You too can get a year subscription to NAMBLA just by re-newing your paid LJ account
Convicted child molester and LJ non-user Ed Rodriguez is kiddie-raping love
Details of Ed’s Conviction
Thanks to lj user hardvice - get yours now before LJ Abuse comes down on this post!
29 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
You must be a registered user and LOGGED IN to post comments.Please login or register
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004 @ Aug 24, 04 | 6:20 pm
Mike says:
Now, as much as i’m laughing heartily at that, I must also say: Christ, another fucking rainbow thing.
Reply to this comment
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004 @ Aug 24, 04 | 7:35 pm
ayashii sakana says:
K a friend just made what seems to be a lot of sense out of what LJabuse is doing, and why they’re doin it… no idea why Abuse couldnt just come out and say it, instead of repeat the same ol’ bullshit, but here you are:
“if that entry stayed up while lj abuse were aware of it (and i would have to assume that this guy complained) then he would have grounds to sue. he would probably win, since his lawyer would say that no child under 13 could use the service and therefore he couldn’t be picking up kids. livejournal (and possibly your friend) would be sued for libel, since he wouldn’t be able to prove how true his statement was. this paedophile would then be a much richer paedophile.”
“basically, lj’s hands are tied. obviously they don’t want it broadcast that this guy would be able to sue. so they have to keep it on the down-low.
if you really want to make a difference, go for the organ grinder, not the monkey”
*shrug* hope that helps?
~Ho0Ly
Reply to this comment
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004 @ Aug 24, 04 | 7:54 pm
NoFanOfIrony says:
his lawyer would say that no child under 13 could use the service and therefore he couldn’t be picking up kids.
That’s stupid. Just because there’s the “you ain’t 13 now, are ya kid?” prompt at the creation of the account doesn’t mean there AREN’T 13 year olds on here, and, besides, what does that have anything to do with anything? As long as they are under 18, they are kids, and, thusly, he can scope them out on Livejournal.
The reason nobody has said what your friend said is because what your friend said is damn stupid.
Reply to this comment
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004 @ Aug 24, 04 | 8:08 pm
Petey says:
It’s on my LJ.
Oh, and LJAbuse shut down my previous “pro Jameth” complaint.
So here’s another link.
http://www.livejournal.com/support/see_request.bml?id=329039
I would ask other LJDrama whores to post in agreement.
–Petey
Reply to this comment
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004 @ Aug 24, 04 | 9:17 pm
Strages says:
Can’t see it, Petey.
Could you take a screen shot of it and post it for us?
Thanks.
Reply to this comment
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004 @ Aug 24, 04 | 9:28 pm
PeteDiddy says:
Wait a second. He’s not a very good Marlon Brando look alike…..I call shenanengans. Christ, I can’t even spell it, but I’m callin’ it! Get the BROOM!!!
Reply to this comment
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004 @ Aug 24, 04 | 10:16 pm
Petey says:
Strages, I’ll post a HTML copy on my server and update it when LJ responds (again).
Link:
http://toydestruction.com/conceptualdrama.html
Ayasshi–that’s not a very good case.
First of all, the Livejournal ToS clearly states in the Indemnity clause that they cannot be sued for content.
Second of all, last time I checked, the age of adulthood is 18, not 13.
Thirdly, were it necessary, an attorney could prove that a plaintiff was under the age of 13 unbeknownst to LJ. Even if they clicked on the thing that swore they were over 13, they could have been lying. LJ would not be held accountable–after all, they have no way of knowing for sure. They only have the word of a person. But, thankfully, our rights are not surrendered when we tell a white lie like that.
Fourthly, there is no libel going on here. Mr Rodriguez has not only admitted his illicit activities with minors, he has expressed his wishes to continue that activity in the future.
I want to see how they dodge a hypothetically, purportedly clarifying situation.
–Petey
Reply to this comment
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004 @ Aug 24, 04 | 10:37 pm
usagiko says:
Me too, petey. Me too.
Reply to this comment
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 @ Aug 25, 04 | 12:06 am
paks says:
petey, i have a prediction of what theyre going to do for you.
theyre going to start out by blabering a bit about how theyre not responsible for anything the pedo has done/tried to do on lj.
then they will move on to telling you indirectly about how its none of your business whats going on between jameth and them.
finally, they will tell you in no uncertain terms to piss off, and then close the request (repeatedly if you try to reopen it).
Reply to this comment
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 @ Aug 25, 04 | 12:41 am
Petey says:
They’ve already done that, paks. Check out:
http://toydestruction.com/conceptualdrama.html
well, minus the closing bit. So far.
–Petey
Reply to this comment
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 @ Aug 25, 04 | 2:25 am
paks says:
heh i know, i meant theyre going to continue the same pattern on your second part of the question. i just didnt word it well enough. because im lazy.
Reply to this comment
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 @ Aug 25, 04 | 3:45 am
Petey says:
Nothing yet. I think they’ve been frightened by the logic monster.
–Petey
Reply to this comment
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 @ Aug 25, 04 | 7:08 am
jonfmorse says:
Something just occurred to me.
If they’re going to try and stick jameth based on information he’s posting about a non-LJ user, then it only makes sense that – in LJ’s view – any time someone posts about a specific person, it’s an abuse violation.
Every time someone posts accusing either one of the Presidential candidates of something heinous, for example. Or, if you want to say that they’re public figures and as such aren’t “protected” by this, then we can lower the bar; any time someone reports about some local person who’s been convicted of leaving a baby to bake in the back seat, or gets busted trying to pick up a whore, or you know, anything which is a matter of public record.
Now, imagine if people started reporting it to LJA every time they saw something like this, and cited jameth’s case as precedent…
This is what I don’t get. This guy is a convicted felon. This is publicly available information, and it’s not an “allegation.” It’s verifiable. LJ doesn’t really have any RIGHT to censor it.
Reply to this comment
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 @ Aug 25, 04 | 11:48 am
interloper says:
jonfmorse:
Lj is a privately owned entity. Where content is concerned, they have the right to do just about anything if you’ve read their TOS (that has to be agreed to in order to use their service). Your first amendment arguement doesn’t apply because of this and because users can simply (1) choose another blogging website or (2) host their own.
Reply to this comment
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 @ Aug 25, 04 | 3:59 pm
jonfmorse says:
I didn’t make a first amendment argument. I made a moral argument.
Reply to this comment
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 @ Aug 25, 04 | 4:03 pm
jonfmorse says:
Didn’t mean to submit yet.
I made a moral argument, and I compared this situation to the twenty-three gazillion times a day people on LJ make identifiable references to people.
No matter what LJ’s TOS says, the one thing they really cannot do (especially since they accept money for their service) is apply their rules in an inconsistent fashion. If jameth’s post is actionable by LJ Abuse, so is EVERY SINGLE POST on the service, whatsoever, which refers to an identifiable individual.
In fact, I think I’m going to go report myself now for saying mean things about Svetlana Khorkina the other night.
Reply to this comment
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 @ Aug 25, 04 | 4:17 pm
JupiterPluvius says:
jonfmorse is quite eloquent, but I think his comment might be too complex for some of the folks who’ve posted on this thread, so let me sum it up in words of one syllable:
Yes, LJ can do this. The law says they can.
But it is still bull shit.
Reply to this comment
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 @ Aug 25, 04 | 5:01 pm
interloper says:
jonfmorse:
Actually, anyone that submits an abuse report about someone posting personal information will be successful. It’s pretty clear in the site’s TOS. It isn’t deisgned to protect the individual–it’s designed to prevent LJ from liability of any sort.
You’re free to post the information on your own webspace (ie-Jameth is doing so here) as much as you’d like…but when a private entity is running a private business, morality takes a back seat to liability.
Reply to this comment
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 @ Aug 25, 04 | 6:38 pm
jonfmorse says:
And it’s horseshit. LJ cannot be held legally liable under any circumstances for people posting information that resides in the public domain. LJ isn’t held to any more strict a standard than a newspaper. If I go post that Joe Shlabotnik is a rapist, and Joe Shlabotnik has, indeed, been conviced of rape, Joe can’t do a fucking thing to LJ, because he has no right to privacy regarding his status as a convicted felon, and the information is not false.
Reply to this comment
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 @ Aug 25, 04 | 10:09 pm
glockw0rk says:
” LJ cannot be held legally liable under any circumstances for people posting information that resides in the public domain.
But they CAN be sued.
What’s easier for them, to preclude circumstances in which rabid internet weirdos file piles of frivolous lawsuits, or wait for them to happen and then fight them in court?
More to the point (since they *are* a business), which is CHEAPER?
The bottom line is, their site, their rules.
Expecing a business to act ‘morally’ is extremely naive.
Reply to this comment
Thursday, August 26th, 2004 @ Aug 26, 04 | 12:04 am
Petey says:
jonfmorse:
You bring up a very good point that, if Jameth talking about Rodriguez as a person violates ToS, than any discussion about any non LJuser violates ToS.
May I suggest filing a question with the LJAbuse team on the support forum asking that very thing, not mentioning jameth? Something like:
“A point of curiosity:
ToS XVI section 1 contains a list of things that one LJ user may not do to another LJ User without running the chance of incurring a penalty. Does this apply to non LJ-users? If a LJ user commits any of the actions described under XVI.1 to someone who is not an active Livejournal User, are they still in violation? ”
Then, when they reply, “no",
reply with:
“FREE JAMETH!".
I may go link this whole discussion to http://tips.fbi.gov, as I have done in the past with some pedo sites from Weekend Webs at somethingawful.com.
p.s. the LJ abuse whores still haven’t replied back to my link. I think they are scared.
–Petey
Reply to this comment
Thursday, August 26th, 2004 @ Aug 26, 04 | 2:32 am
Petey says:
I have sent a tip to https://tips.fbi.gov/ with appropriate info. Emphasized the anal quality of LJAbuse.
Hopefully they’ll nail him.
–Petey
Reply to this comment
Thursday, August 26th, 2004 @ Aug 26, 04 | 3:29 am
Petey says:
Perverted justice had this to say:
Nonetheless, we can do little without violating our protocol. We suggest that you call your local law enforcement agency through their non-emergency number. Ask them to put you into contact with the internet crimes unit that has jurisdiction over that area, and explain to them in full detail everything about the case. If there is merit to it and the police can do something, we have full confidence that they will try.
You can also try contacting your Crimes Against Children Coordinator at your local FBI Field Office (which you can find here: http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm ) or link to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s CyberTipline at www.cybertipline.com The CyberTipline allows people to file a report by submitting an online form. This form is then reviewed by analysts and forwarded to law enforcement including the FBI, the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and state and local police agencies.
Best,
Harvey
Information First Coordinator
Since July of 2002, we have worked to help clean up the quasi-epidemic of “wannabe pedophiles” in regional chat rooms - http://www.perverted-justice.com
harvey@perverted-justice.com
Reply to this comment
Thursday, August 26th, 2004 @ Aug 26, 04 | 4:54 am
Petey says:
I submitted a tip to cybertipline.
–Petey
Reply to this comment
Thursday, August 26th, 2004 @ Aug 26, 04 | 4:41 pm
Petey says:
RESPONSE FROM LJABUSE:
Dear Mr. Peterson,
As the Abuse Team evaluates each abuse complaint on an individual basis, it is difficult to address hypothetical situations involving LiveJournal’s Terms of Service (ToS).
We do note, however, that the Terms of Service (ToS) do not indicate that content posted in journal entries must refer to another LiveJournal user to be considered harassment or invasion of privacy. We further note that there is a difference between content that is ‘in the public domain’ in the sense of being accessible to the public, and ‘in the public domain’ with regard to copyright. It is frequently assumed, regarding the Internet, that the two are equivalent. This is not necessarily the case.
Additionally, The very notion of assuming a LiveJournal user has violated LiveJournal’s ToS, without a complaint and subsequent investigation, is something of an anathema to the Abuse Team’s policies and way of thinking. Please understand that LiveJournal does not police or screen the content of our user’s journals in any way. Without a report of violations – with direct links to the violations – the Abuse Team is unable to investigate an issue. Only once we have this information, are we able to take any appropriate action.
Finally, the fact that a given user or former user of LiveJournal may or may not have committed a breach of the ToS would not make subsequent ToS breaches by other users of the service acceptable. At the risk of oversimplifying this concept, we would recall the maxim “Two wrongs don’t make a right". Breaches of the ToS by one user are not evaluated in light of possible ToS breaches by others.
In short, while we cannot indicate whether your hypothetical ‘User B’ would or would not be in violation of the ToS without an actual complaint and subsequent investigation, we can definitively state that your apparent assumption that material intended to harass or invade the privacy of an individual who is not a current LiveJournal user cannot be a violation of the ToS is incorrect. Given a properly formatted abuse report from a non-user of the service, the Abuse Team would investigate and take whatever action it determined appropriate to the circumstances.
Regards,
LiveJournal Abuse Team
They have further closed the request.
Interesting response.
–Petey
Reply to this comment
Thursday, August 26th, 2004 @ Aug 26, 04 | 9:14 pm
sammy says:
Sorry to hear you got fucked, even though you had almost nothing to do with this, Petey.
Maybe this guy is on Perverted-Justice.com.
Reply to this comment
Friday, August 27th, 2004 @ Aug 27, 04 | 2:32 am
Petey says:
I didn’t really get fucked, sam. I just got rebuffed in my attempt to have LJAbuse so a shred of moral decency.
I don’t think he is–something tells me Harvey from PJ keep good tabs on whoever the site is keeping track of, and he didn’t recognize him.
Yeah, I didn’t catch onto the whole thing in time to really be a part of it. Just trying to see how shitty LjAbuse really could be.
Answer: pretty darn.
–Petey
Reply to this comment
Sunday, August 29th, 2004 @ Aug 29, 04 | 3:20 am
Sebatical says:
I still can’t bring myself to believe that they would force someone to remove data that is (by law) public record.
That simply dumbfounds me.
Reply to this comment
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004 @ Aug 31, 04 | 5:42 am
leora says:
speaking of 14 year old girls
http://www.livejournal.com/users/see_thru_me/23253.html
wtf is this?
Reply to this comment