation of privacy on a message board. If you post it, you better be able to live with it.
If Cesario posts a flyer at the local supermarket saying he’s a pedophile, it’s the same thing as doing it here.
That’s not entirely true, Monkey. There are any number of privacy laws in effect in Canada and the United States, and I expect the SDMB to be constrained by all the laws of the state they are located in, the United States, the province of Alberta, and the country of Canada (I wouldn’t normally expect a business located in the US to be constrained by my local laws, but since I was constrained by them while posting on a US message board, I expect that to be a two-way street).
I don’t see how you can expect the board to be constrained by Albertan laws, any more than it was constrained by the laws of Saudi Arabia when a poster was living in and posting from there.
I don’t think I see any issue here. As long as “whatever” is illegal he’s not acting on it, and if “whatever” became legal, then there’s no reason for him to be reported, as he’s not breaking any law.
Now, if “whatever” is particualarly distasteful, they can certainly ask him not to post about his desire to commit “whatever” here, but I don’t see why it needs to go beyond that.
I have no idea what “whatever” is, so maybe it’s something that’s illegal just to advocate for (are there such things?) but I just don’t see why the management of the board would have any reason or right to go narcing on someone who hasn’t even committed “whatever”.
I have seen several threads on the SDMB be locked after it became clear that illegal activities were being discussed or encouraged. Yet Cesario’s advocacy of the most vilest of crimes does not get a challenge from the moderators. Why?
I suppose it is beyond the responsibility of the board to determine if he may already be a registered sex offender with internet restrictions. However, free speech protections exist only up to a point. Cesario goes beyond discussion of this horriffic crime and into advocacy. I find nothing in the user agreement that protects his right do promote this activity using the board. If I am wrong, please point out the section protecting this behavior.
At the very least, this violates the Basic Rule of the Dope, to not be a jerk, for he is way beyond that.
I’m with you, but freedom of speech doesn’t even apply here. A private message board can ban a guy because he likes a certain film, or cats, or the metric system, or whatever. Cesario can’t claim first amendment and he can’t claim right to privacy.
Shoot, I bet a legal case could be made that since a post is on the message board’s server, it’s their property and they can use those words as they see fit. IANAL, however. I’m sure it’s more complicated than that, but I don’t see too many legal ramifications if they report the guy to the cops. No expectation of privacy.
As far as why the mods haven’t done anything, I don’t know, but the guy skeeves the crap out of me. The crux of mswas’s question is what are the powers that be going to do about this guy? They do have a lot of options.
Not to be taking up for Cesario in any way, but when threads such as you mention got closed it was generally because information was being traded that could concievably be used to circumvent the law. What Cesario is doing is different. He’s saying that he wants to do it, that he thinks it should be legal for him to do it, and that if it were legal he would do it. All in all – and apart from the vileness of his desires – -- what he’s doing is not much different than the way people advocate for the legalization of pot. If he were trying to use the board to find some round about way to fulfill his illegal desires, and/or to get other people involved in doing the same, I’m sure he would be warned away or banned accordingly.
Well, isn’t Facebook American? Our Privacy Commissioner had a little issue with them, and they seemed to sit up and take notice even though it was Canadian laws that were at issue.
He’s not advocating a crime; he’s advocating for the decriminalization. That’s a fine point, to be sure, but it is a distinction that means what he says isn’t a crime.
Molesting babies is a crime. Talking about wanting to molest babies is not.
If you dislike what he says, please, do not continue to read it. Do not respond to it. Do not start Pit threads on the subject. Ignore the poster. There’s a function on the board that allows you to do that.
What if a view is expressed and there is no audience to react to it?
That only works with trolls, though. Cesario isn’t a troll. He’s not so much looking for attention as he is looking for validation. It’s a different animal entirely.
He’ll slip in sneaky crap about how kids should have the rights of adults, and If nobody calls him on it, he’s going to think that his point is valid. Ergo: If kids have the rights of adults, they can consent, and then…
A troll only wants attention, and if you take that away the troll withers and dies. But if we ignore cesario, he’s going to think that what he’s saying isn’t offensive. That’s only going to reinforce the sick bastard.
Yeah, there’s a fine point. See, for example, the threads on legalizing drugs vs threads discussing weed use and where one would find some. The latter tend to get closed quickly, the former, if one isn’t active in GD right now it was a week or two ago. Cesario’s posting, however deplorable anybody may personally find it, falls squarely on the safe side of the line. He’s saying “we should be able to fuck 8 year olds,” not “here’s how I fuck 8 year olds.”