Raped teenager commits suicide after rapist only gets 31 days jail

[PosthumanHeresy]

Well, all I see is Sigma defending a rape apologist.

Nobody is defending anybody. The forum administrator is enforcing the forum rules.

It's been made clear that if a troll is fun, the rules can be bent to keep them around for laughs. Therefore, logically, if the rules can be bent for fun, they can be bent for pissing off a rape apologist.

[dpareja]

Well, all I see is Sigma defending a rape apologist.

Nobody is defending anybody. The forum administrator is enforcing the forum rules.

It's been made clear that if a troll is fun, the rules can be bent to keep them around for laughs. Therefore, logically, if the rules can be bent for fun, they can be bent for pissing off a rape apologist.

Trolls, from what I've noticed, are typically not posting things that fall under the "Serious Stuff" category in the rules.

Edited to add the best statement on following forum rules I have ever read (and which I have posted here before, when this same issue came up):

This board has certain rules. By forming an account here, you are agreeing to these rules and terms. Attempts to violate these rules, no matter what cloak of free speech and liberalism one attaches to it, is disrespectful, rude, foolish, and must not be tolerated. I do not agree with every rule on this board, but I follow it. That's because I'm an adult. If there's something you don't agree with or a rule you don't wish to follow, do it in literally the 99% of other venues that allow you do it online.

[Feral Dog]

Well, all I see is Sigma defending a rape apologist.

Nobody is defending anybody. The forum administrator is enforcing the forum rules.

It's been made clear that if a troll is fun, the rules can be bent to keep them around for laughs. Therefore, logically, if the rules can be bent for fun, they can be bent for pissing off a rape apologist.

Messing with a troll on the forum is not the same as using the forum to harass someone in real life (no matter how much they deserve it).

[Jack Mann]

If we saw someone spreading the contact information for, say, a doctor who performs abortion on a pro-life forum, we'd call them complete assholes undeserving of sympathy.

Even if this guy is a first class asshole, that doesn't mean we need to sink to that level.

On a more practical note, if Sigma left the number up on the forum, it's possible he could be taken the court over the ensuing harassment as an accessory.  I wouldn't want to risk that either.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, all I see is Sigma defending a rape apologist.

Nobody is defending anybody. The forum administrator is enforcing the forum rules.

It's been made clear that if a troll is fun, the rules can be bent to keep them around for laughs. Therefore, logically, if the rules can be bent for fun, they can be bent for pissing off a rape apologist.

Messing with a troll on the forum is not the same as using the forum to harass someone in real life (no matter how much they deserve it).

That, and should anything illegal come of it, it can land the boards in general as well as Sigma himself in rather hot water. Bother the idiot on your own time if you must, but don't try to involve the rest of the forum.

Jack Mann beat me to it, it would seem.

[Lithp]

I'm still not seeing any rule that was broken, except for frequent citations to the incorrect statement that private, personal information was posted.

If we saw someone spreading the contact information for, say, a doctor who performs abortion on a pro-life forum, we'd call them complete assholes undeserving of sympathy.

If the contact information was public, for use as a public service--IE the number for the clinic rather than his home number--then no, I wouldn't. And even if I did, it wouldn't be for posting the number. Thanks for trying, but I think it would be best if I spoke for myself from now on.

That, and should anything illegal come of it, it can land the boards in general as well as Sigma himself in rather hot water.

I think this kind of reasoning is rather sad. If we're that paranoid, then why don't we stop openly criticizing people at all? At any moment, someone could be "inspired" to cross the line into illegal, harassing behavior.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Exactly. It's public information. Spreading public information is not a crime.

[Lithp]

I will say, I don't think that "defending a rape apologist" was very fair. It is technically true, but I don't believe Sigma fits the spirit of the phrase.

[wrightway]

Well, all I see is Sigma defending a rape apologist.

Nobody is defending anybody. The forum administrator is enforcing the forum rules.

So much this. Can we give the poor guy at least six months before we have a lynch mob ready to chase yet another admin screaming into the night?

[dpareja]

Exactly. It's public information. Spreading public information is not a crime.

Doesn't matter. Even if you're innocent, the costs of fighting a lawsuit in court can ruin you. Better to avoid the possibility.

[Witchyjoshy]

Exactly. It's public information. Spreading public information is not a crime.

Irrelevant.  Doxxing is doxxing, harassment is harassment, and if it were a pro-choice doctor's office information being posted on a pro-life website with the phrase "you know what to do", you would be calling it out, so don't fucking start with me you hypocrite, because you people are reminding me of the fucking far-right with how bloodthirsty you get.

Believe it or not, people are expected to have standards and act like adults.  Two wrongs do not make a right, no matter how much you whine about "justice".

[Lithp]

Doxxing is doxxing, harassment is harassment

I have not seen a single definition of doxxing that includes a public official's office contact number. The harassment claim is also dubious. You'd have a better case that we "cyber harass" Vox Day, or Cathy Brennan.

As someone said on HRG, would it be doxxing if we posted the number for the white house?

And the lawsuit reasoning is really hard to swallow, especially when you consider that this guy is already being reamed for his comments. You really think he's going to single out & sue every single group mentioned by an angry protestor calling him on his shit?

Edit: Also, I'm interested in hearing what Sigma has to say, but until then, if people are going to keep baselessly asserting that someone was doxxed, I'm going to keep saying that they are wrong.

[dpareja]

Let's say an exception is made this time.

Nothing comes of it.

Next time this comes up, the case is made that it's not much different than this, and an exception is made again.

Repeat, and repeat, and repeat.

Eventually the range of allowed exceptions to the rule is broad enough that the rule might as well not be there, and then someone's personal information is posted, and that person does sue.

Better to keep a blanket ban.

(Incidentally, the last time this came up was over an address from a URL ownership report being posted.)

[Lithp]

That's the slippery slope argument! And there's no exception because there was no doxxing. By your logic, we shouldn't be able to mention the existence of people outside of the forum, because "something might come of it," whatever that means.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Exactly. I don't like doxxing. I don't remember what thread, but there was a real example of doxxing, where someone's entire internet life was stalked down, including their mother, and that was disgusting. This is not doxxing. In fact, I can 100% prove to you this isn't illegal and Sigma CANNOT be sued. How? Change.org exists. They use the same information to send petitions all the time.

Exactly. It's public information. Spreading public information is not a crime.

Irrelevant.  Doxxing is doxxing, harassment is harassment, and if it were a pro-choice doctor's office information being posted on a pro-life website with the phrase "you know what to do", you would be calling it out, so don't fucking start with me you hypocrite, because you people are reminding me of the fucking far-right with how bloodthirsty you get.

Believe it or not, people are expected to have standards and act like adults.  Two wrongs do not make a right, no matter how much you whine about "justice".

This isn't two wrongs. This is non-violent protest. You're starting to remind me of the far-right when you call non-violent protest a wrong. That sounds like the kind of thing they would say: that we can't protest due to some sort of stability of the state bullshit.