Guilty Plea in Rehtaeh Parsons Case

The news, which as far as I can tell Canadas's major news organizations have yet to mention , is here.

As to the controversy around Anonymous' efforts to keep this case open and whether it amounted to on-line vigilantism,, I wrote at the time:

One thing that seems to have been overlooked is that much of the bullying took place over Facebook and other on-line forums.  Presumably Anon has IDed the four by digging through their on-line traces, and presumably, should they reveal their identities, they will do this on the basis of the material they have found, perhaps by re-publishing it.  If so, they will merely be regurgitating public statements made by the four suspects. I see nothing wrong with that.  I certainly don't see how it qualifies as vigilantism.

In fact, I think Selley and co. are ignoring the free speech angle in all of this.  They are essentially telling Anonymous (or whoever might identity the four males, as apparently there is more that one group looking for them) to self-censor the results of their on-line investigative work.  This is particularly hypocritical in Selley's case; he has always ready to go to the wall for the right to spew hate speech.  He is now asking that folks who may be in a position to forward the cause of Justice to keep their mouths shut.  That's hypocrisy of the worst sort.

Can't see anything wrong with that today.  Anon just did what the nation's journalist community should have done, if they hadn't been doing whatever it is they do nowadays, and call a job.

Next Time Someone Chides Anonymous

...for their allegedly reckless approach to the Rehtaeh Parsons case,  remind them how professional news organizations like the NY Post and CNN covered the Boston bombings.  Then tell them to get bent.

PS.  Haven't been writing much lately.  Am in the middle of a move.  Hopefully things will be a bit more active around here come May.

Anon Makes Its Case

...and they have handed the evidence over to the police.  One day the press will catch up on this one.

Should Anonymous Identify Rehtaeh Parsons' Tormentors?

WK ignited a crap storm yesterday when he tasked the hackivist group Anonymous with finding the identity of  four male teens who allegedly assaulted Miss. Parsons. Anon now claims to have done just that.  Furthermore, they have threatened to name names should it become apparent that the Nova Scotia authorities intend to do nothing further in what appears on the face of it to have been a case of gang-rape and subsequent cyber-bullying of the rape victim.

Some writers, like Chris Selley, have suggested that Kinsella and others are engaged in dangerous vigilantism.  I don't think so.

One thing that seems to have been overlooked is that much of the bullying took place over Facebook and other on-line forums.  Presumably Anon has IDed the four by digging through their on-line traces, and presumably, should they reveal their identities, they will do this on the basis of the material they have found, perhaps by re-publishing it.  If so, they will merely be regurgitating public statements made by the four suspects. I see nothing wrong with that.  I certainly don't see how it qualifies as vigilantism.

In fact, I think Selley and co. are ignoring the free speech angle in all of this.  They are essentially telling Anonymous (or whoever might identity the four males, as apparently there is more that one group looking for them) to self-censor the results of their on-line investigative work.  This is particularly hypocritical in Selley's case; he has always ready to go to the wall for the right to spew hate speech.  He is now asking that folks who may be in a position to forward the cause of Justice to keep their mouths shut.  That's hypocrisy of the worst sort.

PS. Dawg has a good post on this.