“Three men who had never met have been convicted of conspiring to rape a girl under 16, based on internet messages. They hatched a plot to rape and allegedly murder a girl, making ‘chilling references to the Soham murders’, Southwark Crown Court heard. David Beavan, 42, of Bransgore, Hants, Alan Hedgcock, 41, of Twickenham, and Robert Mayers, 42, of Warrington, were all cleared of plotting murder. The trio, who will be sentenced next month, made their plans in a chatroom. The jury heard the three men communicated with each other over a free and reputable site which allows users to chat and exchange photographs. The court was told they discussed a variety of scenarios and even referred to doing a ‘Holly and Jess’ — a reference to the Soham 10-year-olds murdered by Ian Huntley in 2002… Surveillance began after Beavan went to Bournemouth police with a DVD containing information from chat logs, the court was told. There was no evidence they had met face to face before they were charged.” — BBC (UK)

(Thanks to Furpo for the link.)

The internet has certainly given a new twist to a lot of old crimes. Sometimes the new twist even results in something approaching a paradox, like the story of the man convicted for abusing a girl he never actually met in person. Similarly, these three men in England have been convicted of conspiring to rape a girl, and yet they’ve never met in person either. What sort of conspiracy is that? One claimed he was just fantasizing aloud in adult chat rooms, another claimed he was trying to get evidence on the others, and the third simply “denied any wrongdoing.” And you do have to give some thought to that last guy’s position. Did he really do anything? Is a speech act tantamount to a real act? How do you differentiate between bullshit and a plan of action?

The theoretical questions are difficult, but in practical terms these guys weren’t saints. Prior to their conviction on conspiracy charges, all three pled guilty to possession, distribution, and production of child pornography. Grok that. The possession charges are incriminating but they don’t necessarily mean these guys were rapists. The distribution charges probably arose from the fact that they were sharing pictures with each other. But the production charge? No newspaper account clearly explained why the three were charged with this. If they were making kiddie porn, it implies they were victimizing real live children. That’s not just fantasy or cybercrime.

Furthermore, a group fantasy in an adult chat room might take the form of imagining the rape of a young girl. It might even associate a real person with that act — say, a celebrity. Lots of people fantasize about celebrities anyway. But when this group fantasy focuses on a specific individual and it grows specific in its details, then it does indeed enter into dangerous terrain. How would you feel if you knew three random guys were talking about assaulting you on the path you walk every day? Uncomfortable, right? Plainly that speech act edges over into something more tangible and malefic.

In sending the link, Furpo wondered whether this conviction would have greater consequences — perhaps crackdowns on other groups where people engage in illicit talk but without intent to harm anyone. Certainly it’s possible. But in this particular case the conviction appears warranted, and in general it is difficult to imagine the internet ever being purged of zones for free conversation. Crackdowns online would be like prostitution busts offline. They might inconvenience a few hookers or johns, but they’ll never do away with prostitution. So too online — be aware of what you say because you don’t want to be one of those whom the authorities make an example of, but odds are you’ll always have a place online to say whatever it is you want to say, however illicit.

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.