Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.


Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Free Speech Versus Cyber Bullying Law: The Roast Busters (Rapists).



First let’s get the language right. They’re not Roast Busters, they’re Rapists.

For my overseas readers, the Rapists are a thuggery of boys who target and rape underage girls whom they entice under the influence of alcohol, followed by naming and shaming them on Facebook. One of the girls involved has reportedly tried to commit suicide.

Regarding if calling these miscreants rapists is any sort of slander or libel, I am simply attributing the dictionary definition they ascribe themselves through their bragging of having sex with intoxicated, underage girls. How is that anything but rape? Because sex without consent is rape: it doesn't matter what a woman, or worse, a girl, wears, or if she is intoxicated. In a civilised, free society a woman can expect by right to not fear rape no matter her state. Just as men can expect to be victim of no violence.  The further fact these Rapists are deliberately targeting children is magnitudes worse: a child can't give consent, ever.

The Rapists have been used as an example by the Fortress of Legislation for why we need a Cyber Bullying Bill enacted; the debate on same starting today. But to those who believe the Rapists make this law necessary, I say the opposite.

These rapists were operating for two years, with the police knowing of their existence, but unable to act as no complaints were laid by their victims. Proving how our current system of social democracy is broken, despite a government department can take over a third of my income and raid me without warrant, despite police can jail me for smoking a non-toxic plant that harms no one, despite police can imprison my loved ones for aiding me die with dignity, that same state cannot prosecute and punish these rapists for openly confessing their rapes on social media. For two years police have done nothing, allowing these rapists their campaign of rape unhindered. And as far as the initiation of force goes, there is little worse than rape.

So thank goodness for free speech.

Within a week of this Thuggery of Rapists’ Facebook page making the news, after two years of raping, their activities will almost certainly end in the face of public pressure and opprobrium. One rapist has lost his job outright, a further may follow, but worse for them, is they will find they are now marked, and probably unemployable, for life. They have closed already all the doors through life that should have been open to them. More ominously, and a sad portent for where our society is heading, there is a groundswell of vigilantism headed their way, already a group of fathers set up to deal out its own justice.

So these young miscreant rapists have brought chaos and ruination on themselves, and there will be few tears shed for them. More importantly, thanks to free speech, their rapes will now stop. Free speech includes hate speech and bullying, but is importantly the mechanism by which rapists such as these are given the rope that ultimately their future pursuit of happiness will have its oxygen snuffed out with. Though some will learn slowly, such this idiot – look at his tweets even today. The only shame in the piece is that we taxpayers are probably going to have to support them until they take their useless, violent lives to their graves.


Update 1:

In the comments below Nic states that my argument this is a free speech issue, amongst other things, is incorrect, and goes on to say:

Obviously you don't have the foggiest idea what a court process entails. Their 'confession' on-line is nothing more than evidence. This has some importance, its possible some members (you said there are approximately 10 of them, but the people involved is far from clear) of this group were simply boasting on-line and actually had little connection to the offences of the rest of the group. Obviously if they can show this then their on-line confession is pretty meaningless. That's why the courts use a standard of innocent until proven guilty. But you have repeatedly treated them as guilty, its not a standard you have actually applied at all.

My reply was as follows:

 The police have stated, according to a Guardian piece I’ve just read, the young girls are too intimidated, in many instances, to put in complaints - these girls are minors. More than one has felt suicidal since. This is ugly stuff, Nic. With the rapists' admission of their crimes, and the fact of intimidation, I’m perfectly happy for the police to prosecute using the evidence of photos, etc, on the rapists Facebook page. If they are found guilty then all content should be taken down. While being charged that page should be taken down.

When someone is murdered, they are not around to make a complaint either: prosecution is on the evidence. I couldn’t care less how the law ‘actually’ works, because in this instance it doesn’t. Vis a vis the non-initiation of force principle, I’m happy there is enough factual evidence, provided by the men themselves, to prosecute. Again, as the girls are minors, hence also their feelings of intimidation and fear, they should not have to make official complaints – they are children: statements could be used as evidence still.

Regarding Cyber Bullying legislation, the trouble is who decides what is bullying, and how do you define it? To some bullying is merely being offended. I could call your bad-faith, obsessive posting like this bullying in some contexts surely? Once you start down this road, then pretty soon you’ll have legislated away some of the most important tenets of free speech in total.

The article I was referring to in my first paragraph was written by a prominent NZ feminist: she also states that Cyber Bullying Legislation here is not the answer. The answer to this sorry mess lies in the terminology: rape culture. That second bit: culture. It's the culture that has to change. The link to that article is here (obviously I’m not on all fours with her solutions, but it’s a good piece regardless):

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/06/roast-busters-we-cant-let-such-facebook-groups-thrive

Update 2:

Not wholly linked to my post, but this story gets worse. Initially, police have been saying since the Rapists site came to light that they couldn't try for prosecution because none of the (minor - children) victims complained.

Then yesterday after TV3 news aired an interview with a girl who complained two years ago when she was 13 years old, police admitted there had been one complaint. Worse, the police treatment of this young girl was appalling: enforcing rape culture from the highest level.

And then this morning police are now further admitting there were four complaints laid.

When the story originally broke I dismissed claims the Rapists were treated lightly by police because it has also subsequently come to light one of the rapists was a the son of a policeman. Now, I have very little faith left in the police anymore, and certainly their investigative technique. Ironically, I've written on this before when I was decrying the other side of this issue, being the call from some neo-Marxist feminists that woman making false rape complaints shouldn't be prosecuted. Unfortunately police ineptness on this scale - giving them the benefit of the doubt - would lend some seeming credence to that demand: although, of course, it doesn't either. To adopt the stance of not prosecuting false claims is to give away the rule of law completely. We all ultimately lose.

What an appalling mess. On the face of it heads should roll in the police, but I guess we all now wait for the result of an independent police authority inquiry.

One thing is certain though: it was the ability of the Rapists to post, uncensored, on Facebook - free, unfettered speech - that has stopped their activities, and I suspect will finally bring them to justice.

And this must be the final impetus for the police to get themselves up to speed on a hideous rape culture that runs deep in the West, because in the interviews of the girls concerned, they've been perpetrating that culture, not defending these victims from it.


Update 3:

Per comments following, as an advocate of the voluntary society, laissez faire, and therefore contract, the quickest route to having the associated Facebook pages down must be by contravention of Facebook's terms and conditions. How can these pages not be in breach of same?

Also, to reiterate, of course I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Again, I call these creatures rapists because that is the definition they give of themselves. Outside of that I believe if the interview of the 13 year old girl had not be reinforcing rape culture - asking this girl what she was wearing (that is immaterial) - then the police concerned would have got to the right conclusion: to prosecute on the evidence.  
 .

43 comments:

  1. This is very confusing Mark, you appear to be advocating the prosecution of this group based on their face-book posts (without complaint). It would appear that a system which scrutinises social media looking for criminal actions is behaving quite similarly to a police state (am I wrong?), and if it prosecutes more so.

    Its pretty clear that the police are holding back on further action before a complaint is laid (which is the issue in relation to how police should function in a social democracy) and its pretty clear that the police are acting as we would expect they should in a social democracy. Somehow you conclude instead that this is not working (meaning what, what did you expect to happen in a working system?). The fact there are police in a social democracy doesn't prevent criminal activity happening, and doesn't imply that all criminals are investigated and prosecuted. The under-reaching of the police in this instance doesn't say anything about which mechanisms of investigation the police can be trusted with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right on some of your points Nic: I'm not always consistent. Per my stance on animal welfare.

      That said, everything I've written above stands.

      These rapists put their exploits up on a Facebook page: if a member of the public reports that page to police it is right and proper. A libertarian minarchy is founded on the rule of law which polices the non-initiation of force, and what they said they were doing is the initiation of force in one of the worst manners. That scenario regarding police is a completely different matter to IRD scouring social media for 'my' income, because the state taking my income *is* the initiation of force.

      Further, these rapists admitted rape. Surely a justice system is thus obliged to take them at face value?

      And before your pedantry leads to the next logical juncture, my use of the word 'sadly' above means I in no way condone the vigilante group: that, also, is an initiation of force, and thus criminal behaviour.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and of course, you've completely, deliberately, missed the point of my post which is it is free, uncensored speech which has stopped this group of up to ten rapists raping underage girls. The Cyber Bullying law would drive this 'underground' so they could have carried on their activities.

      Delete
    3. A cyber bullying law would drive their activities under ground, why? They *appear* to be violating plenty of existing and more serious laws and admitting so openly. Their admission is however only on social media sites, its foolish to consider this as equivalent to a confession. Its evidence, which might be used in a trial, but not more.

      This is not a free speech issue, if the police prosecute somebody who confesses they prosecute him for what he did, not that he confessed doing it. Cyber bullying is not a free speech issue either, you would not be prosecuted for libel because of what you say, but for who you say it about (and that its lies and malicious).

      Your argument is just silly, "These rapists put their exploits up on a Facebook page: if a member of the public reports that page to police it is right and proper.". If the police proceeded on this basis then the case would collapse on reaching court, as members of the public reporting on face-book pages don't have standing. No, the justice system is not obliged to take them at face value without a complaint, or even with one for stuff posted on face-book.

      You appear to be quite keen on an alternative to the justice system, trial by media, but its more than clear to anybody who thinks about this system that its exactly what leads to mob justice. Because there is a significant stigma attached to rape victims media attention is probably also discouraging the complaint which can allow the police to take further action.

      Delete
    4. It most certainly is a free speech issue by dint of the fact National are using it as an example of why we need laws to regulate what people say on the Internet.

      And yes, a confession online is certainly evidence of a crime committed. We are allowed to take people at their word.

      Delete
    5. Your attempt to dress this as a free speech issue is risible. To hold this position consistently you would need to say there can be no valid libel laws, everybody should be fully entitled to lie and slander others with no restrictions. Otherwise this is just an arbitrary distinction between intent to harm in the case of libel (usually economic harm), or intent to harm in this case socially (and possibly these guys do it because it influences their victims not to speak out).

      I don't want the police to prosecute people without a complaint being lodged. The reason is that it leads to all kinds of travesty. I heard recently of a case of a school being approached by parents over a transvestite student who was 'interfering' with other high school students. This was reported in the media along those lines, only turns out that the group of nuts reporting this had their own definition of 'interfering'. The definition was similar to 'using the same changing rooms'. She didn't do anything wrong and was supported by other students, but a small group of parents wanted to cause her grief. Requiring a complainant is a good aspect of the prosecution system, and I think the police actions were quite justified in this case.

      Delete
    6. It most certainly is a free speech issue by dint of the fact National are using it as an example of why we need laws to regulate what people say on the Internet.

      Note the heading of my post Nic.

      I have a lot of sympathy with your second paragraph. Although the transvestite example you give is very different on the facts. In this case a group of boys are saying on their Facebook page they are getting underage girls intoxicated, having (non-consensual therefore) sex with them, then shaming them online. The fact they are posting photos, one of those girls has tried to commit suicide, means there most certainly, on the facts, is a case to answer here, in my opinion.

      Please don't turn this thread into a discussion of what constitutes consensual sex: that would be monstrous in the circumstances.

      Delete
    7. Just because you say its free speech vs cyber bullying that doesn't make it so. And its not, definitely not in the real world or even in pseudo-libertarian philosophy unless you repudiate libel at the same time (because this is so similar to libel).

      As far as anybody knows these guys did a lot of what they are boasting about. But as far as I can tell you are advocating a fairly basic travesty of justice. They are actually innocent until proven guilty, a plea of guilty in court would suffice, but clearly not a post of face-book. The reason we require a complaint is simple enough as well, because it stops malicious prosecutions to some extent. Its possible that this makes it to court and the defendant makes an argument for why this is the case regardless of what they said on-line.

      I think its also worth considering what the likely motivation is for their engaging in bullying. Its probable this bullying attempts to keep the victims from speaking up. It would also be easier for friends or family of a victim to offer support if they can have some embarrassing material removed. You will be protecting these guys ability to do this, over the victims right not to be harassed in this way, by protecting this on-line behaviour.

      Your post claims that they have stopped because of a media shaming, but I would not be so sanguine that this shaming has stopped them at all. They certainly don't express shame at the notoriety. While the media attention could well be discouraging victims to talk to the authorities. That would not be a positive development at all.

      Delete
    8. It most certainly is a free speech issue by dint of the fact National are using it as an example of why we need laws to regulate what people say on the Internet.

      Yes, they are innocent until proven guilty. Online they have confessed to violent crimes.

      I've said my piece.

      Delete
    9. You will be protecting these guys ability to do this, over the victims right not to be harassed in this way, by protecting this on-line behaviour.

      Fair point. The reverse argument is government creep. Legislation in this area leading to full hate speech laws etc.

      Delete
    10. Government creep is a product of which laws the government is allowed to enact by the populace. One piece of legislation does not justify another must (or must not) follow they all should stand or fall on their own merits. If this is the argument against this law it fails as there is no need to enact any hate speech laws just because you have enacted a cyber bullying law.

      "Yes, they are innocent until proven guilty. Online they have confessed to violent crimes."

      Obviously you don't have the foggiest idea what a court process entails. Their 'confession' on-line is nothing more than evidence. This has some importance, its possible some members (you said there are approximately 10 of them, but the people involved is far from clear) of this group were simply boasting on-line and actually had little connection to the offences of the rest of the group. Obviously if they can show this then their on-line confession is pretty meaningless. That's why the courts use a standard of innocent until proven guilty. But you have repeatedly treated them as guilty, its not a standard you have actually applied at all.

      Delete
    11. The police have stated, according to a Guardian piece I’ve just read, the young girls are too intimidated, in many instances, to put in complaints - these girls are minors. More than one has felt suicidal since. This is ugly stuff, Nic. With the rapists admission of their crimes, and the fact of intimidation, I’m perfectly happy for the police to prosecute using the evidence of photos, etc, on the rapists Facebook page. If they are found guilty then all content should be taken down. While being charged that page should be taken down.

      When someone is murdered, they are not around to make a complaint either: prosecution is on the evidence. I couldn’t care less how the law ‘actually’ works, because in this instance it doesn’t. Vis a vis the non-initiation of force principle, I’m happy there is enough factual evidence, provided by the men themselves, to prosecute. Again, as the girls are minors, hence also their feelings of intimidation and fear, they should not have to make official complaints – they are children: statements could be used as evidence still.

      Regarding Cyber Bullying legislation, the trouble is who, and how do you define it? To some bullying is merely being offended. I could call your bad-faith, obsessive posting like this bullying in some contexts surely? Once you start down this road, then pretty soon you’ll have legislated away some of the most important tenets of free speech in total.

      The article I was referring to in my first paragraph was written by a prominent NZ feminist: she also states that Cyber Bullying Legislation here is not the answer. The link to that article is here (obviously I’m not on all fours with her solutions, but it’s a good piece regardless):

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/06/roast-busters-we-cant-let-such-facebook-groups-thrive

      Delete
    12. So who complained to the police about that individual buying drugs on the Silk Road web site Nic? I'm going to guess no one.

      The police are already monitoring social media and prosecuting cases at their convenience. That should be a problem in the eyes of anyone who wants to live in a nation of laws rather than a nation of police whims.

      We already have laws to deal with publishing lies about people or harassing people. Adding "on the internet" doesn't magically change the nature of actions. If this government really cared about reducing bullying, they wouldn't role model bullying as the "go-to" solution every time someone disagrees with them.

      Delete
    13. Love your last sentence Katie.

      Delete
    14. @Mark, The author of the guardian article is not against the cyber bullying legislation.

      "In an attempted remedy to these increasingly common situations, the New Zealand Government is working on a harmful digital communications bill. If passed, it will make groups like the Roast Busters much easier to shut down. While this is a positive step, the issue here is not just one of legal technicality, it’s one of social responsibility and ethical bystanding."

      Still not a free speech issue, nobody is being prosecuted for what they said, but what they *apparently* did.

      "I could call your bad-faith, obsessive posting like this bullying in some contexts surely?"

      You could, that doesn't mean anybody has to agree and the police might question why you are bringing a complaint to them rather than deleting the *harmful* comments from your own blog post. They might also question the purported harmful nature of the comments in this case. I suspect it wouldn't be a legal context, is what I am saying.

      @Katie Daze, Can you show me one specific case where the only evidence is social media without a complaint? That is exactly what Mark argued should happen in this case, btw... That's what I was complaining about, he thinks in this case the police should have acted already without compelling enough evidence (this is what the police say about the evidence they have).

      Delete
    15. It's a free speech issue because National is running through Cyber Bullying legislation citing these rapists as an example.

      As I said, despite your constant need to divert and sidetrack from my topic: with Cyber Bullying legislation, the trouble is who, and how do you define it? To some bullying is merely being offended. I could call your bad-faith, obsessive posting like this bullying in some contexts surely? Once you start down this road, then pretty soon you’ll have legislated away some of the most important tenets of free speech in total.

      Finally, this case itself has now reached another level. Despite police saying they could not prosecute because no complaints were laid, TV3 news tonight reported a 13 year old laid a rape complaint against the group two years ago. The police at the time handled her case appallingly, supporting rape culture rather than acknowledging it. By all accounts, the police concerned will now be subject to inquiry.

      Go to work Nic. I'm getting some sleep.

      Delete
    16. If you are still arguing this ridiculous free speech line, e.g your original post was not pure ideological soap boxing, then why would it be appropriate to take face-book material down after a prosecution?

      "If they are found guilty then all content should be taken down. While being charged that page should be taken down."

      The material should be taken down because its offensive to the victims (it has been taken down, which is appropriate), its offensive now, its still offensive during and after a trial.

      Your argument hangs on the perpetrators some how being discouraged from *apparent* self incrimination, by a cyber bullying law. Its ridiculous to think that these guys would be discouraged from posting by a new law, they were not discouraged from doing so by existing much more serious laws. They were also not discouraged from posting by face-books content policy which they violated.

      I see you have already drawn your conclusions on the police inquiry. I think that if you actually hold a principal, such as assuming innocence until guilt is proved, then you hold it for the worst cases. Not just the cases you like. A similar standard is applied by Mr Matthew Hooton, who has used this as some kind of vendetta against radio live hosts. He holds that Clint Rickards (twice acquitted) is guilty regardless. This obviously does no good to any of the victims in this case, which is why its disgusting. The media attention could easily prejudice a trial, its extremely unhealthy for judicial process, and people should really behave more responsibly and not use this as an excuse for vendettas and politicking.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11153170

      Delete
    17. My comments regarding cyber bullying legislation stands: what constitutes bullying, or hate speech? Being offended? ... That line always leads to legislating away free speech. That does not change principle if force has been initiated here, a crime committed, then pages should be taken down.

      Regarding your fourth paragraph, yes, these rapists most probably wouldn't have been discouraged by cyber bullying legislation, I agree: all the more reason for why it isn't needed.

      I certainly hold with innocent until proven guilty, one of my most popular posts is on just that:

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/scott-guy-trial-and-privacy-society-on.html

      But in this case:

      a) I believe the culprits have confessed online.

      b) There is now 1 bone fide complaint plus 3 children whose parents don't want them going through the legal process as the trauma has already put their futures in jeopardy. I don't think minors should have to be put through this. As with a murder enquiry, given the online confessions, there would appear to be enough evidence to take to trial, including notified statements from these girls.

      c) I am calling the perpetrators rapists here, per third paragraph of my header post, because that is the dictionary definition of what they call themselves: they brag they get minors intoxicated, then have sex with them with more than one perpetrator involved: that is the definition of a gang rape.

      Delete
    18. Incidentally, there is now to be a full IPAC inquiry. That will relate the final facts, however, it seems evident from the facts that the officer who interviewed the 13 year old complainant was not qualified to do so: the technique used held assumptions reinforcing the rape culture that is integral to the crime here. Under rape culture you will be aware that the perpetrators would use as an excuse the way the 13 year was dressed, etc, made her culpable. By asking how she was dressed, the interviewer had bought into this bullshit.

      There is no excuse for rape. Not the way the victim is dressed, not a state of intoxication, nothing. Rape is rape.

      Delete
    19. Further note, if the girls involved have been libeled or slandered, then under existing law that would, and should, be actionable.

      Delete
    20. "My comments regarding cyber bullying legislation stands: what constitutes bullying, or hate speech? Being offended?"

      You go wrong here. What constitutes bullying, or hate speech would be up to the court, or other legal authority, in any cases. What it is not, is the appellants definition. This is the same way you submit to the courts judgement on what constitutes any crime, even obviously the alleged crimes here.

      "That does not change principle if force has been initiated here, a crime committed, then pages should be taken down."

      Actually I don't agree, if posting didn't initiate force before a crime was investigated it doesn't after. We could equally allege (incorrectly) that the media was initiating force against the victims by reporting on the concluded court case in any detail, if that was the case, could we not?

      "Regarding your fourth paragraph, yes, these rapists most probably wouldn't have discouraged by cyber bullying legislation, I agree: all the more reason for why it isn't needed."

      Cyber bullying legislation is not expected to dissuade anybody from committing crimes not prosecuted (in many cases its simply about removing harmful material) under cyber bullying legislation.

      Delete
    21. "Further note, if the girls involved have been libeled or slandered, then under existing law that would, and should, be actionable."

      Or for violating face-books terms of service, as happened. Having the material removed is hardly a harsh sanction.

      Delete
    22. I'd not thought about the contractual arrangements Facebook has with its users: yes, I like that. Perfectly good reason to have content taken down.

      Re your initial post, I don't want the definition of bullying versus free speech decided by the courts: that will always lead to the diminution of free speech. Courts only deal with what the law directs them to: it's that law - too damn much of it - that is my beef.

      Delete
    23. "I'd not thought about the contractual arrangements Facebook has with its users: yes, I like that. Perfectly good reason to have content taken down"

      Of course, but the question comes up as a practical manner if these guys posted on their own property (such as a self hosted blog), this is where you might need a law to appeal to in order to have it removed.

      "Re your initial post, I don't want the definition of bullying versus free speech decided by the courts: that will always lead to the diminution of free speech. Courts only deal with what the law directs them to: it's that law"

      Well, that's not exactly how I meant it. There is the normal assumption that the law dictates what constitutes bullying, and then the court applies it. If this came up outside the courts then an appeal could be lodged against a take down notice to take it to the courts. Of course however the law is worded there is some problem to interpret it, as you made the example if the law says bullying, then that has to be interpreted by the courts, as some people might think that means disagreement. That's the sense I meant definitions are decided in court. I don't really see any way to avoid this in a judicial process. The main thing is the appellant does not decide, and neither does the defendant obviously.

      Delete
    24. If on 'their own property', then everything else I've said applies for me.

      On your second para you've only answered to a technically off what I said, not what I said. I do not want law regulating free speech, (which then involves courts in interpretation). Free speech is too important.

      Delete
    25. "I do not want law regulating free speech, (which then involves courts in interpretation). Free speech is too important."

      Ok, but I don't see why libel or slander is not exactly as acceptable in this case. Should these laws be done away with as well? These obviously also involve a law and a lot of court interpretation (practically, the courts frequently have to interpret what part of the libel/slander was intended literally). Both are applicable in a very wide range of situations, probably more situations than cyber bullying.

      "On your second para you've only answered to a technically off what I said, not what I said."

      Yes, I was dismissing your interpretation by the courts discussion of my argument. We both agree courts should not legislate, so you should not claim I want them to in dismissing my initial post.

      "Re your initial post, I don't want the definition of bullying versus free speech decided by the courts".

      Neither do I.

      Delete
    26. Libel/slander laws are perfectly legitimate. You should not be able to tell untruths about another individual or group. That is an initiation of force.

      Delete
    27. Your call for the material to be pulled from face-book is appropriate, but somewhat un-necessary since it happened several days ago. In fact this is mentioned in the guardian article you referenced above. That's the reason I was using the past tense on this subject,

      "NetSafe chief technology officer Sean Lyons has stated that it’s likely this group wasn’t shut down by Facebook until the media brought it to their attention, due to a lack of people reporting the group as offensive."

      Delete
  2. Bottom line, these worthless pieces of garbage have admitted to sex with girls as young as 13, say they've used various means to stupify their victims and have openly bragged about it in videos, not even bothering to mask their identities. If somebody had made a similar online claim about having murdered someone or robbed a bank the cops wouldn't be waiting for a complaint from someone -- they'd have some butts in jail cells. A message needs to be sent that the law will come down hard on this sort of behaviour. If an adult pedo openly boasted online of his exploits, he'd be locked up -- or possibly dead by now. These guys, despite their age, are also self-confessed pedos. Get them off the streets, get them offline and into a jail environment where perhaps they may find themselves involved in more roasts -- but ones in which they're the roastee rather than the roaster. Who knows, they'll probably enjoy that too. All this precious verbiage about the sanctity of free speech is pathetic. Get real. This isn't about stopping free speech it's about stopping predators.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the entire point of my piece is that only via free speech, these predators have been stopped. Not by the police.

      Delete
  3. quote from Hubbard
    "
    Also, to reiterate, of course I believe in innocent until proven guilty. reiterate, of course I believe in innocent until proven guilty. "

    Hubbard though has already described the boys as rapists as

    quote
    "Regarding if calling these miscreants rapists is any sort of slander or libel, I am simply attributing the dictionary definition they ascribe themselves through their bragging of having sex with intoxicated, underage girls.

    Crooked thinking Hubbard . Join the hysterical. Maybe they could get you a slot on The Standard or Daily Blog

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They define themselves as rapists. Not big on comprehension are you.

      Tell me why, given their statements, they are not rapists?

      Delete
    2. Bragging and being an idiot is not the same as rape. Not big on intelligence are you .

      Delete
    3. Novel thought: read what I said. I am calling them what they brag about, hence want, to be. They brag about having pack sex with girls too young to give consent, after getting them intoxicated. Sex without consent is alway rape ... Yes?

      So they brag about being pack rapists.

      Though, subsequent facts that have emerged, regarding evidence from four abused young girls, certainly leads me to believe they are that in actuality: rapists.

      Argue with me on the facts how they are not rapists.

      Delete
  4. Hi again Nik, I find myself a little confused by your response to my comments. My comments about police acting in the absence of complaints were responding to this paragraph:

    "This is very confusing Mark, you appear to be advocating the prosecution of this group based on their face-book posts (without complaint). It would appear that a system which scrutinises social media looking for criminal actions is behaving quite similarly to a police state (am I wrong?), and if it prosecutes more so."

    I (mis)understood(?) that your concern was police trawling social media for evidence of crimes they can act on, despite no complaint being made to them. My response to that is this is something police do in respect of crimes that do not entail a violent act against another person's body (and so it seems reasonable to expect that if this is a method they are using there is not reason to not act on the same basis in this case).


    I appreciate that when you made your initial comments that I responded to, you lacked information about the four individuals who approached police confirming that this was no hoax or empty bragging (including one who did file a complaint) but it doesn't change the fact that it never rang true that the police were powerless to do more.

    The police have extensive investigative powers intended to allow them to successfully identify and prosecute genres of crime that generally do not entail any complainant or confessions on public media, so it seems unbelievable to me that they couldn't do more to obtain evidence in this case even if no one had complained to them directly.

    The social media confessions are not a case on which to prosecute the individuals (at least not in any functional and robust justice system), but they are sufficient grounds for assuming that serious offending was likely and investigation merited, and I believe sufficient to obtain the warrants needed to deploy their full investigative powers. I contend that if the alleged offending was indeed occurring those investigative powers are sufficient to have produced the evidence needed to bring a case before the courts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you could not know, Katie, unless you'd read Nic's copious commenting on other threads, is that Nic has this obsessive need to score points by attacking my world view. For some reason, he seems to feel threatened by it.

      He's referring in the paragraph you quote to the fact that he perceives a contradiction in my post here, to the ethic on which my blog is founded: namely that the modern nation state is via taxation a surveillance state, and is heading to the new police states all over again that will transact the state infamy we saw over the twentieth century. Indeed, I'd hold we're largely there already, in that are servants of the state, and slaves to it. An individualistic based, free, voluntary society denoted by classical liberalism is destroyed, utterly.

      All my posts are inter-related, so it's hard to pick one out, but the single post that most sets out my beliefs is perhaps this one:

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/the-westminster-principle-in-taxation.html

      In this thread Nic, blinded by his innate statism, is looking for a contradiction that doesn't exist. In the small state minarchy I believe in (loosely libertarian / wholly laissez faire) there is most definitely a voluntarily funded force to police the non-initiation of force or fraud principle: the only principle that libertarians can be said to share. So there is still police, a criminal and civil justice system to protect individuals from the initiation of force.

      Compare this to IRD and the other Western tax authorities whose sole function it is to initiate force on their own citizens to steal their property and income. The taxing authorities have become the centre point where police state law is aggregated to create the new perfumed police states we now live in. Such taxing institutions, which feed a tax take to governments so large government spend in most Western economies approaches 50% of total economic activity (and generally the higher the percentage, the worse off economically that country is ... Greece, France, Spain, et al) can only work by having created surveillance states that make the NSA PRISM program, and New Zealand's GCSB, kindergarten level surveillance.

      Just if you're interested you might want to read my below posts:

      The shock and awe power of IRD:

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/a-riposte-to-jacinta-aderns-privacy.html

      IRD's powers to raid without warrant:

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/gerry-brownlee-ird-raids-freedom-of.html

      The nature of the tax surveillance state - IRD spying on social media (and note they read this blog):

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/privacy-orwellian-goverment-mining.html

      One last one, Hans Fallada, Russel Norman and New Zealand's snitch society:

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2013/09/hans-fallada-russel-norman-burden-of.html

      Outside of that, thanks for reading my blog Katie.

      Delete
  5. This story has a disconnect. Young men boasting on the internet, police not wanting to prosecute even after victims coming forward. Why would the police not prosecute?

    The assumption is that the police are incompetent or worse and maybe they were, their copy book has some smudges after all, but the police may have also just made a decision not to proceed because they either did not believe the girls or did not think they would get a conviction.

    There has been a rush to judgement against the police here that might not be warranted. If they believed the girls but did not think they would get a conviction, was a decision not to proceed wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's definitely some of what you say, Damien, but I've blogged before on how flawed police investigative technique is. Indeed, that post was the exact mirror image of this issue. I'm on an iPad, so it's too hard to make the link:

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/radshitzy-feminism-police-investigative.html

      That said, the real case is this; it's the third paragraph of my header post about the inculcation of rape culture evident in the police interview with the 13 year old complainant. Whether sex is rape turns on consent. A 13 year child can't give consent, period, forget the fact they had deliberately got her drunk. There was definitely sex taken place, I don't think that's in doubt, so how could it not be rape? The police interview went wrong from the point the girl was asked what she was wearing, implying police were looking to apply an appalling stance of 'was she asking for it'. It doesn't matter what she was wearing; that question was irrelevant. These were young, adult, men: they chose to have sex, bragged about it, without consent with a child. At the very least I believe on that alone a case existed to be answered to. and then there's the other three child complaints.

      Even take the Police Commissioner: he only has a single issue of importance at the moment, yet he goes on Campbell Live not even having watched the tape of the interview? Would you go to court that unprepared? Proof of police incompetence from start to finish.

      Delete
  6. Time to open the force to competition!

    I'd be in favour of that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This problem is rife in New Zealand. Authorities go to extraordinary lengths to cover up under age sex crimes committed by child sex gangs. Our 14-year old daughter was also victim of a gang like this in Auckland. NZ authorities gagged us (parents) and our two sons in order to keep us quiet. The NZ Head of State gave the sex gang members medals.
    http://bit.ly/ourNZexperience

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I won't have time to read all your link, Frank, until after work tonight, but what I have skimmed seems pretty dreadful. I see your story has been in Investigate magazine, has it had uptake in mainstream media?

      Given the current environment in NZ over these men/boys you may well get interest.

      Delete
  8. We use different escort services but i think this is a best option for escort services.

    Top rated escorts Prague & Model escorts

    ReplyDelete