Facebook ordered to pull paedophile page

QuintonB

QuintonB

BusinessTech Staff
Moderator
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
72
Facebook pulls sex offender page

A Facebook page set up to monitor paedophiles has been removed after a judge in Northern Ireland ruled Friday that it risked infringing the human rights of a convicted sex offender.
 
Pooky said:
You should watch Louis Theroux' documentary "A Place for Paedophiles, and maybe try not to be so judgmental.
Click to expand...

I don't care about their daddy issues. You cross a line and there is no coming back from that.
 
Pooky said:
You should watch Louis Theroux' documentary "A Place for Paedophiles, and maybe try not to be so judgmental.
Click to expand...

Paedophilia is an inhuman act, performed my supposed humans. I'll remain judgmental in my absolute condemnation of the sick fcks thank you. I have read some of Theroux' utterings in the past. I find him to be a strange and disturbed character. In another age he would have been put away.
 
The full documentary is on YouTube if anyone is interested:

[video=youtube;IEt3-kuVl5Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEt3-kuVl5Y[/video]
 
atomcrusher said:
:confused: Paedophiles should not be entitled to human rights
Click to expand...

As much as I despise paedophiles myself, which I feel needs to be said before some jump to conclusions about defending them, are you not perhaps missing the point? A Facebook page is usually driven by the public. What is to stop me sticking a picture of you up there and claiming you are a paedophile? And even if someone were convicted of paedophilia, is it right to allow the public to harass them? Does this not amount to vigilantism? Allow the courts to do their job and not allow the public to decide the punishment.
 
ClintZA said:
As much as I despise paedophiles myself, which I feel needs to be said before some jump to conclusions about defending them, are you not perhaps missing the point? A Facebook page is usually driven by the public. What is to stop me sticking a picture of you up there and claiming you are a paedophile? And even if someone were convicted of paedophilia, is it right to allow the public to harass them? Does this not amount to vigilantism? Allow the courts to do their job and not allow the public to decide the punishment.
Click to expand...

Well said, completely agree.
 
ClintZA said:
As much as I despise paedophiles myself, which I feel needs to be said before some jump to conclusions about defending them, are you not perhaps missing the point? A Facebook page is usually driven by the public. What is to stop me sticking a picture of you up there and claiming you are a paedophile? And even if someone were convicted of paedophilia, is it right to allow the public to harass them? Does this not amount to vigilantism? Allow the courts to do their job and not allow the public to decide the punishment.
Click to expand...
You make valid points. And sense. I agree, albeit reluctantly, that due processes of law should be followed, but once a paedophile (or a rapist or murderer for that matter) has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a competent court, then they should be put to death.
I am a supporter of capital punishment, but I accept that there are many people who object to capital punishment would be concerned about the slight possibility of a wrongful conviction. My stance is that those who commit inhuman acts should be denied the right to exist as humans.
 
atomcrusher said:
You make valid points. And sense. I agree, albeit reluctantly, that due processes of law should be followed, but once a paedophile (or a rapist or murderer for that matter) has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a competent court, then they should be put to death.
I am a supporter of capital punishment, but I accept that there are many people who object to capital punishment would be concerned about the slight possibility of a wrongful conviction. My stance is that those who commit inhuman acts should be denied the right to exist as humans.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of your definition of 'human' acts. Personally, I am totally against the death penalty. I believe it's absolutely disgusting that anyone should be allowed to decide whether another human lives or dies. It's not even a matter of a wrongful conviction. As much as one might hate someone, I don't see any way to justify killing them in the name of justice.
 
Pooky said:
I'm not sure of your definition of 'human' acts. Personally, I am totally against the death penalty. I believe it's absolutely disgusting that anyone should be allowed to decide whether another human lives or dies. It's not even a matter of a wrongful conviction. As much as one might hate someone, I don't see any way to justify killing them in the name of justice.
Click to expand...

I used the word INhuman acts, and I could loosely define 'inhuman' as not acting in a civilised manner towards fellow humans. Of course that raises the question "what is civilised?". Well, although I am an agnostic in terms of a supreme being actually existing, the expression "do unto others as you will have others do unto you" pretty much defines my views on what is a 'human' act, and what is an "inhuman" act.

So I believe that it is an inhuman act to take the life (or rape / torture) of a fellow human, but those who commit inhuman acts (by my definition) deserve to be punished in an inhuman manner, as in capital punishment.

By my own layman's definition of human / inhuman, I guess have been guilty of inhuman acts, during the years I spent in an army to the north of SA, but in a case of "me" or "them" I chose them. And I don't lose sleep over it.
 
atomcrusher said:
but once a paedophile (or a rapist or murderer for that matter) has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a competent court, then they should be put to death.

My stance is that those who commit inhuman acts should be denied the right to exist as humans.
Click to expand...

I do hope you realize that a boy of 18 can be legally found guilty of paedophillia if he sleeps with his girlfriend of 17 years and 9 months.
In your law he also needs to be put to death! Where do you draw the line then?
 
CommonSense said:
I do hope you realize that a boy of 18 can be legally found guilty of paedophillia if he sleeps with his girlfriend of 17 years and 9 months.
In your law he also needs to be put to death! Where do you draw the line then?
Click to expand...

Age of consent in SA is 16
 
Dion Disco said:
Age of consent in SA is 16
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what is they made an video of their encounter? Anything under age of 18 is considered child abuse. (Yes, the law is quite strange on this one. age of consent is 16, but they may not take any photos or videos.)

Or you can simply adjust the ages down appropriately to fit the circumstances.
 
CommonSense said:
I do hope you realize that a boy of 18 can be legally found guilty of paedophillia if he sleeps with his girlfriend of 17 years and 9 months.
In your law he also needs to be put to death! Where do you draw the line then?
Click to expand...

I was going to make this comment early but then did a little reading and it seems the area is very grey. There is the proper/clinical definition of paedophilia (an adult over 18 who derives sexual pleasure from prepubescent kids - or something along those lines) and then the one many law enforcement agencies, and seemingly the public, consider as paedophilia (an adult having sex with someone under the age of consent). But even then the latte is often regarded as statutory rape as far as I am aware.

Bottom line is that this grey area makes a Facebook page like that even more worrying. Many could well label someone as a paedophile even in circumstances where they do not match the clinical definition of one.
 
ClintZA said:
I was going to make this comment early but then did a little reading and it seems the area is very grey. There is the proper/clinical definition of paedophilia (an adult over 18 who derives sexual pleasure from prepubescent kids - or something along those lines) and then the one many law enforcement agencies, and seemingly the public, consider as paedophilia (an adult having sex with someone under the age of consent). But even then the latte is often regarded as statutory rape as far as I am aware.

Bottom line is that this grey area makes a Facebook page like that even more worrying. Many could well label someone as a paedophile even in circumstances where they do not match the clinical definition of one.
Click to expand...

ClintZA. I agreed wholeheartedly with you. It is a very grey area indeed. But even so, there have been calls for the death penalty for any sexual offense, so even in such a case where two young people are experimenting with their sexuality and the is deemed underage, then calling for the other person's death just because they can be considered 'adults' is ludicrous.

In any case, paedophiles have a mental illness, and some forumites calling for the death penalty for people with a mental illness is a bit harsh in my view. Lock them up for life then if they can't be rehabilitated. It isn't a life choice they made. They really can't help who they are attracted to and they honestly don't think they are doing harm. So if one takes the reasoning a bit further, then anyone with a mental illness should receive the death penalty if they act in a way which is abhorrent to society's norms?

I wish people would take the emotion out of these debates. If you put emotion into any crime, then some would even want the death penalty for being 'mentally violated' during a break-in in their house. Again, where do you draw the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X