Found the Swedish word for it and here's the translated

"provocative crime"

Markus

No! Because they have not been convicted of anything.Really, it is wrong when they names are published in the paper for any crime until convicted.INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY, or that is how it is supposed to be in the US. Abhorrent as I find these men, I would gladly defend them since A this is entrapment and B they must be proven guilty.

Yes and it is wrong they publish names of those simply ARRESTED, NOT convicted.INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.

So it is wrong for a newspaper to say Jimmy Saville was a nonce then?:hmmm:

Well, to be fair, it'd be a tad hard to arrest him... :hmmm:

Yep, he must be innocent as he didn't get convicted.
You just knew the statement wasn't going to pan out as it had BIG LETTERS in it.:03:

Law of Capslock. :salute:

EDIT: In all fairness to Bubblehead though, he does have a marginal point in that it is rather easy for the media to create a witch-hunt these days when it comes to paedophilia, indecent assault or murder, I mean look what happened with Christopher Jefferies, the media decided he was guilty and all but executed him in the press, complete vilification. Now those same papers report on his innocence.

His point is irrelevant in this case as the operations in this instance were not carried out by a law enforcement agency of any government. Therefore it falls into civil suit jurisdiction, where the burden of proof is quite different, in lots of jurisdictions, to that applied to law enforcement agencies.

If any of the accused choose to stick their necks out they might have a crack at a libel suit.

Only if a law enforcement agency decided to proceed with prosecution in the USA would his point be marginally valid. And that would be entirely dependant on how the individual investigations were handled.

Is the tip off to police polluted by the way in which the names were collected? What could be argued is that the information received, added to information already on hand in an investigation, or if this information would even be used as part of any prosecution cases subsequently brought before the courts. A smart prosecutor would simply omit any references to the Dutch charities activities, collect their own evidence and put the basums where they belong.

That's what I get for just skim-reading the story in question. :haha: I didn't realise it was a Dutch charity firm. A morally tricky situation, and since there was no actual underaged human being involved, I'm not actually certain what the law would be. This 'Sweetie' was not actually operated by a ten year old Filipino girl, so technically no law has been broken...quite amazing really that we have reached the time period already where a virtual avatar is mistaken for a real life person. :hmmm:
Some new laws are going to have to be written in the near future I think, especially if and when we reach the technological singularity, or at least a level in which AI programs are able to act and react in a human-like manner.

Of course, that's not really on the subject of this thread, but it's still an interesting subject.

The alleged predators could of course run the sick argument that they knew that it was an avatar and not a human child in which case they are no different to second life types and therefore their actions were no more than thought crime. Despite what Bubbles thinks of Obama even the US hasn't gotten around to law on that one.

Closest I can think of is the Suss law in the UK but IIRC that related to terrorism and not sexual criminality.

That is why soap on a rope is so popular :)

And there you are standing at the door with a pair of scissors. :)

:D:yeah:


:stare:

So many sick individuals in the world today.
They need treatment with a lead enema, not prosecution and the subsequent free room and board that comes with conviction.

The most that can come out of this sting operation is to keep INTERPOL busy until the end of time.:hmmm:

I am very careful about chatting on the Internets Tubes. You really have no idea who you are actually connected with.

Once I thought I was chatting with an FBI Agent and it turned out to be a 14 year old girl. Awkward. :yep: