Tuesday, June 27, 2017

FACEBOOK POLICY ALLOWS DEATH THREATS AGAINST REGISTERED CITIZENS (In fact, it seems to encourage them)

In light of the New York Times story that came in my newsfeed [“Facebook, Free Expression and the Power of a Leak”], I decided to explore the issue of Facebook little further. The New York Times piqued my interest by adding a link to an article from The Guardian newspaper [Revealed: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence]. Through this article, I was able to find that The Guardian has published the rulebook for determining what constitutes a “credible threat of violence” on Facebook [Facebook's manual on credible threats of violence].

This policy information is important to know because FB is filled with vigilante groups, many of them have been featured on this particular blog over the years, including vigilante biker gangs, online hate groups, and individuals organizing to cause harm to registered citizens. However, it is apparent from the leaked reports that only a small number of individuals are actually protected by Facebook. In fact, only a handful of people are considered “vulnerable persons” that are protected from speech a moderator might consider a “credible threat of violence.”

Vulnerable persons include: heads of state, next in line for head of state, candidates for head of state, specific law enforcement officers, witnesses and informants, people with a history of assassination attempts, people listed as targets on hit lists created by banned dangerous organizations, activists, journalists, homeless people, foreigners, Zionists, and in the Philippines, drug users and dealers.

According to the Facebook manual, posting “someone shoot Trump” should be removed, but telling people to “kick a person with red hair” or “snap a bitch’s neck, make sure to apply all your pressure to the middle of her throat” is completely allowed. Also, based credible threat of violence is expected to include an “achievable time.” Plus, statements that include “next time I see you,” “sooner or later,” or specific time frames should also be removed, but we know that’s rarely the case. In addition, certain groups could be considered vulnerable by region. Facebook warns moderators to also eliminate threats against vulnerable targets, outing affiliation, singling out targets, aggregating targets, and calling for street justice depending on the region. Also, accompanying a threat with a picture of a firearm supposedly violence Facebook policy as well.








Perhaps the most damning evidence of all that Facebook allows vigilante violence to be advocated on their website is in the section of “non-credible threats.” Included in this list of non-credible threats is, “advocating for capital were cruel and unusual punishment for crimes Facebook recognizes.” Next to this statement is a text bubble saying “hang child molesters.” They use another example of non-credible threats of violence on the next page, with another text bubble saying, “Pedophiles are going to experience the electric chair! They deserve it anyway!!”



Since this is directly from Facebook’s hidden policy on removing credible threats of violence, the strong implication here is that Facebook advocates violence against registered citizens because they don’t consider us a vulnerable class of people. To use threats against registered citizens as an example of what is allowed on Facebook shows the indifference that Facebook employees have against many other unpopular groups of people as well. This should be a huge cause of alarm for those of us in the anti-registry movement who rely on Facebook for expressing their First Amendment rights.

I personally believe that the only way this is going to change is through a lawsuit. For far too long, Facebook has been deleting the accounts of registered citizens while allowing hate groups like those profiled on AZUnites to proliferate, recruit, and continue to operate online. There’s no telling how many vigilante attacks have occurred because of this. And, in light of the recent Packingham case, the rights of registered citizens should be taken more seriously by Facebook, who should already have a great responsibility of protecting the rights of all of its users. More and more, news media outlets are turning to Facebook only commenting as the way to share ideas among viewers. Even my recent interview with Ashleigh Banfield was a Facebook only comment section. Thus, like it or not, the ability to respond to, to advocate, or to express a dissenting opinion requires a Facebook account in many instances. And registered citizen should be able to express their viewpoints without fear of reprisal from online vigilante thugs. The question is, who has the resources and is willing to take on this challenge?

If anyone is willing to accept my challenge, I am more than happy to share the information that I have gathered over the years as part of any litigation against Facebook. I have taken it upon myself to collect as much information as possible on numerous vigilante groups across the country. Obviously, much of that information can be found on this blog, but much of it I have not posted publicly because many were direct threats against me. Thus, in the event somebody actually sues Facebook, feel free to contact me at iamthefallen1@yahoo.com.

Friday, June 23, 2017

Xavier Von Erck from Perverted Justice still offers up a heaping pile of BS in his reasons for backing off of harassing anti-registry activists

Somehow, von Jerk flew this under our radar, but it is god for a giggle. He claims his group backed off of what he called "pedophile activism" (which obviously included legal reformists which had nothing to do with age of consent laws) because of "a nice string" of alleged victories. In reality, they backed off because workuing with real LE means they could no longer engage in criminal activity, like harassment and slander.

Not much else to say about this but to have a chuckle at Von Jerk's expense. Well that and being shocked the rat man popped up in this decade at all.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bd37e/whatever-happened-to-nambla

According to Von Erck, his group of internet activists have lost interest in NAMBLA. "We shuttered our spin-off that was dedicated to exposing pedophile activists some years ago after a nice string of exposures, arrests, and convictions," he told me.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Online vigilante scumbags take note: You CAN be convicted of a crime

This isn't RSO related but relevant here because this girl was convicted of a crime for using the Internet for the purpose of goading someone to commit suicide.

No doubt there will be an appeal, so we'll have to see what those courts decide.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/suicide-texting-trial-michelle-carter-conrad-roy.html?_r=0

Guilty Verdict for Young Woman Who Urged Friend to Kill Himself
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and JESS BIDGOODJUNE 16, 2017

TAUNTON, Mass. — For a case that had played out in thousands of text messages, what made Michelle Carter’s behavior a crime, a judge concluded, came in a single phone call. Just as her friend Conrad Roy III stepped out of the truck he had filled with lethal fumes, Ms. Carter told him over the phone to get back in the cab and then listened to him die without trying to help him.

That command, and Ms. Carter’s failure to help, said Judge Lawrence Moniz of Bristol County Juvenile Court, made her guilty of involuntary manslaughter in a case that had consumed New England, left two families destroyed and raised questions about the scope of legal responsibility. Ms. Carter, now 20, is to be sentenced Aug. 3 and faces up to 20 years in prison.

The judge’s decision, handed down on Friday, stunned many legal experts with its conclusion that words alone could cause a suicide.

“This is saying that what she did is killing him, that her words literally killed him, that the murder weapon here was her words,” said Matthew Segal, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, which raised concerns about the case to the state’s highest court. “That is a drastic expansion of criminal law in Massachusetts.”

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE


Opinion Op-Ed Contributor
Michelle Carter Didn’t Kill With a Text JUNE 16, 2017

She’s Accused of Texting Him to Suicide. Is That Enough to Convict? JUNE 6, 2017

8 Charged in Death of Fellow Soldier, U.S. Says DEC. 21, 2011

Conviction Thrown Out for Ex-Rutgers Student in Tyler Clementi Case SEPT. 9, 2016

Online Talk, Suicides and a Thorny Court Case MAY 13, 2010
Ms. Carter’s defense team is expected to appeal the verdict. Legal experts said that it seemed to extend manslaughter law into new territory, and that if it stood, it could have far-reaching implications, at least in Massachusetts.

“Will the next case be a Facebook posting in which someone is encouraged to commit a crime?” Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge and Harvard Law professor, asked. “This puts all the things that you say in the mix of criminal responsibility.”

Judge Moniz unspooled his verdict in a packed courtroom, which was silent except for his voice and Ms. Carter’s gasping sobs. By the time he told Ms. Carter to stand up, and pronounced her guilty, the two families seated on either side of the courtroom’s aisle — Ms. Carter’s and Mr. Roy’s — wept, too.

The verdict concluded an emotionally draining weeklong trial in southeastern Massachusetts involving two troubled teenagers who had built a virtual relationship largely on texting from 2012 to 2014. Ms. Carter, then 17, started out encouraging Mr. Roy, 18, to seek treatment for his depression but then abruptly changed, and in the two weeks before he killed himself on July 12, 2014, she encouraged him, repeatedly, to do it.

For all the scrutiny during the trial of their texts, the judge based his guilty verdict on a phone conversation.

Once Mr. Roy drove his truck to a remote spot at a Kmart parking lot, the two ceased texting and instead talked on their cellphones. When Mr. Roy, with fumes gathering in the cab of his truck, apparently had a change of heart and stepped out, the judge said, Ms. Carter told him to get back in, fully knowing “his ambiguities, his fears, his concerns.”

“This court finds,” the judge added, “that instructing Mr. Roy to get back in the truck constituted wanton and reckless conduct.”

But the phone conversation was not recorded, and the only evidence of its content came three months after the suicide in a text from Ms. Carter to a friend.

“Sam his death is my fault, like honestly I could have stopped him,” Ms. Carter wrote. “I was on the phone with him and he got out of the car because it was working and he got scared.”

She said she then instructed him “to get back in.”

The prosecution made this phone call, as described in Ms. Carter’s text, the heart of its case. And the judge accepted it as factual and incriminating.

The defense strongly argued that there was nothing to substantiate what Ms. Carter had said on the phone and insisted that Mr. Conrad, who had tried to kill himself before, was determined to take his own life, regardless of anything Ms. Carter did or said.

Judge Moniz acknowledged that Mr. Roy had taken steps to cause his own death, like researching suicide methods, obtaining a generator and then the water pump with which he ultimately poisoned himself. Indeed, Judge Moniz said that Ms. Carter’s text messages pressuring him to kill himself had not, on their own, caused his death.

Instead, the judge zeroed in on the moment that Mr. Roy climbed out of his truck.

“He breaks that chain of self-causation by exiting the vehicle,” Judge Moniz said. “He takes himself out of that toxic environment that it has become.” That, the judge said, was a clear indication that Mr. Roy — as on his previous suicide attempts — wanted to save himself.

But, the judge said, Ms. Carter had a duty to help Mr. Roy after she had put him in danger by ordering him back into the truck.

“She admits in a subsequent text that she did nothing, she did not call the police or Mr. Roy’s family,” the judge said. “She called no one. And finally, she did not issue a simple additional instruction: ‘Get out of the truck.’”

The verdict stunned many legal specialists because suicide is generally considered, legally, to result from a person’s free will.

Daniel Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern University, said the decision surprised him because the manslaughter charge seemed “a stretch” to begin with. Because Ms. Carter was not at the scene, and Mr. Roy ultimately acted alone, he said, it was difficult to prove she “caused” the death.

Ms. Gertner of Harvard said that likely grounds for appeal would be that the verdict had “extended the law of involuntary manslaughter to an arena into which it hasn’t been extended before — the notion of liability with respect to a suicide for someone who failed to act, who wasn’t present, who didn’t provide the instrumentalities for the suicide and the concept of a failure to intervene are all unique and that’s what would be litigated.”

At its core, the case was about two troubled teenagers and the fatal path their online relationship took.

Mr. Roy was a gentle but deeply depressed teenager who worked as a tugboat captain. He had graduated from high school with a college scholarship, but worried about the social anxiety he might experience there.

Ms. Carter was a high school student with homework to finish and a love of the television show “Glee,” but she said her life was controlled by an eating disorder. She too was wrought by social anxiety, desperately seeking the approval of friends whom she admired but worried did not truly like her.

When Mr. Roy told Ms. Carter in June 2014 that he was considering suicide, she told him he had a lot to live for and urged him to seek help.

“I’m trying my best to dig you out,” Ms. Carter wrote.

“I don’t wanna be dug out,” Mr. Roy answered, adding later, “I WANT TO DIE.”

By early July, she began to embrace the idea. “If this is the only way you think you’re gonna be happy, heaven will welcome you with open arms,” she wrote.

They talked at length about how he could kill himself with carbon monoxide. “If you emit 3200 ppm of it for five to ten mins you will die within a half hour,” she wrote. In the last days of his life, she told him repeatedly, “You just need to do it.”

Prosecutors said Ms. Carter wanted Mr. Roy to kill himself because she wanted the sympathy that would come as the “grieving girlfriend.” Ms. Carter’s lawyers cast her as a na├»ve teenager who wanted to help people and was not even on the scene when Mr. Roy took his life

But the prosecution argued in its closing — and evidently Judge Moniz agreed — that Ms. Carter’s physical absence was immaterial.

“The phones that we have now allow you to be virtually present with somebody,” Katie Rayburn, an assistant district attorney, said, adding, “She was in his ear, she was in his mind, she was on the phone, and she was telling him to get back in the car even though she knew he was going to die.”

Monday, June 12, 2017

Is the Oregonian slam of OSU ballplayer "Journalism" or vigilante attack? My belief is the latter

Oregon State baseball is in the College World Series, and one of the star pitchers for the team is a level 1 (that means low risk for you outsiders) registered citizen for an offense committed when he was 15 in Washington state. The timing of this article couldn't be worse, and I believe it was a targeted campaign to damage the career of a young man who has served his time as a juvenile. This isn't the first time the WHOREgonian has written such drivel. 

I believe this is worthy of discussion on AZUnites for a reason. This is why I believe this was a targeted harassment campaign and not mere "journalism." [NOTE: Much of this piece was crossposted from the Shiitake Worthy blog, so if you've read that stuff first, you won't see much new material here.]

Why write FOUR articles in the initial barrage? The articles were released in succession. The articles come at a rare time a registered citizen actually had a chance to be something more than a welfare dependent. The intent can be found in the very words of the writers. They are doing everything but explicitly starting they are acting as instruments of vengeance. 



Danny Moran [aka "Dummy Moron"] wrote the first damaging article. The WHOREgonian later reports: "Danny Moran, who covers the Oregon State baseball team for The Oregonian/OregonLive, didn't set out to tell this story when he began interviewing Heimlich in March for a profile about his success as a pitcher....After those initial interviews had been conducted, Moran performed a routine background check - something we do on profile subjects. He ran Heimlich's name through the Oregon courts database and came up with this: Heimlich had been cited in April for failing to update his sex offender registration in Benton County. Moran requested court documents in Washington state, where the molestation occurred. The public records reveal what happened..." He felt the need to give details about the crime, which of course means that me or anyone with a few minutes of time could find the name of this alleged victim. I'll get to the justification piece. 



Brad Schmidt [aka "Batshit"] co-authors the first offending report, then later takes the glory for harassing the President of OSU into denouncing the ballplayer.



John Canzano [CUNTzano] wrote THIS CRAP PIECE just to be a self-righteous prick, just like his skanky wife Anna. He's obviously trolling us by calling Moron's piece a "terrific piece of journalism." Oh, it's a piece... of bovine excrement! "As much as second chances are important, I don't know how anyone could put the sex offender's future first. Oregon State shouldn't have a single athlete on its campus who is guilty of a felony conviction involving a violent offense or a sex offense...If you're among those dismissing this as a youthful "mistake" from a kid who deserves a second chance at his baseball career, think first about the damage done to the survivor, who will carry this with her for life."



Mark Katches [M'Krotchrot]  is the guy who deserves to "Katch" the most heat in this lineup, because he wrote the article trying to justify the series of articles. So he wrote the worst piece of all the first four articles. It seems that they were anticipating backlash from the Anti-Registry Movement:(here's his possible criminal record, BTW). In fact, before the articles were reposted, this piece first came out WITHIN 5 MINUTES of the initial article!

"Some of our readers may say that Heimlich paid for his crime and completed his sentence. Others may argue that mistakes made by a minor should be forgiven, considering that studies show juvenile sex offenders rarely commit additional sex crimes after sentencing. Some will contend that we are undermining both Heimlich and his team as the Beavers embark on a quest to win a third College World Series title and with the major league draft just days away. We considered all of these factors.

Our society decided long ago that sex offenders should carry the burden of their conviction well after their sentences end - and that juvenile sex crimes should follow offenders into adulthood. Oregon wrote into statute that sex offenders cannot be released from their obligation to register with authorities unless they show a judge "by clear and convincing evidence" that they no longer pose a threat to public safety."

This statement isn't entirely true. SOME people believe registrants should carry the "burden" of their conviction beyond the sentence. Not everyone agrees that juvenile offenses should carry on into adulthood. In fact, there's quite a push against increasing juvenile sentencing policies. And while Oregon's policies are to keep everyone on the registry for life, not every shares that sentiment. In fact, Oregon is moving to a tiered system and lower level registrants (like Mr. Heimlich) may soon start falling off the list. 

John Canzano didn't stop there, writing more attacks on Mr. Heimlich and even went a step further, writing a 19-point A-to-S bullet point presentation as to why we should help this asshat light torches and sharpen pitchforks. Here are a few choice comments:

"Can we start with the premise that human life matters? Anyone disagree on that? This isn't a complicated starting point. The young relative who was molested by Heimlich deserves your thoughts and respect. The victim matters. She matters more than Heimlich. She matters more than baseball. She matters. Period. Anyone disagree there?" -- Has anyone read George Orwell's Animal Farm? You know that famous quote? 

"Some people, myself included, don't believe a registered sex offender has a place on a major college athletics team. I don't believe an athlete who has committed a violent offense, including domestic violence, belongs there either." -- Your opinion is not news, douchedragon. 

"If you're a registered sex offender, you'd better make it your business to know the law. Anyone blaming the law enforcement officer who caught the failure to re-register? Stop now. That officer is trying to protect the public." - Except that local police are often incompetent in understanding the registry law. And Oregon considers failing to pay that $70 annual fee "failure" to register. Obviously, Cuntzano fails at law. 

"For those making the, "He deserves a second chance!" argument ... where is that written? You make your own second chance in life. Also, your first. Heimlich is in control of his future just as he's always been. He will determine where his life leads. Your actions, if inappropriate, will result in opportunities being closed to you. That is no one's fault but your own." This works both ways, Clownzano. But besides that, a criminal sentence sets limits on punishment. Heimlich served his time. Here, Heimlich is the victim of CanZERO, who blames his victim for his actions. 

"On my radio show on Friday, we took calls from a mostly male audience that defended the victim. I was moved by the discourse. It was authentic, charged in the right direction and included some powerful moments from callers. Some called in to share their stories of abuse. Others, their anger. But it was a measured glance at why the story has splintered us." I'm sure it was because you pre-screen to only allow those who share your opinion on your show, you coward. 

"For those who say Heimlich has, "Paid his debt to society" or "Been punished for his crime," and should be left alone -- huh? An important part of his punishment is that he has to register as a sex offender. There's a reason a felony crime is a felony crime. The punishment is supposed to act as a deterrent." -- Thanks for helping me prove SCOTUS wrong in Smith v Doe. You're a useful idiot!

"The only positive that can come from this story is that Heimlich lives a long, productive life that has meaning. That he looks back at age 90 and realizes that he's overcome a horrible crime and done the best he could." -- I don't see how this complete fucktard expects Mr. Heimlich to "overcome" and have a "long, productive life" when vigilante scum like the gangbangers posing as Oregonian journalists will be there to ruin it for him. This kid will be lucky to get  ANY job, PERIOD, and if by some chance he plays baseball at the next level I'd be shocked. Stop trying to sugarcoat the fact you ruined this kid's life. If he overcomes, it will be IN SPITE of you and the other gossip writers. 

But hey, lets continue on to the hypocrisy of John Canzano. Here's an article where Canzano himself discusses the power of a second chance after other athletes committed horrible crimes in their youth:


If I didn't believe this to be a targeted harassment campaign designed to ruin this man's life, I wouldn't be adding this to AZUnites. They attack a young man and ruin any chances he has at a redeemed life, then blame their victim for it. It was coordinated for maximum humiliating impact. They admitted that their victim should continue should be punished long after his time was served. 

At this point, I think calling this "yellow journalism" or even "brown journalism" is no longer sufficient, especially where Canzano is concerned. This is a act of terrorism, plain and simple, ESPECIALLY with Canzano. The Canzano family runs a kid's charity. John's wife Anna has made a career off scaring the public about registered persons. So yes, this is an act of terrorism.