The Dangers of the Internet (1 Viewer)

Chris · Jul 20, 2003

I'm not going to post the links, but flat out, you realize that the internet prones people to do sick things, when people start mass-emailing a website URL.. that contains pictures of the girl involved in the Kobe Bryant case, lists her home phone #, home address, and a scans from her HS yearbook, etc.

SICK. Here I work with the net all day, and it amazes me how much it allows people to pull out their worst side and do things on a mass, public level they would never say or do in person, face to face.

Colin Davidson · Jul 20, 2003

Just amamzing at what new lows people are willing to stoop to.

Perhaps we should take a cue from Jay and Silent Bob and get a list and go around beating the crap out of these people.

Chris Lockwood · Jul 20, 2003

No surprise. She can't expect to stay anonymous very long.

Don Black · Jul 20, 2003

What's the alternative though? We'd don't get to know who our accusers are? We hide criminal investigations from the public? Well that's a great police state....

I feel bad for the girl and people should learn to be more considerate. However, I support the public release of the information.

Chris · Jul 20, 2003

There is, however, a common medium. You are not within a police state when everyone knows - by design - when trial occurs, including the jury of her peers.

All you gain by publishing her home phone #, address, and other information long before the trial is intimidation.

If you're worried about a police state, think of this as a media state.. where people are too afraid to press charges because of fear of retribution.

Kirby Puckett's wife has said, in recent months, that she did not consult with police regarding his attitude and abuse because he was so well liked within the community and she was afraid of the response.

If you make victims afraid to get help, all you do is enable the criminals.

There is a big difference between the accused having the right to face his accuser in a court of law - something constitutionally guaranteed - and society the right to know, in advance, all the details revolving around the person making the accusation. A HUGE difference.

MikeAlletto · Jul 20, 2003

Think about how this probably happened though. The girl probably told someone she shouldn't have what was going on. They then told someone else and so on until it got to someone who put together all the information online. I bet you money she is not innocent in her info being circulated out there. Information doesn't just spontaneously appear, she had to have told someone something.

It was only a matter of time, its not a big deal.

Chris · Jul 20, 2003

Think about how this probably happened though. The girl probably told someone she shouldn't have what was going on. They then told someone else and so on until it got to someone who put together all the information online. I bet you money she is not innocent in her info being circulated out there. Information doesn't just spontaneously appear, she had to have told someone something.

You do realize that her name would also be listed within even sealed records with the courthouse, DAs office, and of course, the defendant. So there is not a chance in heck any of those leaked it? You're making the assumption, and assigning guilt "SHE had to have told someone something" yes, she told the DA's office something, who had to tell the defendant, and all attornies involved and staff know, as well as the court offices.

But, I guess, as far as you're evaluating it, the only person in this population 3,000 town who could have leaked this information would be the claimant themselves.

I guess she doesn't get to be "innocent before proven guilty" on this claim

Click to expand...

SteveA · Jul 21, 2003

I support the public release of the information.

Let's go ahead and abolish the witness protection program too, while we're at it! Those John Gotti-types have a right to know who their accusers are, right?

Click to expand...

MikeAlletto · Jul 21, 2003

I guess she doesn't get to be "innocent before proven guilty" on this claim

I would find it more believable that one of her 'friends' talked instead of a lawyer or someone working for the lawyer. People who are suddenly forced out into the front tend to want their name known. Whether its good or bad people thrive on that kind of thing. This woman had a friend die and recently broke up with her boyfriend. You can't tell me that she isn't gonna want attention out of this.

Kobe Bryant is not going to jail. If anything this woman will get the money she wants and it will all disappear.

I think this woman had sex with Kobe in the hotel. She was talking about it to someone and they gave her the idea to say he forced her. What a great plan. Rich, married, and famous person vs poor, 19 year old hotel worker, what an easy mark. Whether he did do it or not doesn't matter cause this woman will get her money and that will be that. Move on, play ball.

Click to expand...

Steve>Smoker · Jul 21, 2003

Yup .... bit like Michael Jackson ..

Sure he was a bit freaky but don't ya think the kids dad saw it as a way to get rich - just cause a stink till you get enough $$$$ to make you shut up.

Fame is great, but all the attention aint going to be good all the time.

I'll stick with just being rich thanks

Lee L · Jul 21, 2003

Let's go ahead and abolish the witness protection program too, while we're at it! Those John Gotti-types have a right to know who their accusers are, right?

Not directly related to this case but I'm pretty sure that in the witness protection program, the witnesses actually show up in court and testify, often in multiple trials. After that, they are given new identities in cities far away from where they used to live. Since these new identities have no connetion to the old, except in the US Marshal's records, they usually do not get found but occaisionally, people are recognized on a fluke. Or more usually, they commit other crimes.

Click to expand...

Steve_Tk · Jul 21, 2003

If she had never slept with Kobe Bryant, then decided she didn't really want to and turned it in, this wouldn't of happened. Yes I'm assuming this is what has happened, and judging by the new evidence that she overdosed on pills a few months ago makes her credibility go down the crapper. All the lawyers are loving this because she just lost the case. An instable woman who overdoses is not exactly someone people are going to believe.

This is what it said in the paper

The defense attorneys are "looking for a way to demonstrate that this woman is hysterical and over-reactive," Pugsley said. "This is literally dynamite evidence, a bonanza for the defense and a landmine for prosecution."

Chris · Jul 21, 2003

Or, increases her credibility. Remember, this incident did not happen yesterday. The incident happened in January. If she tried to bump her self off in may/june, etc. that would not be uncommon for Rape victims, many who suffer severe depression post the incident.

John Spencer · Jul 21, 2003

Chris, what happened in January? The overdose? The rape accusations are for events taking place on June 30. All her other actions (break-up, friend's death, overdose) happened in the 2 months prior to the supposed rape. I really don't know who to believe in this case, because I wasn't there and I don't know all the facts.

Just keep this in mind, everyone. For a good 2 weeks to a month, everyone felt Susan Smith was telling the truth, and no one assumed her responsible. I'm not comparing the crimes in this case to that one; I'm just comapring the predisposition the American public has to flail at poorly-formualted opinions with little to no hard facts to support them. I'm not saying the girl is grubbing for money, but I'm not saying Kobe forced himself on her, either. I'm just saying let's let the facts come out before we judge anyone.

Chris · Jul 21, 2003

You are correct; USA Today made a date based error which they have corrected.. in their article, 2C Monday, they noted that the prosecutor initially did not want to go ahead with charges in january, until police detectives could find enough contributing data to support the case.

USA Today seems to be wrong on this point.

MikeAlletto · Jul 22, 2003

For a good 2 weeks to a month, everyone felt Susan Smith was telling the truth, and no one assumed her responsible.

I didn't believe her. I also think the Ramsy's killed their daughter (I think thats their name, beauty pagent little girl, taken from home...)

I also suspected Scott Peterson (again with the names, christmas eve, pregnant wife disappears). I also think the senator(?) in the Chandra Levy case is guilty.

Click to expand...

Tommy Ceez · Jul 22, 2003

Great!
As if it wasnt hard enough to tell the police about the horrible details of sexual assault now you have to worry about being exposed in public so that millions of retarted sports star worshipers can stalk you!

The facts of this case, wether the girl is lying or not, is absolutly POINTLESS when considering how horrible the act of putting her info on the net is. This could lead to a society where you or me can be accused of sexual harrasment for almost ANYTHING while celebrities can rape women without any fear of retribution due to the fact that there will be psychos calling and coming to the victems house within days.

Kobe has a right to face his accuser, you have no right to know her phone #.

Forget your silly theories on what happened in the hotel that night, I dont care what you think about the case, JUST REALIZE THAT PUTTING HER INFO ON THE NET IS A DISPICABLE, COWARDLY, GUTLESS, ACT.

Don Black · Jul 22, 2003

There is nothing wrong with the disclosure of public information. Would it be wrong to call that number or stop by the house? Yes. Would it be wrong to release that information and instruct people to call the number and stop by the house? Yes. But telephone and address listings, for the most part, are a matter of public record. It applies to celebrities and commoners alike. It is up to individuals to act responsibly with the information that they are provided.

Mark Schermerhorn · Jul 22, 2003

Umm, the world has changed. Anyone can be a publisher. That means the lowest common denominator is always going to have a say. Things like this are going to keep happening as long as the web is as open as it is.

There is no good outcome for any of the parties involved in this case. I have little sympathy for the accusor or the accused. Messing around with wealthy and powerful people invites big problems. If she was raped, she of course did not deserve it. Ugh. There is just no good resolution. Not even close. This whole thing makes me sick.

MikeAlletto · Jul 22, 2003

Forget your silly theories on what happened in the hotel that night, I dont care what you think about the case, JUST REALIZE THAT PUTTING HER INFO ON THE NET IS A DISPICABLE, COWARDLY, GUTLESS, ACT.

Its all on the net anyways, someone just put 2 and 2 together to get the full picture.

Click to expand...

Home Theater

Entertainment & Streaming Content

Physical Media

Home Theater Equipment and Hardware

Other Diversions

Bargains and Classifieds

Home Theater Forum

Archives

The Dangers of the Internet (1 Viewer)

Second Unit

Screenwriter

Supporting Actor

Grip

Supporting Actor

Supporting Actor

Second Unit

Screenwriter

Second Unit

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more

Similar Threads

Forum statistics