5 ms·

Let the legal process play out. I'm not a fan of this journalist "ambushing" the founder at his property and staying outside of it until he gets some answers.

Let the legal process play out. I'm not a fan of this journalist "ambushing" the founder at his property and staying outside of it until he gets some answers. "He has all the blinds closed" - right. Let a judge determine whether the founder is in the wrong and needs to provide answers. Sorry maybe it's the aspergers in me but I'm generally not a fan of these self-anointed judge, jury, and executioners performing public shaming rituals.

wolverine876 3y ago
How would that work? The public wouldn't know anything about anything unless a judge convicted someone.
- kylebenzle 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - pbj1968 3y ago
    Fascinating. Could you link me to the court documents on Pacer?
  - pests 3y ago
    I think you missed the word "called" in there somewhere
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    That really sucks; I would have guessed the standard of evidence would be lower than 'conviction of a crime'. Why a default judgment? And where do you live?
- jdietrich 3y ago
  Under German law, anyone involved in a criminal case has the right to privacy. The press are free to report on the case, but they cannot identify the suspect or victim. If you watch or read German news, you'll see everything you expect to see in a report about a crime, except for names and faces. Personally, I think this is an entirely reasonable balance between competing rights. Publicly identifying suspects can cause immense harm to innocent people and prejudice the right to a fair trial based on the presumption of innocence. I cannot see any public interest argument for the general right to publicly identify criminal suspects, beyond mere prurient interest. If there would be substantial investigative benefits to publicly naming a suspect, for example to encourage witnesses or other victims to come forward, that should be a decision for the courts (or at least the police) and that decision should be made based on the individual circumstances of the case.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    > Under German law, anyone involved in a criminal case has the right to privacy. Until convicted, I presume? Are the identites of those arrested (and possibly prosecuted but acquitted) protected forever?
    - leobg 3y ago
      There’s a case right now: Multi million Euro fraud, perpetrated for 10+ years in an organized fashion by husband and wife and some helpers from Saxony. Victims were (and are) senior citizens. The German public broadcast MDR had several stories on them. Yet they don’t even dare to show the office building on which the perpetrators work. Much less their private house, or faces or names. The press is more afraid of being sued by the perpetrators than the perpetrators are afraid of being prosecuted. It’s the other extreme.
echelon 3y ago
> Sorry maybe it's the aspergers in me but I'm generally not a fan of these self-anointed judge, jury, and executioners performing public shaming rituals. I'm starting to feel this is the thing we should have laws against.
- rvcdbn 3y ago
  How exactly do you imagine those laws would be structured?
  - wpasc 3y ago
    Harassment law would probably suffice with case law and precedent starting to cover the specific type of harassment
    - mplewis 3y ago
      How would you separate legitimate journalism from harassment?
      - Gabf74phcJ2bJpr 3y ago
        The same way you do today: by examining the circumstances and the actions.
      - safety1st 3y ago
        This is a really important question for sure and I want to protect the rights of journalists, but in this instance the reporter from the BBC sat in front of Leif's house for 7 hours, fully aware that Leif was there and didn't want to speak to him, and then when he briefly emerged, accused him of not protecting children. It feels more like entrapment and harassment than reporting. It also feels like the type of theater the BBC knows they can get away with because the topic is child abuse and we seem to lose all restraint as a society when this topic comes up.
kylebenzle 3y ago
[flagged]
- whelp_24 3y ago
  I don't think that's quite accurate. Aspergers was always a form of Austism, the remove of the separation is more policy than anything. The label is useful for those who want to use it.
- stemlord 3y ago
  What does this even mean? Aren't all "labels" in the DSM made up?
yawpitch 3y ago
So you’re a fan of judges doing their jobs, but not a fan of journalists doing theirs? Tracking down and trying to talk to those your sources have accused of wrongdoing to try and get their side of the story and to get them to speak on the record is kind of literally Investigative Reporting 101, and has been for actual centuries now.
- hgs3 3y ago
  Investigative reporters should act professionally. They should setup a formal appointment with the accused and remain neutral. In the bbc report they showed up uninvited and asked "We want to know why you're not protecting children, Mr. Brooks" which is a loaded question [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
  - yawpitch 3y ago
    That’s not actually a loaded question… they had a source with clear and convincing proof of the criminal victimization of numerous children by one of Mr. Brooks’s users who had weaponized the service he provided, as well as both law enforcement and child protection organizations indicating that Omegle’s service was being actively weaponized against children; as a matter of both rhetoric and law it was a foregone conclusion that Mr. Brooks was not protecting children, and there’s obvious public interest in his answer to that question. Arguably it’s something you could criticize as gotcha journalism, but that’s often a weak critique because you saying they’ve got an agenda is predicated on you having your own. Also there is a LONG history of very credible journalists tracking down and confronting those who don’t want light shone on their activities and therefore aren’t exactly inclined to schedule formal appointments… sure, it can be seen as showboating, especially for a television journalist, but it’s still just one of the tools of investigative journalism and you’d call it legit if it was exposing some form of public corruption or criminal activity that was beyond your personal pale.
    - strken 3y ago
      I wouldn't ever call it legit for a journalist to chase someone around yelling questions at them and then use the footage, because it's the kind of thing that makes the "guest" look guilty regardless of actual guilt. Showing up and getting actual answers, sure, but if you chased me around yelling questions about why I'm not protecting the children I would 100% run away rather than give you an in-depth interview. It looks bad until you think about it for five seconds and realise how confronting the situation is to even an innocent man, just like the Reid technique etc.
TheDong 3y ago
The legal process has played out. The Omegle founder has been faced with having to spend possibly hundreds of thousands in legal fees, and as such has decided to turn off the site without going to court. The legal process playing out rarely ever means that a judge or jury makes a decision, rather it usually plays out as an economic problem, one of "does everyone involved have 10s of thousands of dollars to burn". Usually the answer is "no", so usually it settles out of court.

wolverine876 3y ago

How would that work? The public wouldn't know anything about anything unless a judge convicted someone.

kylebenzle 3y ago
[flagged]
- pbj1968 3y ago
  Fascinating. Could you link me to the court documents on Pacer?
- pests 3y ago
  I think you missed the word "called" in there somewhere
- wolverine876 3y ago
  That really sucks; I would have guessed the standard of evidence would be lower than 'conviction of a crime'. Why a default judgment? And where do you live?
jdietrich 3y ago
Under German law, anyone involved in a criminal case has the right to privacy. The press are free to report on the case, but they cannot identify the suspect or victim. If you watch or read German news, you'll see everything you expect to see in a report about a crime, except for names and faces. Personally, I think this is an entirely reasonable balance between competing rights. Publicly identifying suspects can cause immense harm to innocent people and prejudice the right to a fair trial based on the presumption of innocence. I cannot see any public interest argument for the general right to publicly identify criminal suspects, beyond mere prurient interest. If there would be substantial investigative benefits to publicly naming a suspect, for example to encourage witnesses or other victims to come forward, that should be a decision for the courts (or at least the police) and that decision should be made based on the individual circumstances of the case.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  > Under German law, anyone involved in a criminal case has the right to privacy. Until convicted, I presume? Are the identites of those arrested (and possibly prosecuted but acquitted) protected forever?
  - leobg 3y ago
    There’s a case right now: Multi million Euro fraud, perpetrated for 10+ years in an organized fashion by husband and wife and some helpers from Saxony. Victims were (and are) senior citizens. The German public broadcast MDR had several stories on them. Yet they don’t even dare to show the office building on which the perpetrators work. Much less their private house, or faces or names. The press is more afraid of being sued by the perpetrators than the perpetrators are afraid of being prosecuted. It’s the other extreme.

echelon 3y ago

> Sorry maybe it's the aspergers in me but I'm generally not a fan of these self-anointed judge, jury, and executioners performing public shaming rituals. I'm starting to feel this is the thing we should have laws against.

rvcdbn 3y ago
How exactly do you imagine those laws would be structured?
- wpasc 3y ago
  Harassment law would probably suffice with case law and precedent starting to cover the specific type of harassment
  - mplewis 3y ago
    How would you separate legitimate journalism from harassment?
    - Gabf74phcJ2bJpr 3y ago
      The same way you do today: by examining the circumstances and the actions.
    - safety1st 3y ago
      This is a really important question for sure and I want to protect the rights of journalists, but in this instance the reporter from the BBC sat in front of Leif's house for 7 hours, fully aware that Leif was there and didn't want to speak to him, and then when he briefly emerged, accused him of not protecting children. It feels more like entrapment and harassment than reporting. It also feels like the type of theater the BBC knows they can get away with because the topic is child abuse and we seem to lose all restraint as a society when this topic comes up.

kylebenzle 3y ago

[flagged]

whelp_24 3y ago
I don't think that's quite accurate. Aspergers was always a form of Austism, the remove of the separation is more policy than anything. The label is useful for those who want to use it.
stemlord 3y ago
What does this even mean? Aren't all "labels" in the DSM made up?

yawpitch 3y ago

So you’re a fan of judges doing their jobs, but not a fan of journalists doing theirs? Tracking down and trying to talk to those your sources have accused of wrongdoing to try and get their side of the story and to get them to speak on the record is kind of literally Investigative Reporting 101, and has been for actual centuries now.

hgs3 3y ago
Investigative reporters should act professionally. They should setup a formal appointment with the accused and remain neutral. In the bbc report they showed up uninvited and asked "We want to know why you're not protecting children, Mr. Brooks" which is a loaded question [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
- yawpitch 3y ago
  That’s not actually a loaded question… they had a source with clear and convincing proof of the criminal victimization of numerous children by one of Mr. Brooks’s users who had weaponized the service he provided, as well as both law enforcement and child protection organizations indicating that Omegle’s service was being actively weaponized against children; as a matter of both rhetoric and law it was a foregone conclusion that Mr. Brooks was not protecting children, and there’s obvious public interest in his answer to that question. Arguably it’s something you could criticize as gotcha journalism, but that’s often a weak critique because you saying they’ve got an agenda is predicated on you having your own. Also there is a LONG history of very credible journalists tracking down and confronting those who don’t want light shone on their activities and therefore aren’t exactly inclined to schedule formal appointments… sure, it can be seen as showboating, especially for a television journalist, but it’s still just one of the tools of investigative journalism and you’d call it legit if it was exposing some form of public corruption or criminal activity that was beyond your personal pale.
  - strken 3y ago
    I wouldn't ever call it legit for a journalist to chase someone around yelling questions at them and then use the footage, because it's the kind of thing that makes the "guest" look guilty regardless of actual guilt. Showing up and getting actual answers, sure, but if you chased me around yelling questions about why I'm not protecting the children I would 100% run away rather than give you an in-depth interview. It looks bad until you think about it for five seconds and realise how confronting the situation is to even an innocent man, just like the Reid technique etc.

TheDong 3y ago

The legal process has played out. The Omegle founder has been faced with having to spend possibly hundreds of thousands in legal fees, and as such has decided to turn off the site without going to court. The legal process playing out rarely ever means that a judge or jury makes a decision, rather it usually plays out as an economic problem, one of "does everyone involved have 10s of thousands of dollars to burn". Usually the answer is "no", so usually it settles out of court.