Customize

Peaches Geldof facing criminal charges for rape tweet

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Nov 28, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Setting aside my distaste for the woman, this is an example of the law being an heavyhanded ass. I find myself conflicted on this one. On one hand I can see anyone being horrified by the crime and taking to twitter, on the other protecting the identities of victims should always be paramount.

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/20...f-could-face-charges-for-outing-co-defendants

    Peaches Geldof could face criminal charges after tweeting the names of the women who allowed their children to be sexually abused by Lostprophets frontman Ian Watkins.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Anonymous Member

    The law is not being heavyhanded and is in place to protect the children involved. Those kids were treated as objects by the people who abused them and are still being treated as objects by fools who think showing off on the internet is more important than respecting their right to anonymity.

    Fuck Peaches Geldof anyway because she didn't care about the child victims of Scientology when she was doing her courses and saunas at the Celebrity Centre.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. RightOn Member

    I thought this thread was about her Dad and that he tweeted something about rape on twitter.
    title needs a change methinks
  4. Anonymous Member

    Scientology or no, that girl is just a fucking twit who would be absolutely nobody without a father who has spent a life stretching his 15 minutes long past the sell-by. Since she has embraced the role of public persona (as opposed to respecting her own obvious mental limitations and stayed the fuck clear of the public eye) I hope they make a huge bloody chunk of example of her for the kid's sake.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. muldrake Member

    As repugnant as the behavior is, and it deserves reproach, I'm generally suspicious of any heavy-handed prohibition, especially a criminal one, on reporting truthful information about court proceedings. Suppose one of those women was applying for a job as a nanny? Wouldn't you want to know that?
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Anonymous Member

    Those women will never be allowed to work with children because they'll never pass the CRB checks. The children involved have suffered, and they'll continue to suffer for the rest of their lives to an extent. Let them have as much anonymity as they can now.

    This is not about protecting the guilty and the same restrictions on reporting apply to all cases where naming the defendant would identify the victim. How many people who suffered abuse by a family member would refuse to come forward if they knew they would be named in public?
  7. muldrake Member

    While I view the speech in this case to be beneath contempt, I have to oppose on principle any criminal prosecution because someone said something that is true. Even if they shouldn't have said it.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins