While it is in many ways (far) less than ideal, there is an easier answer: vigilantism.

Sure, that's an answer in the same way that death is a cure for cancer, I suppose. It may be 100% effective but the cost is a bit high.

One man can solve his "justice" problems by himself

That might make a great intro to a movie trailer, but it's a really poor foundation to base a humongous society on.

But this case is black and white, so cheerleading is appropriate.

Is it, then? McCarthy probably found a real communist or two.

How about instead of blanket statements we look at individual cases and cheer or scold based on merit?

This guy got lucky. He wasn't good, he was fortunate. That's not merit.

This is all free speech.

The product may be speech, but you can't claim to know that the means with which it was acquired was mere speech.

Don't get all hand-wringy about dad's good speech

Dad's speech isn't good. It's emotionally satisfying but a stupid action that makes him vulnerable to predators and dangerous to innocents all at once.

This is the same inability to make obvious value judgments

Don't get all moralistic defending stupid behavior. This was stupid behavior.

Ahh well y'see that's where the "living in a democracy" part comes in handy!

And what happens when the police departments show complete disinterest to your problem?

Change the system. Sorry there isn't an easier answer, but that's the price of living in a democracy.

If someone hurts my feelings online I'll try to get revenge online.

I've just shown you the cliff at the end of the road you're traveling. If you choose to proceed despite this, there isn't much more that I can say. Via con Dios.

I'll rest my case here, I think...

because someone might get framed for murder, we can't go after real murderers

That's not my argument at all. I'm saying that we should have professionals to do things like that.

The knowledge of nuclear weapons will fade with time when governments break up and people will worry with survival.

That's a very thin limb upon which to base so much.

Maybe the system itself is broken.

What percentage broken constitutes "broken"? If you're talking about policing, I'm assuming you don't see any major problems with, say, badges. So you don't want to change 100% of the system, then.

So now we're onto a saner argument: what specifically is broken, and how should we approach fixing it?

Come on, you realistically expect the police to handle every case like this?

Police departments that currently exist? Not in every case we'd be talking about, no. We evidently need something new, but that something new is more like a police department than mob justice.

This is no different from having a reasonable right to self defense to protect your life.

The claim that mob internet justice is "no different" than individual right to self-defense is so utterly ridiculous that it borders on not worth responding to. Here is a rather meaningful difference: when you're going to shoot someone, you can see them and know what you're aiming at. I guess you didn't think of that.

If you are being harassed online you should be able to do something about it

I completely concur. That's the point of what I'm saying. You totally should be able to do something about it, and that something should not require you to become a private investigator, politician, lawyer, judge, and security guard. Nor should it only be available to those with enough resources: time, money, knowledge, physical or intellectual capabilities, etcetera.

The earlier you take action, the more you cut off the really bad stuff.

This behavior pattern - acting before thinking it through - leads to what's called "flailing". Experts will tell you pretty universally that this is one of the worst things to do if you're being stalked and harassed on the internet.

What if what is broken is having inherent trust in the system to do everything for you?

Then you've engaged in a strawman. Nothing about what I've just said demands "having inherent trust in the system to do everything for you".

The irresponsibility with which the modern media operates astounds me. The cheerleading tone of this article is unmissable. We are supposed to rise from our seats and applaud this sportsmensch who hunted down the skeeves speaking ill of his daughter. And hey, on one level, I do.

But here's a little perspective that NJ.com apparently can't be counted on to supply. Just because this case is pretty black and white doesn't mean they all will be. The next time, some jackass will create social networking profiles with breadcrumbs leading back to their real target, and with minimal effort will get a Curt Schilling to do the dirty work, and bear the legal liability, for them.

This is why we have police departments. I fully recognize that they've deteriorated in capability and trustworthiness, losing their role as guardians of the real public interest to politics and less esoteric concerns like meeting budgets and justifying headcounts, but that's a reason to fix what's broken about our system, not replace it with every-man-for-himself vigilantism.

MAD isn't a principle that applies here.

Increasingly anywhere. MAD has always had the attribution problem, and it snowballs with proliferation. :\

Supposing a causal relationship between nukes and peace seems bordering on magical thinking.

I wouldn't totally discount the suppressive effects of mutually assured destruction on conflict between rational powers seeking enlargement of their empires. But those are a lot of qualifiers, and the history of humanity seems to suggest that effective weapons, once developed, will eventually be used.

You just named three cultures and then a technology. But do cultures and technologies obey the same "rules"? Lets see:

The fire civilization died.
The copper civilization died.
The electricity civilization died.

Hmmm.

there is no large pool of water directly below the reactor

You are THIS totally uninformed, and accusing me of posting "hogwash"?

even if the fuel melted into a large reservoir of water, it could not become critical.

This was not the conclusion of the Soviet scientists and engineers at the time, working with more detailed knowledge than I suspect you are.

even if you somehow made the fuel become critical, it could not explode like a bomb.

Once again, this was not the conclusion of the better-informed Soviet scientists and engineers at the time.

if the fuel mass reached the water table, all that would occur would be another path for contamination in the local area which was already heavily contaminated.

I don't even know what to make of this statement, except that you don't seem to understand what a water table is, as "local area" in reference to one does not make a whole lot of sense.

a power plant contains a couple orders of magnitude more fuel than a bomb.

Granted?

radiation does not spread like a contagion. This is just plain FUD.

You are probably being deliberately being over-literal, but in any event are once again proving a little too determinedly bereft of clue to bother with.

Rather than "telling us", why don't you provide a citation.

Because I'm not writing a thesis, but a comment on the internet?

Please provide a citation for this as well.

Feel free to mark my grade down if you dislike that I didn't show my work, teacher.