IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home Forums |
Another paedophile hunter in court
TOPIC: Another paedophile hunter in court
|
|
Another paedophile hunter in court 4 Years, 8 Months ago
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Another paedophile hunter in court 4 Years, 8 Months ago
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Another paedophile hunter in court 4 Years, 8 Months ago
|
|
hedda wrote:
how in the Hell can someone be arrested and charged for communicating with a 45 year old thug who claims to be a young girl?
It's usually treated as the attempted version of various sexual speech crimes, Hedda.
I have three problems with this. Firstly, it's not readily apparent how there is an actus reus when there's no actual child/youth. In real life, where most of us would like criminal justice to operate, the arrested person you suggest has neither communicated, nor attempted to communicate with a child - because there is no child. So the person is being prosecuted because of his suspected illegal inclinations, not for something he's actually done.
Secondly, arresting and prosecuting someone for attempting illegal communication with a non-existant person interferes with the person's legal right to freedom of expression. This legal right can only be restricted in pursuit of one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. In addition, case law on freedom of expression has determined that the legitimate aim must be pursued in the specific circumstances of the case, and must be convincingly established by a pressing social need. Does anyone think that a pressing social need to stop non-existent people being spoken to has been convincingly established?
Thirdly, I think speech can never be criminally prohibited. Yes, even Carl Beech should not face criminal sanctions for saying what he did. The better remedy is to meet his free speech with more persuasive free speech in rational debate under public scrutiny. Harvey Proctor's press conference is a much more enlightening response, of much greater benefit to society, than throwing Mr Beech in an oubliette for 18 years. Likewise, if you're a child who really exists and someone says stuff to you that you don't like, "bugger off" should do the trick quite nicely. If you DO like what they're saying to you, well fear not: words won't hurt you. In both cases, no need for the criminal law to poke its nose in.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Another paedophile hunter in court 4 Years, 8 Months ago
|
|
Randall wrote:
hedda wrote:
how in the Hell can someone be arrested and charged for communicating with a 45 year old thug who claims to be a young girl?
It's usually treated as the attempted version of various sexual speech crimes, Hedda.
I have three problems with this. Firstly, it's not readily apparent how there is an actus reus when there's no actual child/youth. In real life, where most of us would like criminal justice to operate, the arrested person you suggest has neither communicated, nor attempted to communicate with a child - because there is no child. So the person is being prosecuted because of his suspected illegal inclinations, not for something he's actually done.
Secondly, arresting and prosecuting someone for attempting illegal communication with a non-existant person interferes with the person's legal right to freedom of expression. This legal right can only be restricted in pursuit of one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. In addition, case law on freedom of expression has determined that the legitimate aim must be pursued in the specific circumstances of the case, and must be convincingly established by a pressing social need. Does anyone think that a pressing social need to stop non-existent people being spoken to has been convincingly established?
Thirdly, I think speech can never be criminally prohibited. Yes, even Carl Beech should not face criminal sanctions for saying what he did. The better remedy is to meet his free speech with more persuasive free speech in rational debate under public scrutiny. Harvey Proctor's press conference is a much more enlightening response, of much greater benefit to society, than throwing Mr Beech in an oubliette for 18 years. Likewise, if you're a child who really exists and someone says stuff to you that you don't like, "bugger off" should do the trick quite nicely. If you DO like what they're saying to you, well fear not: words won't hurt you. In both cases, no need for the criminal law to poke its nose in.
I know an awful lot of adults who wont/cant tell them to bugger off, let alone children.
Of course I, like almost everyone else, want people to not abuse children online.
However, a lot of these people are very vulnerable themselves, and I do not want vulnerable adults to be encouraged to show their penises online!
(and that is assuming they ARE adults. Not children posing as adults)
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|