Journalists Can't Hide News From the Internet 377
Hugh Pickens writes "Robert Niles at the Online Journalism Review discusses the issues surrounding the recent tragedy involving a MySpace user. A newspaper reporting on the story didn't name the woman, citing concerns for her teen daughter. Bloggers went nuts, and soon uncovered the woman's personal information. Niles writes: 'The lessons for journalists? First, we can't restrict access to information anymore. The crowd will work together to find whatever we withhold ... Second, I wonder if that the decision to withhold the other mother's name didn't help enflame the audience, by frustrating it and provoking it to do the work of discovering her identity.'"
There should be a law against people who do this (Score:5, Insightful)
By digging up her personal information - for which no one had any real, legitimate use - much less posting it online - these bloggers have negligently put this entire family's safety at serious risk.
Yes, information wants to be free blah blah blah - wait until the media puts the unwanted spotlight on you for some minor b.s. (that most of us don't even care to read about) and some Jezebel-esque nutball digs up your personal information - including where you live - and puts it out there for any unbalanced, easily enraged headcase to come dot your forehead with a 9mm shell. Or maybe they'll stalk and kidnap your kid instead.
These bloggers ought to have their information put out there by law enforcement - as convicted criminals. Aiding and abetting, for starters, then implied terroristic threats.
Here's the kicker, folks: when you put up the personal information of one person in the house, you put everyone ELSE there, at risk. Even their neighbors.
Re:There should be a law against people who do thi (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO all arrest records should be sealed until a conviction is reached, and should be erased and destroyed upon acquittal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, of course - arrest records should be sealed until a verdict is reached, and then destroyed upon acquittal. I wonder what religious rightist or corporate statist argument that runs up against?
there wasn't going to be a trial (Score:4, Informative)
the local da was not going to press charges
with all the heat, they say now they are going to review the case
given that, the victim's parents decided to go public, against the advice of their lawyers, for exactly this effect: wide public knowledge and shaming of the perpetrator, and to warn people about what kind of mainpulations can go on
Re:there wasn't going to be a trial (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is, there is no FUZZY issue of guilt here - the fucking shit is clear as crystal - these adults were abusive towards a 13 yr old child w/ severe mental problems.
Re:there wasn't going to be a trial (Score:5, Insightful)
there should be a trial (Score:3)
This is worse than that attempted Texas teenage cheerleader murdering mom thing.
How about if your daughter were stabbed with a knife? Would you merely call that "not nice"? They killed her, man.
These people weren't outed. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Officer, my husband never came home from work yesterday - I want to lodge a missing person's report"
"Sorry ma'am, he's not missing."
"Then where is he?"
"Sorry ma'am, I'm not allowed to say. That information has been restricted for privacy reasons. Oh, and it looks like he never got around to consenting that you could access his private information in regards to dealing with local law enforcement."
Yeah, like that would bloody work.
Arrests are public for the good of soci
Re:There should be a law against people who do thi (Score:4, Informative)
The essence of the publics' right to know is about public issues and the portion of private ones which would enable them to be better informed on the way that public policy should be formed or how to avoid somebody else's tragic mistake. Neither of those are served by finding the name of those that weren't already named in the article.
Its soft news journalism that reports on things which wouldn't be interesting had it been done by normal every day people.
In this case, I think that the bloggers in this case ought to feel really badly about having engaged in this sort of shenanigans. At this point, the woman had been reported to the sheriff's office, and there is a possible suit in the future. What they've done is managed to harm everybody involved in this that isn't already dead. Even then, I get the feeling that they would have pissed on her grave if they thought that could make a better story.
Re:There should be a law against people who do thi (Score:5, Insightful)
What a brilliant idea -- let's give the police the power to arrest people, throw them into jail pending trial, and not tell anybody.
The justice system needs transparency in a free and democratic society. What you're proposing has been done by all of the most oppressive regeimes in history as a way of making people "disappear". And while publishing an innocent persons arrest in a public manner may damage their public image, it's also a way to ensure that said person gets the best possible opportunity to defend themselves within the community. People who are secretly jailed never do.
Yaz.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What a brilliant idea -- let's give the police the power to arrest people, throw them into jail pending trial, and not tell anybody.
Good job on totally misunderstanding the original poster's point.
He was not proposing that the police "not tell anybody" -- only that the decision to release the information about an arrest be up to the accused at least as long as the accused had not been found guilty.
The NCIC, as just one example, is full of partial records that indicate arrest and even indictment but not acquittal.
No, you're confusing two different things (Score:5, Insightful)
The goal is a fair and structured hearing, and punishment or acquittal based on the laws, decided by a jury & judge as impartial as possible.
With no transparency, the police can ignore the laws, and you might never see a jury at all.
With complete transparency, any "interesting" crime will be first judged by the public, based on third and fourth-hand information with no legal repercussions for errors (it's not *perjury* when the local rag prints gossip and rumors that are dead wrong), and the jury will be tainted by exposure to this mess, and the accused will be punished by the public even if acquitted by the legal system.
Think the public has no real power to exact punishment? You don't even need vigilante gunmen, though that can happen. No laws need be broken, though they might be. But "the public" includes your boss (soon-to-be former boss?), your neighbors (and their kids), the checkout person at the grocery store, your mailman, the guys at the bar, the technician from the phone company, the plumber, the teenagers at the mall, the pizza delivery guy, everyone. If your face is all over the web, if your home address and home phone are all over the web... well, first of all, they'll be all over the web for the rest of your life, because this stuff doesn't go away. Secondly, most people won't even say anything (they'll just stare after you as you leave), but you come into contact with hundreds of people... some of them will probably do something. Some people will actively seek you out to punish you, because vigilante justice is awfully tempting... I'll bet that's already happening with this family.
With the "power of the internet", now they don't just need to worry about getting snubbed by the people on their street. They have to worry what percentage of the, say, 2 million people who've seen their address and phone number will actively contact them. 0.01 percent? Mom, there's 200 people at the door. They want to talk to you and dad. Are my numbers too low?
So yeah, we need a balance.
This story is horrible and sad, and I want everyone to read it and realize that the online world is real, and in some ways it's more dangerous than the offline world. You can do things you'd never be cruel enough to do to someone's face, and cruelty has real consequences.
But I don't want to know where this family lives.
Re:There should be a law against people who do thi (Score:5, Informative)
We do not seem to have much of a problem with false arrests; the only problems I know of are the usual ones of the prosecution sometimes going "gung ho" (wanting to convict SOMEBODY no matter what, to save face) and occasional abuse of the "Police can put somebody in detention for 24 hour before pressing charges". Overall, it seems to work fine, and the hiding of identity from media publication seems to only be positive.
Eivind.
Re:There should be a law against people who do thi (Score:5, Insightful)
The problems here are that:
a. What happens when the bloggers get it wrong? Let's say they accidentally type in the neighbour's address. Some poor bastard who had nothing do with the issue gets targeted.
b. The bloggers are by and large anonymous also. It's sheer hypocrisy for them to hide behind a blog pseudonym and publish someone else's details.
c. There is a reason we don't have martial law. Vigilantism is never a good move, mistakes are made, it bypasses due process and the right to a fair trial, innocent people are hurt. That's why Western democracies have the legal system they do: sure, it ain't perfect, but I'd rather us have a legal system that let uninformed bloggers pass judgement and mete out punishment.
Whatever, stalking mods (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Has this happened to you or anyone you know? If not, stop the fearmongering.
Re:Whatever, stalking mods (Score:5, Informative)
Has this happened to you or anyone you know? If not, stop the fearmongering.
There were several cases in Britain where The Sun or other quality magazines started to publish pictures of pedophiles. Too bad if you happened to look like the guy. Chances were you were soon hurting.
But of course, the lynch mob can also be just a tad stupid - but what can you do if you're the one running from it: British vigilantes mistake a pediatrician for a pedophile [salon.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You're providing to me an example that you saw on the internet? Reread what I wrote: Has this happened to you or anyone you know?
Just because something supposedly happened somewhere else that you heard about (and don't know the details of the situation) doesn't mean that you can make a blanket statement.
I don't consider wright and wrong to be dependent on how many people agree with me, I make my own decisions and stand
Re: (Score:2)
Because the event didn't happen to that specific person, the comment doesn't invalidate it happens in general or that it could happen to you. Unlike you, lots of people observe what's happening to others in order to prepare and prevent that from happening to themselves. I presume you'd rather wait until it happened to you to start worrying about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've edited your reply to the most interesting point.
I see no justification in frightening or alarming people unnecessarily. You posit that I am uncaring fo
Re: (Score:2)
You severely misinterpreted then. The point I made was you don't seem to want to use evidence outside your sphere of influence in order to make conclusions and take individual action, which is a self-imposed limitation IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'm arrogant and discriminatory now. You win, I suppose. Enjoy!
Re:Whatever, stalking mods (Score:5, Insightful)
You're providing to me an example that you saw on the internet? Reread what I wrote: Has this happened to you or anyone you know?
As a matter of fact, yes. A family friend was named as a suspect in a well-publicized political murder case, by the media. Despite his being cleared of any possible links to the case, he was still ostracized by his neighbors as a "criminal with mafia connections". Now, do tell... what exactly was your point? You have asked me if it has happened with anyone I know, and I have given an example. So what will you do now besides calling me a "liar" and going back to your belief that is more or less "Lions don't exist because I have never seen one in real life myself"?
What was exactly your point when you asked this silly question? That it happened to "someone else", so it was not your problem? How apathetic or shallow can you get?!!
Was your brilliant argument that, it can "never happen to you"? I am pretty sure, that is what all those people thought as well, *till* it actually happened to them.
Re:Whatever, stalking mods (Score:5, Interesting)
I was a witness, my personal info got to the criminals (probably through their attorney) and soon thereafter the threats started. I armed myself for a few months after that and was very careful where I went and I was very detailed on where I was going, how, and when I was expected to show up (or get back home) to my friends and family.
Now I'll think twice before volunteering to be a witness again.
Re:Whatever, stalking mods (Score:4, Informative)
How about Richard Jewell [wikipedia.org]? And this was the responsible media that did this to an innocent man. Imagine if that happened today with the virtual lynch mob of bloggers that are out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nasty divorce, and the ex decided to publish his name, number, address, etc on a website dedicated to dead-beat dads. (No orders regarding support existed at the time, and he was voluntarily giving her 50% of his take home at the time until the ruling actually happened...)
There were numerous death threats.
He ended up having to sue the web site owner to have his information removed, and fortunately the threats ended up stopping.
What really amaz
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a divorced Dad and my ex and I are on great terms (early on there were a lot of issues, all emotional) but there was no threatened violence or ill will to either party. Some people are just "off-the-hook" and that can be understandable when it comes to emotions. That doesn't justify doing the kind of things you describe though, IMO.
Spock was right, emotions can be dan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many people do you personally know that are genuinely "bad"? By this I mean totally unreasonable individuals who are real assholish (aside from me, that is).
Re: (Score:2)
Well you are obviously clueless, but if you had ever *bothered* to check the news, anywhere other than slashdot, you would have seen it happening in lots of places.
A reporter for a local tv channel in Delhi, India, accused a school teacher Ms. Uma Khurana, of coercing her students into a prostitution racket. With her name, workplace, home address etc. being supplied, a local mob beat her up. Later it turned out that the report
Re: (Score:2)
My attitude is that blowing things out of proportion and using anecdotes to prove a point is often a sleazy tactic used by people pushing an agenda. I hope you're not one of those people that flies off the handle in indignation before thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
You are obviously clueless.
I hope you're not one of those people that flies off the handle in indignation before thinking.
I hope you're not one of those people who like to molest children. And did you stop beating your wife? (Ok the last one doesn't work so well on Slas
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When Curt and Lori Drew filed charges against the Meiers (the victim's parents) for destroying the foosball table that they had asked (after their sick "prank" had driven the Meiers' daughter to suicide) the Meiers to store in their house, they put their own names out in public. Read the story [stltoday.com]. When the Meiers learned of the Drews' direct involvement in causing the death of their daughter, they busted up the foosball table and dumpe
Re: (Score:2)
Or, maybe, they just think one supposed crime (Is driving someone to suicide a crime? How the hell do you figure that?) isn't justification for committing another.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it should be. I mean, if someone did this to someone in your family (your daughter, sister, cousin, anyone), wouldn't you find it completely disgusting that it was 'legally sound'? What that mother did is absolutely appalling, she's caused the death of a poor, depressed young girl and completely ruined the lives of her parents. And then, to top it all off, they file charges against them for ruining a few hundred dollar toy!? G
Re: (Score:2)
One crime? How about obstruction of justice by deleting the MySpace account? Hampering an investigation by telling a witness to withold information? There could have been sexual discussion between Megan and the adult, which opens a whole range of charges. And there's also the fact that others were drawn into the charade, including a minor.
And you must be a hell of a foosball fan to think that what the Meiers did to that table (while it was in their hou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It wasn't a "disapearing online friend" at all. It was a contrived effort by a small group of adults and other teenagers, combining their intellects and talents to ruin a young girl. Mental instability or otherwise, that's horribly dispicable.
Take a pair of adults. They form a profile for a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There should be a law against people who do thi (Score:5, Insightful)
I find very little credulity in the "You can't hide the truth from us" self-righteousness espoused by many of the bloggers involved in this. They merely saw what they could gain from the situation, not what was ethically or morally right.
Cringeworthy. But sadly, amongst many niceties, what I've come to expect from the "blogosphere" (cringeworthy name, in itself). Self-righteous vitriol and hyperbole seem far too common. "We're the new journalists, your ways are outdated." Bleh. In the rush to try to be the next big thing, seems "stopping and thinking" is an impediment to "first to publish/be pinged/trackbacked/make the Top 100 on Technorati/get on as many blogrolls as possible".
Just because we *can* do something... (Score:3, Insightful)
...that doesn't mean we should.
It's an old saying, but no less truthful for it. Modern technology makes communication, data storage and research into effectively free commodities. These things can be used for many constructive purposes, but a natural side effect is a loss of privacy.
The thing is, society has adopted privacy as an accepted cultural value for good reasons. Society also typically frowns on vigilantism for good reasons. No-one is perfect, and if you tend towards a system where there is some
Re:There should be a law against people who do thi (Score:2)
A J Maxwell
3013 Avenue G
Birmingham, AL 35218-2410
(205) 785-2680
All of the above is legit info.
Re:There should be a law against people who do thi (Score:2)
Whether this was a real story or not, that woman did no one any harm
Oh? Trying to psychologically manipulate and hurt a 13 year old girl is not harmful? I'm pretty sure that if it was a 40 year old man pretty to be a young teen boy instead of a woman then their would be charges laid.
if she did Megan any harm, that's for law enforcement to deal with, not the rest of us.
Law enforcement REFUSED to deal with it. And let's face it, laws and how they are enforced is very political. It's not unexpected for a vacuum to be filled.
By digging up her personal information - for which no one had any real, legitimate use - much less posting it online - these bloggers have negligently put this entire family's safety at serious risk.
The US government puts people at risk all the time by publishing the names and addresses of people deemed to be "sex offenders" (I use th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That law enforcement didn't do anything is no excuse for vigilantism. If law enforcement doesn't do their job, you protest about law enforcement, not about someone you suspect of having done something wrong.
The US government puts people at risk all the time by publishing the names and addresses of people deemed to be "sex offenders" (I use this ter
Re: (Score:2)
That law enforcement didn't do anything is no excuse for vigilantism.
I am not encouraging vigilantism nor did I hear of any vigilantism going on. And there is no WAY that you can convince me that simply telling a story of what happened is in any way vigilantism.
It's no defense. I'm just merely pointing out the hypocrisy in people. I am against murder and the death penalty. Yep, I'm against playing mind-fuck games with children a
Re: (Score:2)
spreading information -> terrorist (Score:2)
Aiding and abetting, for starters, then implied terroristic threats.
I knew things were getting bad, but is this really how strong the state of fear has become? Gathering up publicly available information and making it available to others is now a sign of terrorism? Do people even know what "terrorism" means anymore?
HELP SAVE YOUR COUNTRY! REPORT SUSPECTED INFORMATION SPREADERS TODAY!
I'm sure we'll be much better off when spreading information earns a death sentence.
Also, you seem to have about as much understanding of the internet as the "series of tubes" guy. If spreading
Re:There should be a law against people who do thi (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with shaming people for killing a kid, or contributing to the death of that kid.
Or have you and the other million assholes on here defend
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a large difference between the name being possible to find by going to the right places, and having it plastered all over the place. What is the purpose? The only purpose I can see of posting their identity is that people hope that "someone" is going to do something with that information.
That's at best disgusting and makes people who does it scum in my eyes.
If law enforcement is
Re:There should be a law against people who do thi (Score:4, Interesting)
how do you protest against law enforcement? Yhe whole purpose of this recent publicity was precisely to push law enforcement into action by stoking public outrage.
the world is not a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard, not a moral one. There is no question about this woman's actions, or her identity. There are no significant facts in dispute, only legal and moral culpability. And yes, individuals and communities do have the right to judge moral culpability for themselves, with or without your permission.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason we have a justice system. It's in place to avoid something like this. Just because you think someone did something, no matter how sure you are, doesn't make that person a criminal. More over, how should I verify whether what you claim is true?
If a judge does not imprison someone, there is a reason for that. Judges don't go "Oh well, I don't feel like it today, let's let 'im go free". Yes, there are cases where the evidence is not strong
Hell no you can't hide news from us! (Score:2)
No sympathy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If new any new laws come out of this, you be SCARED SHITLESS.
You want to be guilty for murder because, for example, you break up with your psycho girlfriend and she kills herself?
Yeesh. I don't really like the idea of a society where I'm held responsible for other people's feeli
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are not responsible for the feelings of others. However, you ARE responsible for your actions, and the consequences of those actions on the people around you. And if those actions were those of hateful jerks who manipulated the emotions of someone they KNEW to be mentally unstable, then yes, they are responsible for the death of th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The family that took advantage of a thirteen year old girl and manipulated and emotionally tortured her and even suggested suicide to her should be held civilly liable for their actions. I don't want a bunch of stupid internet laws to come out of this, because the internet wasn't the problem here. But to suggest that the problem is just a fucked up little girl is flat out stupid.
Just like an adult must be held accountable if they manipulate a child into a sexual encounter, an adult must als
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's probably because special needs have nothing whatsofuckever to do with depression and mental health. Indeed, suicide rates for mentally and physically challenged youths are far below those of normal youths. Congratulations on having a child who doesn't suffer from problems she doesn't have -- that's a real accomplishment in oppositeland. My child who has asthma n
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And in the meantime she deserves to be harassed and have her safety threatened by millions of idiots on the internet? Millions of idiots who've heard one side of the story.
What do you do if we later find out the Myspace guy really did exist, and it wasn't the neighbor lady?
Besides that, there's really no way they could've known the little girl would commit suicide. Yeah, if the lady did it she's a douchebag, but the little girl couldn't have been very mentally stable either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There should be no sympathy for those who pose as fictitious characters only to create malice and havoc in others lives, whether it's online or in real life. I'm unsure if this woman will have charges brought upon her, but it wouldn't be unreasonable, imo. The simple fact she even did this shows that she's not even mature enough to have kids. Unfortunately, she'll probably plead "insanity" and get away with it.
The woman who ran the phony page read your post and felt so bad she killed herself. Police are on the way to your house now.
What do you think your sentence should be?
Re: (Score:2)
More like.... (Score:5, Insightful)
People love solving a mystery (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, frankly I feel there is a bit of upset over a loss of self-righteous enjoyment journalists gets from their positions in TFA. OMG, someone spilled the beans you didn't want to. You must be sad. Professional journalists are worried about the public and Web 2.0 usurping their jobs. Not because they have no talent (
Re: (Score:2)
You have no right to know it until it has been confirmed.
If your statement where true then that would mean that there would be almost no journalism (depending at least on what your standards are for the definition of the word "confirmed"), or blogging for that matter.
It should be left to the courts to decide
The police originally said they were not interested in pressing charges. Now that this story is news it seems that they are re-considering (according to the posts here at least).
some ill-informed lynch mob with a knee-jerk reaction to whatever tidbits the media chose to publish today
What lynch mob are you talking about? I haven't heard anything about a lynch mob. Just a lot of FUD.
*IF* she is found guilty of wrongdoing then you have a right to know.
I doubt whether you
The revolution of Web 2.0 has finally arrived? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The development of the internet has changed the way information flows in that traditional media no longer controls what information is being communicated en masse
The web 2.0 and information dissemination has come up a lot lately around where I work as well as everywhere else. I don't think there can be much control. It's like a swarm of Locusts. Massive numbers of autonomous units acting in sort of a predictable unified way. It seems to be acting mostly as a electronic lynch mob. The whole lord of the flies ideas rears it's head, once the normal limiting factors of society is removed you have nothing keeping us form regressing to tribal entities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're okay with it being published, now that you've read the article and found out that the woman being accused actually detailed her involvement to the police herself, right? There's no question of her identity or actions, the ac
Simple problem (Score:5, Funny)
jokes on them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:jokes on them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:jokes on them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A novel idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
The story isn't cut and dried. RTFA! (Score:5, Informative)
This is a pretty messed up situation. The woman mentioned in the article summary is the mother of an ex-friend of Megan (the girl that committed suicide), and posed as a boy ("Josh") on MySpace trying to keep tabs on what Megan was saying about her daughter (Megan's ex-friend).
Whether the woman created the "Josh" account is not up for debate-- it's from the police report*. Likewise, whether she pretended to be interested in the 14-year-old girl is not debatable. What is debatable is whether she was the person logged in to the "Josh" account when the taunting messages were sent, especially given three people from her family posed as "Josh", and were complicit in the deceit. Complicating matters, Megan's mother said the Wrong Thing At The Wrong Time to Megan, by the mother's account, minutes before the suicide. (It's abundantly clear she will never forgive herself for this.)
As I said, it's pretty messed up. Were the mainstream media right in concealing the identity of the woman? I'm not so sure. It seems to me that too many times identities have been concealed, preventing true community backlash against perpetrators. It's clear the woman was at least partially culpable-- she didn't accidentally make the Josh character fall in love with Megan. On the other hand, the local community is already shunning the woman and her family, so is Internet Outrage really accomplishing any more?
* Unintentionally leaked by CNN, and transcribed by a blogger using frame capture.
Re:The story isn't cut and dried. RTFA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Identities are concealed, as in this case, to protect the accused from community backlash. Folks often forget that the accused have rights as well. Forgeting to protect those rights, and encouraging a community backlash before they've had their day in court... Well that's headed back to bad old days of lynching and vigilante justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Identities are concealed, as in this case, to protect the accused from community backlash. Folks often forget that the accused have rights as well. Forgeting to protect those rights, and encouraging a community backlash before they've had their day in court... Well that's headed back to bad old days of lynching and vigilante justice.
I can understand that, certainly. However, in this case, there wasn't going to be a day in court. The DA originally decided not to pursue charges. Only after the recent attention have they decided to review the case. What does the community do then? I'm not surprised the outrage built as far as it did.
Personally, I suspect no charges were filed because of the fact most of the shenanigans were online only, and poorly understood by the officials involved. That's only speculation on my part, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Except where there is a direct and credible immediate danger to the community of not knowing someones identity (say a suspected serial killer that's free) I don't see any justification for republishing a suspects identity unless peoples AIM is to put them at risk of vigilante justice. To me, posting her identity online makes the posters the scum of the earth, and in the same category o
Re:The story isn't cut and dried. RTFA! (Score:5, Funny)
* - and then the claim that the bits on the wire spontaneously arranged themselves into a valid TCP/IP bit stream due to a quantum interaction of the large hadron collider and the heliosphereic current sheet, is considered a rock solid defense beyond both reasonable doubt and the preponderance of the evidence.
** - yes, Britney Spears, even though everybody on the entire planet realizes it's the same shit they record companies continue to put out and nobody wants to download it let alone buy it. Other than you and your hundred million best friends that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Innocent until proven quilty (Score:3, Insightful)
My my, you sure seem eager to convict and sentence this woman, and not just the woman but her entire family.
Odd that if the RIAA wants to publish the names of people downloading, naming and shaming, people are against it, but in this case naming and shaming is a good thing. Why not bring out the tar and feathers. Hell why even bother with police at all, I got a rope right here and that tree looks sturdy enough.
This woman is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Mob mentality is a serious issue,
Re: (Score:2)
But the most important thing here is, innocent until proven guilty.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a simplification of a more complex legal idea called "the presumption of innocence".
Even if there is a video of you shooting someone in the head, execution style, you will still be have "the presumption of innocence"... by the legal system
This does not mean you are innocent and it doesn't mean that I or anyone other than the Judge and Jury has to presume [wikipedia.org] that you are.
Gobs of articles have been written about the presumption of innocence.
I suggest you find a few and try to r
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, all of your arguments are meaningless, and your analogies are nothing like the case at hand.
If someone calls up the RIAA
Depression (Score:5, Insightful)
Digging a hole for yourself (Score:2)
http://digg.com/world_news/Adults_drive_14_year_old_to_suicide_by_harassing_her_on_MySpace?t=10557557#c10557557 [digg.com]
I'll just repost my comment here, just in case it's not obvious that those posts were done by me:
Right... /me wonders if the St. Charles Journal would have posted that news article if they knew it would take this little time to get the names they were trying to suppress, based on the data given in the article (assuming the timing is correct).
Its a mad, mad, mad, mad world. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a scary story (Score:5, Insightful)
Not for the details involved but for the slashdot reaction. a lot seem to be in support of the naming and shaming.
That is nice, would they be just as supportive when the RIAA deciced to publish their names for illegal filesharing and they get expelled from their schools, told to leave their jobs, asked to resign from their clubs?
There is a reason we put the law into the hands of the legal system and have deciced that lynchings are wrong. The simple problem is that of where does it end.
Say that this woman's daughter now commits suicide, is it then right for her family to publish the bloggers personal details? Publicly try them on the internet?
Innocent until proven guilty, presumption of innocence, trial by jury. My how quickly these ideals seem to be forgotten when blogging is involved. Note that when it is the other way around and some blogger gets exposed "slashdot" has shown an almost fanatical support for the sancitiy of privacy.
A few months ago slashdot had a story about internet driven vigilantism in South-Korea where this kind of naming and shaming is claimed to be far more common, the odd thing was that then the general attitude seemed to be that this was an extremely bad idea.
So how come that some slashdotters now support it? Is it the magic of the word blog? The idea that the MAN was outwitted, freedom by all means and damn the consequences?
Should the dutch teens who stole items from an online game be named and shamed? Should the blogger who published this info have every part of his private life put on the web for all to see?
Since this is a suicide where the whole community failed, why aren't they all being named and shamed. Why not print a list of all the people involved, everyone that could have talked to the girl, made friends with her, and publish them under the headline, "where were you!".
Some people seem to think that blogs are a magical something, they are not. They used to exist before, they were called pamphlets and people with enough motivation would write them and print and distribute them and say in them what they wanted in the name of "The truth".
They were back then the perfect tool to incite the mob. It is on paper, therefore it must be true, lets lynch them.
A few years ago in england a woman's house was attacked because the mob thought she was a pedofile. The evidence was clear as day, she had a sign on her door that said so "Pediatrician".
Consider this, if this woman is guilty of the suicide, then is any suicide that follows the publishing by the blogger the guilt of the blogger? What if the blogger is outed and kills himself? Where does it end?
The community taking the law in their own hand, it sounds tempting and sometimes seems to be the only solution but it never works. The law often fails us, but we should then change the law, not simply ignore it.
But think of this, do you really want there to be law that puts people to blaim if they said the wrong thing to a person who commits suicide? Better not mod me down, it might make me commit suicide.
Should society decide who needs to be punished? I would dearly love to name and shame every drunk driver out there, everyone who ever hurt someone in an "accident" that could easily have been avoided.
Before you support naming and shaming, ask yourselve wether someone else might not have you on their list.
Blame Darwin or Megan's Parents (Score:3, Interesting)
My thinking is less focused on the idiot "adult" who did this scam as it is on her parents.
Megan did not survive long enough to reproduce. Fault? Blame Darwin or Megan's parents. Take your pick. Or, perhaps parents in general nowadays.
Let me explain. Megan had problems and felt bad about herself? Why? (actual question, not a setup) She was beautiful. Where were her parents? How in the fcuk could a beautiful girl like that grow up not believing, *knowing* she has value.
I tell you waht (sic), when I felt bad about myself going through puberty, and kids do, I was *corrected* by my parents. Corrected as in almost short of discipline in a way. I was corrected for not thinking. That was followed by a very understanding and thoughtful teaching by my parents. They did what they were supposed too do and taught me self respect, correct body image (with what I had to work with) with proportional value in what a pimple actually means in the grand scheme of things. What an adult should be thinking.
It is unfathomable to me that what someone said could bring a person to suicide. And, I blame Megan's parents. Megan, at 13, was on psychotic drugs? WTF!? Sure, the "adult" who perpetrated this scam needs psychiatric help but the suicide I put on her parents.
My son was only on loan to me. And I took my parenting job very seriously. It was the most important achievement I was tasked with as a human being. On a scale of 10 with parenting on top, even paying the mortgage falls in at about 2. Nothing comes before raising a child. At least for me. (Thank you Mom and Dad).
What I returned was a happy, well adjusted, contributing member of society. Someone who thankfully doesn't understand the need for plastic surgery. I guarantee there's nothing, not one thing you could say, even as a teenager, that would even bring him close to suicide. Knowing my son, I suspect you're more likely to get a polite and understanding "thank you" after rejecting him than any other response. He understands that rejection, in the long run, is a blessing. Why didn't Megan understand this? Their little snowflake is gone. And I blame them; they can blame Darwin and you can think whatever you want too. As far as I'm concerned, they fcuked up IM,NOH,O.
-[d]-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not elitism, it's an attempt to tell a story without going down to the level of bloggers who don't have the blinders on like that. This victim gets treated just like a rape victim for the same reason, which is that it could have repercussions in the victim's personal life.
I don't know about you, but I would rather withhold information if it means protecting someone's safety or reputation. Internet or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that glove fits the other way around too. If someone doesn't break the law but "wrongs" you somehow, just go and blow the horn until everyone and their dog talks about it and cries bloody murder, so the police has to dig up something to create some trial.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Regardless, whether she burns in this life or the next I have no doubt that she's a witch.