Slashdot Mirror
Teen Suicide Tormentor Outed By Anonymous
MightyMartian writes "From the CBC: 'The tragic story of B.C. teen suicide victim Amanda Todd has taken another bizarre twist as the internet hacking and activist group Anonymous has named a man the group says was the girl's primary tormentor. Todd, 15, of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, died last Wednesday, a month after posting a haunting video on YouTube that cited the sexualized attack that set her down a path of anxiety, depression and drug and alcohol abuse.' This raises a whole nest of issues surrounding the presumption of innocence and vigilantism. Should the police and the courts be given the appropriate amount of time to determine if there is sufficient evidence, or if a crime has in fact been committed, or is Anonymous right in short-circuiting what might in fact be a lengthy process with no guarantee that anyone will face charges?"
If you're going to try to punish someone for a crime (and make no mistake, naming the man is meant to be a punishment), you'd better make damn sure you get the right person.
For all the problems of the legal system, it is decent at that -- far from perfect, but probably better than some random anonymice.
You forgot to blame Hitler, comic books, rock and roll, D&D, and video games.
Excuse me? Since when has religion had much to do with morality? It's about peer influence. The change here is the perceived anonymity of the internet. The belief the is not god has been around long before then belief in any god. I don't know what your quip about Atheism is based on.
Atheism leads to this.
I'm pretty sure you don't need to believe in God to consider rape and murder unethical, immoral, and just wrong. In fact, plenty of people have pointed out (repeatedly) the fallacy of assuming that one needs God and/or religion to be good, so there is no reason to say more on that topic here. Go forth and Google.
The culture of consent and contraception, leads to this.
I'm not sure what the "culture of contraception" is, but I am pretty sure it does not lead to this kind of behavior, either. In fact, I strongly suspect this behavior - in general, minus the Internet - predates the widespread availability of contraception.
"No sane man will dance." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
If Anonymous has material evidence that points to the guilt of a particular individual, they should turn that evidence over to the responsible law enforcement agency, not go public and taint both the investigation and public opinion. The detectives may have had the opportunity to seize evidence before the person knew he was under suspicion, or set up a sting operation. They'd also have the chance to clear the individual if he's innocent without the mess of threats of violence I presume this guy is now going to get.
Presuming this person is eventually charged and tried, Anonymous releasing this information can complicate the job of the prosecutor, having the opposite effect intended.
On the other hand, if this person is innocent, Anonymous just released a shitstorm on this poor guy that's going to be nearly impossible to get rid of until the police charge someone else.
I don't see any situations where Anonymous' action result in a more positive outcome than would have come about through other choices.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
Is this serious? Is someone on /. really wondering if it is better to let the police and the judiciary sytem decide if someone committed a crime and who it was, or just let anonymous (!) people do justice on their own?
Are people really nostalgic of the good old days of lynching etc.?
What Anonymous is doing is called revenge. Revenge is not justice.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
I'd take the partially opposing perspective that Christianity and moralism are responsible for making it so that a) it's somehow "evil" to see someone's breasts, b) if a girl shows her breasts, she is a slut and a whore and should be ashamed of herself and do whatever it takes to have no one find out about it, c) if someone has a naked picture of you, they have some sort of power over you, because boobies are evil and we all should be ashamed of our beautiful bodies.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
This is rape and murder. Maybe not by society's definition. Maybe not by the liberalized culture that thinks tricking a 14 year old into baring her breasts on the internet is just good clean fun. Or that consent is always equivalent to permission. So as much as I consider what anonymous has done to be vigilantism; one cannot say that this man, or the teenage boy, or any of the rest of this poor girl's tormentors are innocent.
It's all tied together. Society's rejection of morality and ethics leads to this. Atheism leads to this. The culture of consent and contraception, leads to this. The only thing left to do is learn from it instead of repeating the same mistakes as the hippie generation.
Emphasis mine... you were doing so well up until this point. Straw man fallacy. Atheism does not lead to this. Amorality leads to this. It is 100% possible to be an atheist with morals. In fact, I can list thousands of amoral things organized religion has done to the world. (Inquisition, Jihad, etc.) Your argument is bullshit.
Consent and contraception leads to healthy, happy relationships without unwanted children to screw things up. Those allow you to adequately plan for your child's future, save up for their lives, and be prepared for when they actually arrive. With consent and contraception, you have the opportunity to provide a better, properly planned life instead of one that leads to divorce, single-parent homes and priests molesting children. (See? I can straw-man too!)
Remember: Treat your religion like your penis. Don't whip it out every chance you get, and please don't jam it down my throat. Because that would be gay. And we all know what you extremist religious types feel about gayness.
The anonymous dox might have the WRONG address
http://www.cknw.com/news/vancouver/story.aspx?ID=1791555
there's the danger
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
So if Anonymous makes a mistake and outs the wrong person and that person becomes harassed by the public backlash to the point of committing suicide... Will Anonymous out their outer?
I'm pretty sure you don't need to believe in God to consider rape and murder unethical, immoral, and just wrong.
Pretty much. If fear of God is all that keep you you from doing bad things then you are not a good person.
More generally, I'm also perplexed by the social double-standard where men who have (had) multiple sex-partners (or are sexually aggressive, for lack of a better word) are "studs", but women are "sluts".
Women call women who sleep around sluts. Men just call them.
"His name was James Damore."
No... because without his invisible man in the sky, he would have no morals.
That kind of person scares me. What happens if they ever lose their faith? They'll turn into raping, murdering lunatics since God was the only thing keeping them decent.
"Anything done out of fear has no moral value"