# Right to Privacy on the SDMB. (Cesario) **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 30, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119 "2009-09-30T16:47:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/1 "2009-09-30T16:47:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/2 "2009-09-30T17:16:58Z")
This is something that is not really appropriate for us to comment on as staffers – I have to send this upstairs to Ed. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/3 "2009-09-30T18:15:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/4 "2009-09-30T18:42:13Z")
> [@Angry Lurker](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/5 "2009-09-30T20:36:16Z")
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”. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/6 "2009-09-30T20:45:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/7 "2009-09-30T20:56:37Z")
Relevant passages: > [@](#): > > Vandalism, tampering, or any other abuse of the site is grounds for immediate banning. We reserve the right to report violators to their Internet service provider and law enforcement. > [@](#): > > From time to time we may acquire nonconfidential but sensitive information about you, some of which you may have posted yourself to our board. We won’t disclose or repeat such information except as (a) reasonable and necessary to manage our business, or (b) required by law, or (c) consistent with good citizenship, e.g., to prevent or report a crime or to respond to inquiries from law enforcement. > > If you privately provide us with sensitive information related to the SDMB, we’ll act on it as we feel prudent, with the understanding that we’ll take reasonable measures to prevent your being identified as the source of the information without your consent, provided we’re not shielding a wrongdoer or acting against the public interest in doing so. Those passages are deliberately written broadly and depend on the judgment of board administrators in their implementation. ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/8 "2009-09-30T20:58:01Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/9 "2009-09-30T21:07:22Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/10 "2009-09-30T21:09:39Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/11 "2009-09-30T21:16:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![TBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@TBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBG)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/12 "2009-09-30T22:31:47Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. 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”. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/13 "2009-09-30T22:32:47Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/14 "2009-09-30T23:01:09Z")
> [@ghardester](#): > > However, free speech protections exist only up to a point. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/15 "2009-09-30T23:01:23Z")
> [@ghardester](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Canadjun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@Canadjun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Canadjun)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/16 "2009-10-01T00:50:32Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > 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. Well, isn’t Facebook American? Our Privacy Commissioner had a little [issue](http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2009/nr-c_090827_e.cfm) with them, and they seemed to sit up and take notice even though it was Canadian laws that were at issue. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/17 "2009-10-01T01:28:25Z")
> [@ghardester](#): > > 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/18 "2009-10-01T02:17:05Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/19 "2009-10-01T03:51:42Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > 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. 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119/20 "2009-10-01T07:44:44Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > 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.” Well, on one hand he’s not actually breaking any rules. But on the other hand, fuck him. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-privacy-on-the-sdmb-cesario/512119.md?page=2)