If your concern was that your friend was now likely to be in trouble with the police, and that this was unjust, and that on a point of principle you felt strongly that this person needed to be informed, why was it also necessary to give him the identity of his accuser? All you had to say was "I have reason to believe that someone is mad about your pictures and has reported to the police. You might want to take some of those pics down and stay clear of HB for a while." You're far too smart not to know that. You did this out of spite because we had an argument. Is that what an "honorable" "real man" does?
Giving him my own information on the sly is somewhere between "starting shit" and "intimidating a witness". It's also in violation of the terms of service of this website. A "real man" doesn't use internet post cut and paste to make trouble.
If you can give my privileged communication to the subject of that communication behind my back, then you have really no grounds for accusing me of cowardice or not being a "real man".
It is the law. A person, accused of a crime, has the right to know his accuser.
In this situatution, the person accused of a crime, he did not commit, was informed of his accusers.
Why is it so difficult for the members of this posting to understand that the real crime was begun when you, Sustitue, brought forth "a call to action". You yourself tainted the view of the images on a public website when you epressed your opinion of the prior to your friends viewing them. This in itself is fine, but to then to accuse this person of a crime when it is clear you yourself are unaware and ignorant of the law to begin with.
Once I had been informed about this posting, I forwarded the basic email I'd recieved to Morven and followed it up with a phone call. This man is part of my close circle of friends, we are family. I know him very well and did not view the photos in quite the same way as you and your friends did. In truth, as a professional photographer, I was more perplexed at the waste space by them. However, I knew that none of them were breaking any laws.
There is an expectancy of privacy in a person's backyard, in a bathroom or within their own home. But in you are on a public beach, the expectancy of privacy is nil.
None of the images were of children. It might be possible that a person was a year shy of 18, however, it would need to be proven, and still there is no law broken here.
The photos would have to be for sale to have broken any kind of civil rights. And for them to actually be illegal... well a lot more would have to be going on and the people would have to be a great deal younger before the police would be involved.
My greatest issue here is that a law abidding citizen was accused of degerate actions he did not commit. Simply because you disagree with the images does not mean a law has been broken. It was strongly implied and noted that he "likes children" in ways not fitting a polite society. It was at that point you committed a crime. Libel: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. The act of presenting such material to the public.
It is illegal take pictures of minors without their parents' permisssion. This law was enacted exactly because predatory adults were photographing minors in public places. Minors are those under 18. I did not either publicly or privately accuse anyone of pedophilia, which is an entirely different matter. I do believe that the police know the difference, and the law, and it is their business whether any violation of law has occurred.
Someone does in fact have the right to know his accusers when he is being charged with a crime. However, no one has to my knowledge been charged with a crime, and it's likely no one will be. It is not the "law" that anyone who disagrees with a report to the police must then inform his friend who is accused and give the friend the accuser's address. That is making up your own law at home, and it's different from criminal law. If your friend is ever charged with a crime related to my report, it's possible that I would be asked to provide information to the police, and in that case it would become a matter of public record and the constitutional protection you refer to would come into effect.
A tip sent to the police is not a charge. That is why they can be done anonymously. You know that.
I understand and respect your view that your friend has committed no crime; I disagree. I have not brought any charges, nor can I; if a crime was indeed committed I am not the victim and I do not have this right.
I sent a tip to the police, and I conversed in private with my friends about it. No libel can have been committed, nor has any charge been brought. None of your "law" applies.
If indeed your friend has not taken pictures of minors on the beach, he has committed no crime and I am pleased to offer an apology. If he has, it's a matter between him and the police.
Substitue, thank you for your reply. I can see that we disagree about things. Can we agree to disagree?
In truth, nothing from this point can be changed. You've made your move and now it's a matter of waiting.
I would like to address the email address concern others have posted. Feedle did not give out people's email address. He did forward a copy of the post, but that was all. The Mrs. herself located each person's email on their public profiles.
I recognize that everyone is entitled to their own opinion about this situation. I would just like to remind everyone that while we each sit at the computer and comment back and forth to one another, some may forget that a real person sits on the other end.
Yvonne
I meant to sign the last post, but I accidentally hit enter. My appologies.
It's true that nothing can be changed from this point.
I would just like to remind everyone that while we each sit at the computer and comment back and forth to one another, some may forget that a real person sits on the other end.
If anyone has forgotten that, it is neither myself nor your friend.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-27 09:22 pm (UTC)Giving him my own information on the sly is somewhere between "starting shit" and "intimidating a witness". It's also in violation of the terms of service of this website. A "real man" doesn't use internet post cut and paste to make trouble.
If you can give my privileged communication to the subject of that communication behind my back, then you have really no grounds for accusing me of cowardice or not being a "real man".
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-27 10:26 pm (UTC)In this situatution, the person accused of a crime, he did not commit, was informed of his accusers.
Why is it so difficult for the members of this posting to understand that the real crime was begun when you, Sustitue, brought forth "a call to action". You yourself tainted the view of the images on a public website when you epressed your opinion of the prior to your friends viewing them. This in itself is fine, but to then to accuse this person of a crime when it is clear you yourself are unaware and ignorant of the law to begin with.
Once I had been informed about this posting, I forwarded the basic email I'd recieved to Morven and followed it up with a phone call. This man is part of my close circle of friends, we are family. I know him very well and did not view the photos in quite the same way as you and your friends did. In truth, as a professional photographer, I was more perplexed at the waste space by them. However, I knew that none of them were breaking any laws.
There is an expectancy of privacy in a person's backyard, in a bathroom or within their own home. But in you are on a public beach, the expectancy of privacy is nil.
None of the images were of children. It might be possible that a person was a year shy of 18, however, it would need to be proven, and still there is no law broken here.
The photos would have to be for sale to have broken any kind of civil rights. And for them to actually be illegal... well a lot more would have to be going on and the people would have to be a great deal younger before the police would be involved.
My greatest issue here is that a law abidding citizen was accused of degerate actions he did not commit. Simply because you disagree with the images does not mean a law has been broken. It was strongly implied and noted that he "likes children" in ways not fitting a polite society. It was at that point you committed a crime. Libel: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
The act of presenting such material to the public.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-27 10:42 pm (UTC)It is illegal take pictures of minors without their parents' permisssion. This law was enacted exactly because predatory adults were photographing minors in public places. Minors are those under 18. I did not either publicly or privately accuse anyone of pedophilia, which is an entirely different matter. I do believe that the police know the difference, and the law, and it is their business whether any violation of law has occurred.
Someone does in fact have the right to know his accusers when he is being charged with a crime. However, no one has to my knowledge been charged with a crime, and it's likely no one will be. It is not the "law" that anyone who disagrees with a report to the police must then inform his friend who is accused and give the friend the accuser's address. That is making up your own law at home, and it's different from criminal law. If your friend is ever charged with a crime related to my report, it's possible that I would be asked to provide information to the police, and in that case it would become a matter of public record and the constitutional protection you refer to would come into effect.
A tip sent to the police is not a charge. That is why they can be done anonymously. You know that.
I understand and respect your view that your friend has committed no crime; I disagree. I have not brought any charges, nor can I; if a crime was indeed committed I am not the victim and I do not have this right.
I sent a tip to the police, and I conversed in private with my friends about it. No libel can have been committed, nor has any charge been brought. None of your "law" applies.
If indeed your friend has not taken pictures of minors on the beach, he has committed no crime and I am pleased to offer an apology. If he has, it's a matter between him and the police.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-27 11:44 pm (UTC)In truth, nothing from this point can be changed. You've made your move and now it's a matter of waiting.
I would like to address the email address concern others have posted. Feedle did not give out people's email address. He did forward a copy of the post, but that was all. The Mrs. herself located each person's email on their public profiles.
I recognize that everyone is entitled to their own opinion about this situation. I would just like to remind everyone that while we each sit at the computer and comment back and forth to one another, some may forget that a real person sits on the other end.
Yvonne
I meant to sign the last post, but I accidentally hit enter. My appologies.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-27 11:51 pm (UTC)It's true that nothing can be changed from this point.
If anyone has forgotten that, it is neither myself nor your friend.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-28 05:07 am (UTC)Oh, I think we're all aware of it. I just couldn't give a half damn if