Disturbing news story, especially for parents.

[The Dog]

Yes, insights into child psychology are recently new.

I don't think child psychology is part of the issue at this stage. The law says it's illegal, society says it's immoral, and the behavior is considered deviant/a disorder/ a disease. All of those factors being true, a child's ability to consent is irrelevant. If the law and the classification were to change then the consent issue would be an active factor.

Which actually comes back to the point of this article.  What this creep is doing isn't illegal.  Right now, he is protected by the first amendment.  He actually has the legal right to post a picture of my child for himself and other pedophiles to get off to.  He has the legal right to tell other pedophiles where the best places are to go "little girl" watching.  Some people are working to change the law or enact new ones, but I can guarantee that there will be opposition.  There are always people on the extreme ends of issues like this. 

I've never posted pictures of my kids on websites, I don't believe in it.  That should be my choice as a parent.  If I find out that someone I know has posted a picture of my kid, I tell them to take it down.  But this guy can do it and get away with it.  It's infuriating. 

aren't there laws about putting up people's pictures?  I thought for sure if you complained they would have to remove it.

[norway]

aren't there laws about putting up people's pictures?? I thought for sure if you complained they would have to remove it.

No, if you post a pic here it can be used in a comercial ad for a dating-site...you can do nothing about it than not post pics.

[sucker punch]

thats fucked up!

[2112]

Hack it/ddos it.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Hack it/ddos it.

dos shoud be enough

[The Dog]

it is an extremely interesting issue to discuss though.  are there limits when it comes to freedom of speech?  If it becomes illegal to post pics of kids and talk (not do, but just talk) about them in sick ways and shit, would it ever become illegal to say bad things about the president or post photo shopped pics of Lieberman with his hand down Bush's pants....  Would a bands lyrics become "illegal" if they talked about violence or were extremely sexual or something??  when you give an inch, people will take a yard.

i hate to say it, because this guy is a bonafide asshole, but with freedom of speech its either all or nothing.  I love how the community is fighting back though.  this guy should be fearing for his life.  i'm sure there are people out there who would kill him or beat him severely now that they know who he is.

i do think the pictures are not public though, and if i can identify myself (or my kid) in a photo on your website you should, by law, have to take it down.

[fuckin crazy]

Well, people should exercise their democratic rights and vote for a bill that outlaws any pedophile from engaging in this behaviour.

I don't want sound like I'm defending this guy, but in America, we have constitutional guarantees that protect "freedom of the press".Passing any kind of legislation would probably be ruled unconstitutional. One can buy all kinds of sick shit novels here. As far as anyone knows, this guy has never touched a child. He is beyond the reach of the law.

[25]

Well, people should exercise their democratic rights and vote for a bill that outlaws any pedophile from engaging in this behaviour.

I don't want sound like I'm defending this guy, but in America, we have constitutional guarantees that protect "freedom of the press".Passing any kind of legislation would probably be ruled unconstitutional. One can buy all kinds of sick shit novels here. As far as anyone knows, this guy has never touched a child. He is beyond the reach of the law.

It should be legislated against as a privacy issue, rather than a freedom of speech/the press issue. Solves the problem, doesn't incur opposition from civil liberties groups, and doesn't effect the constitution. Seems the obvious route. Still, I think I'll start stockpiling William S. Burroughs' novels as a precautionary measure.

[stolat]

Well, people should exercise their democratic rights and vote for a bill that outlaws any pedophile from engaging in this behaviour.

I don't want sound like I'm defending this guy, but in America, we have constitutional guarantees that protect "freedom of the press".Passing any kind of legislation would probably be ruled unconstitutional. One can buy all kinds of sick shit novels here. As far as anyone knows, this guy has never touched a child. He is beyond the reach of the law.

It should be legislated against as a privacy issue, rather than a freedom of speech/the press issue. Solves the problem, doesn't incur opposition from civil liberties groups, and doesn't effect the constitution. Seems the obvious route. Still, I think I'll start stockpiling William S. Burroughs' novels as a precautionary measure.

Yes, in these circumstances it should not be seen as a freedom of speech issue. What do the majority think? Make it a human rights issue perhaps......

[Genesis]

All the parents should pool in their money, hire a hitman and have him shot. Then check his site's web logs, find where the hits are coming from and have all of them shot too. Then we can all sleep in peace. All this law-amendment bullshit takes too much time.

[stolat]

Why can't the guy be charged with soliciting? 

[GeorgeSteele]

I actually agree with you about freedom of speech.? I would defend anyone's right to talk about ideas, no matter how disgusting I might personally find them.? But in this case he might be encouraging pedophiles to commit crimes, or at least offering some assistance in finding victims.? I think there should be some restriction as to that kind of activity, especially where children are concerned.

I think where there's a problem with the private pictures thing is that the law states (I think) that if you are in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.? And it's not like he's making money off the pictures either.? I think the best bet is for people to look at what he's doing and say he's endangering the children by posting their pictures.?

That rationale was used back in the day to hunt down and prosecute communists.  Just by holding meetings, they were said to be inciting treason and endangering the state. 

I think the reaction has been perfect - let the world know what he's doing and now he'll fear for his life whenever he steps out the door.

[Jessica]

it is an extremely interesting issue to discuss though.? are there limits when it comes to freedom of speech?? If it becomes illegal to post pics of kids and talk (not do, but just talk) about them in sick ways and shit, would it ever become illegal to say bad things about the president or post photo shopped pics of Lieberman with his hand down Bush's pants....? Would a bands lyrics become "illegal" if they talked about violence or were extremely sexual or something??? when you give an inch, people will take a yard.

i hate to say it, because this guy is a bonafide asshole, but with freedom of speech its either all or nothing.? I love how the community is fighting back though.? this guy should be fearing for his life.? i'm sure there are people out there who would kill him or beat him severely now that they know who he is.

i do think the pictures are not public though, and if i can identify myself (or my kid) in a photo on your website you should, by law, have to take it down.

In france, it's illegal to badmouth the president, although a lot of comics do.
It's illegal to say the word " canabis" outloud, you can get pulled for it.

And in a way, i don't complain, because freedom of speech is one thing, but there should be limitations, some people should NOT have freedom, freedom is a strong word and some people have lost their right to freedom when they endangered the majority, aka the rest of the people.

I don't believe in the US type freedom of speech because it lets anyone come up with the sickiest shit i ever read, watched or heard.

[fuckin crazy]

I don't believe in the US type freedom of speech because it lets anyone come up with the sickiest shit i ever read, watched or heard.

Anything else is not freedom of speech. As long as one is not slandering someone, speech and ideals should be freely espressed ... no matter how repugnant.

[The Dog]

I don't believe in the US type freedom of speech because it lets anyone come up with the sickiest shit i ever read, watched or heard.

Anything else is not freedom of speech. As long as one is not slandering someone, speech and ideals should be freely espressed ... no matter how repugnant.

agreed.  who decides what "sick" is?  Larry Flynt or Jerry Falwell?

[stolat]

Sorry, this guy is using his freedom of speech to solicit. You can get arrested for that.

[25]

Sorry, this guy is using his freedom of speech to solicit. You can get arrested for that.

He isn't soliciting by any definition of the word. Unless you have your own definition that I'm not aware of.

[stolat]

Yes, he's putting up pictures of children and informing other paedophiles of the best palces to find children. If that aint soliciting........

[D]

Just when u think the planet can't get any weirder or worse.............

[stolat]

A good prosecutor should be able to make a case for soliciting, in Australia anyway........

I know Americas legal system is completely different to the one in Australia - I should have thought that Canada's would be similar to Australia's system.

I think prosecutors in America only get cases depending upon previous successes.

Needlessly, to say, this guy is obviously being watched very closely.