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.  

 .