4 ms·

And, especially in the context where the same result could have been achieved as easily without resorting to law-breaking, how does that constitute a license to

And, especially in the context where the same result could have been achieved as easily without resorting to law-breaking, how does that constitute a license to break other laws?

singleshot_ 3y ago
If one element of the law that you are claiming that he broke is intent to cause distress and he didn’t have that intent, the elements of the crime were not present. This is not debatable as a matter of law; the only question of fact would be “what was the intent?”
- Chabsff 3y ago
  Have... have you ever seen Goatse? (If you haven't, please don't look it up just for sake of this and take my word for it) It's the reference example for what a "shock image" is. How in the blazes is the choice of that particular image over practically anything else based on anything but its capacity at causing distress? The blog post both acknowledges it as such, and even says "Let this be a lesson to you", making it clear that its use is specifically meant to be go beyond stopping people and actively punish them. And even if it weren't for that straight up confession, it'd STILL be patently obvious that this is what they are doing. We are in clear-cut "shotgun booby trap" territory here. As others have pointed out, there are subtleties at play over who is ultimately responsible, but the author's intent to cause distress is not in question in any way shape or form. As much as it's fun to see vigilante retribution like this (and boy is it!), that does not discount the obvious legal exposure at play.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    Sure, that’s the prosecutor’s argument. I think it’s a loser. I think goatse (I arrived on the internet in 1992 or so, so yes, I’m familiar with bothe the giver and the receiver) is somewhat conservative, actually, given the full realm of possibilities. I would be prepared to argue that to a jury in the right jurisdiction. I could convince twelve people who don’t care in New Jersey but probably not Mississippi. I’d be very surprised if any prosecutor thought they’d have a substantial likelihood of a conviction. There is a very high probability that this immature outburst would not be prosecuted or that it would plead to something like disturbing the peace if anything at all. Goatse is the internet’s way of saying “you don’t really want to look at this.” Hell, your parenthetical says as much.
michaelmrose 3y ago
Is dev actually in the UK? It doesn't seem like a great case to pursue across borders. Shall we also enforce Saudi Arabian modesty laws in the UK. How about Tin pot dictatorship laws against criticizing dictators? It would have to start with an extraordinary effort by the UK to invest millions in getting a fellow and then the other nation being willing to set a terrible precedent to get the uk to fuck off. Given the relative utility it would be easier to cut off the entire UK

And, especially in the context where the same result could have been achieved as easily without resorting to law-breaking, how does that constitute a license to break other laws?

singleshot_ 3y ago

If one element of the law that you are claiming that he broke is intent to cause distress and he didn’t have that intent, the elements of the crime were not present. This is not debatable as a matter of law; the only question of fact would be “what was the intent?”

Chabsff 3y ago
Have... have you ever seen Goatse? (If you haven't, please don't look it up just for sake of this and take my word for it) It's the reference example for what a "shock image" is. How in the blazes is the choice of that particular image over practically anything else based on anything but its capacity at causing distress? The blog post both acknowledges it as such, and even says "Let this be a lesson to you", making it clear that its use is specifically meant to be go beyond stopping people and actively punish them. And even if it weren't for that straight up confession, it'd STILL be patently obvious that this is what they are doing. We are in clear-cut "shotgun booby trap" territory here. As others have pointed out, there are subtleties at play over who is ultimately responsible, but the author's intent to cause distress is not in question in any way shape or form. As much as it's fun to see vigilante retribution like this (and boy is it!), that does not discount the obvious legal exposure at play.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Sure, that’s the prosecutor’s argument. I think it’s a loser. I think goatse (I arrived on the internet in 1992 or so, so yes, I’m familiar with bothe the giver and the receiver) is somewhat conservative, actually, given the full realm of possibilities. I would be prepared to argue that to a jury in the right jurisdiction. I could convince twelve people who don’t care in New Jersey but probably not Mississippi. I’d be very surprised if any prosecutor thought they’d have a substantial likelihood of a conviction. There is a very high probability that this immature outburst would not be prosecuted or that it would plead to something like disturbing the peace if anything at all. Goatse is the internet’s way of saying “you don’t really want to look at this.” Hell, your parenthetical says as much.

michaelmrose 3y ago

Is dev actually in the UK? It doesn't seem like a great case to pursue across borders. Shall we also enforce Saudi Arabian modesty laws in the UK. How about Tin pot dictatorship laws against criticizing dictators? It would have to start with an extraordinary effort by the UK to invest millions in getting a fellow and then the other nation being willing to set a terrible precedent to get the uk to fuck off. Given the relative utility it would be easier to cut off the entire UK