News of the world to close

[GGT]

Right, but that's the key. It's not sex, or the sale of sex that creates victimization or exploitation of the women (as GeeGee claims), it's that these people are denied protection by the courts.

Prostitution doesn't victimize women, moralizing asshats who ban prostitution do.

Whoa, you got my claim backward! I didn't make any cause-and-effect claim at all, but that who's a victim matters.

No joke, I'm saying the only definition that really matters is "victim". Prostitution doesn't automatically mean there's a victim. Fucking doesn't automatically mean there's a victim. On the other hand, young girls can be "traded" and exchanged as "goods", without any sexual activity whatsoever....it currently happens over oceans and between nations, and even virgins can be caught in the sex-slave trade.

As EJ said, even where prostitution is legal there's still an underground or black market related to other laws (immigration). Illegals don't come forward to report crimes because they know they'd be deported. Legal prostitution (or drugs) won't get rid of exploitation so long as victims fear being charged with a crime themselves. The ring leaders know that, and target illegals or anyone operating just under the law.

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/wo...agewanted=1&hp

Interesting that when a Murdoch paper does something bad, everyone goes up in arms, even after the paper in question is closed and several executives are jailed. When a non-Murdoch paper does the exact same thing, it's just a handful of Tory MPs being outraged.

[Steely Glint]

Oh, just be quiet, Loki. The allegations being leveled at the Mirror are nothing like as serious as those aimed at the News of the World.

[Loki]

The allegations are that they made frequent use of phone hacking, to the extent that it was a normal practice. How is this different from what News of the World did?

[Steely Glint]

No, they're not. The allegations are that they used a lot of private investigators, and that they hacked the phones of Heather Miller and Paul McCartney.

[Loki]

The Guardian has reported that the Mirror Group journalists were involved in widespread phone hacking. Former Daily Mirror reporter James Hipwell has admitted that hacking was widespread at newspapers other than the News of the World and has claimed he had conversations with the editor Piers Morgan over stories that could have been obtained by illegal means.

http://m.ibtimes.com/piers-morgan-da...ws-192153.html

[Steely Glint]

Oh, sorry, when you said "allegations" I thought you meant "something supported by actual evidence" rather than just some stuff people said. Given that we're talking about someone being asked to account for themselves before parliament here.

I agree that phone hacking probably goes way beyond News of the World & News Corp generally, but I think there should be a bit more than an article in the Guardian and some allegations by a former Mirror reporter before we start gaoling people, closing down newspapers and calling executives before Parliament.

(Hint: we had all of those things literally months and months before the story got big about the News of the World, and nothing was done. It was only the hacking of Milley Dowler's phone that turned the story into a shitstorm)

[Loki]

So is the difference here that the known hacking is of a disliked woman instead of a pretty dead girl?

[Steely Glint]

No, the difference is between the amount of evidence that anything actually illegal took place.

[Loki]

I.E. Piers Morgan actually admitting to it in 2006.

[Steely Glint]

Read what he said:

Stories soon emerged that the marriage was in trouble - at one stage I was played a tape of a message Paul had left for Heather on her mobile phone. It was heartbreaking. The couple had clearly had a tiff, Heather had fled to India, and Paul was pleading with her to come back. He sounded lonely, miserable and desperate, and even sang "We Can Work It Out" into the answerphone."

[Loki]

Pray tell how he gained access to that message.

[Steely Glint]

He didn't get access to them, someone else did.

[Loki]

He listened to a tape that he knew was accessed illegally, and yet didn't think that at all unusual. At the very least, he was allowing his paper to publish stories obtained through illegal means, which is something Rebekah Brooks has been arrested for.

[Hazir]

Murdoch is evil, his empire should be burnt down to the ground and then salt should be spread over what remains.

[RandBlade]

How embarrassing, now it appears the Guardian was involved in hacking itself. Bet that will get front page coverage on the Guardian, BBC etc

Re: Morgan, there's a ton of evidence, all handily provided by a Mr P Morgan.

[CitizenCain]

So is the difference here that the known hacking is of a disliked woman instead of a pretty dead girl?

That's what it looks like to me too.

Murdoch is evil, his empire should be burnt down to the ground and then salt should be spread over what remains.

What makes Murdoch so evil, by the way? He doesn't seem any worse than the rest of the industry, and all information monopolies are pretty bad at best anyway. Hell, as these things go, Murdoch might even be better than most of his contemporaries (powerful men, or men controlling large amounts of information).

[RandBlade]

That's what it looks like to me too.

Its a pretty important difference.

Also the hacking of the dead pretty girl involved deleting messages - tampering with evidence for a missing girl, and making it appear (falsely) that the already dead girl was still alive giving false hope to family and friends.

[CitizenCain]

Its a pretty important difference.

Not really, no. If anything, I'd say that hacking a dead person's phone, even an attractive, young female dead person () is a victimless crime, but hacking a living person's phone has a victim. (In the general case, of course).

Same phenomenon as when a pretty, young white girl goes missing in the US. How many thousands of people go missing every year, yet only the good looking white ones get attention? But, nah, there's probably no correlation there.

Also the hacking of the dead pretty girl involved deleting messages - tampering with evidence for a missing girl, and making it appear (falsely) that the already dead girl was still alive giving false hope to family and friends.

And it's your assertion that the public both reads past headlines and is capable of making such a distinction? I think you're reaching here. Really. The public's just dumb as dirt, and only cares about this because it's an excuse to crucify someone they already don't like (for unclear and possibly non-existent reasons).

[Steely Glint]

He listened to a tape that he knew was accessed illegally, and yet didn't think that at all unusual.

Yeah, can you imagine how someone like Morgan would spin that one if you put that accusation to him?

At the very least, he was allowing his paper to publish stories obtained through illegal means, which is something Rebekah Brooks has been arrested for.

Except they never actually did anything with that particular piece of voice mail.

[RandBlade]

Not really, no. If anything, I'd say that hacking a dead person's phone, even an attractive, young female dead person () is a victimless crime, but hacking a living person's phone has a victim. (In the general case, of course).

I'd say hacking an innocent person's phone is worse than hacking that of someone who lives by whoring themselves out to the whims of the public.

And it's your assertion that the public both reads past headlines and is capable of making such a distinction? I think you're reaching here. Really. The public's just dumb as dirt, and only cares about this because it's an excuse to crucify someone they already don't like (for unclear and possibly non-existent reasons).

Doubt it. For one thing this story was simmering with the Guardian and BBC trying to push it for more than 3 years before Milly Dowler's story was announced. Within days of Milly Dowler the NOW was dead. I don't think the public gives two shakes about Murdoch, unlike media elites and liberal extremes.

Except they never actually did anything with that particular piece of voice mail.

What about Sven and Ulrika?

[CitizenCain]

I'd say hacking an innocent person's phone is worse than hacking that of someone who lives by whoring themselves out to the whims of the public.

But an innocent person's phone didn't get hacked. A corpse's phone got hacked. Albeit, the corpse of an attractive, white, young girl that the media likes to focus on, but a corpse nonetheless. And, contrary to what ancient Egyptians and modern-day governments believe, corpses cannot own things and don't have rights.

Doubt it. For one thing this story was simmering with the Guardian and BBC trying to push it for more than 3 years before Milly Dowler's story was announced. Within days of Milly Dowler the NOW was dead.

So, the difference is that one "victim" (who wasn't actually victimized) was a pretty young girl, and the other victim (who actually was victimized) was an older bitch?

You just agreed with Loki's claim... the same one I agreed with earlier.

[RandBlade]

I've said all along that hacking Dowler's went too far and was what caused the outrage.

[earthJoker]

The crime itself isn't more severe, you cross the line when you hack someones phone, doesn't matter whose phone that is.

[Loki]

I'd say hacking an innocent person's phone is worse than hacking that of someone who lives by whoring themselves out to the whims of the public.

The law doesn't agree with you. You don't get a more lenient penalty for committing a crime against a morally abhorrent person.

[RandBlade]

The law doesn't agree with you. You don't get a more lenient penalty for committing a crime against a morally abhorrent person.

In the court of law yes, in the court of public opnion it is different though.

NOW was closed by the court of public opinion.

[Aimless]

I'd say hacking an innocent person's phone is worse than hacking that of someone who lives by whoring themselves out to the whims of the public.

What's that? Implied consent? Blaming the victim? When you speak of the vengeful public, do you include yourself?

[RandBlade]

Honestly yes, of course.

[Aimless]

Corpses do have rights btw, and those that they lose may go to their relatives. Are people's medical records automatically made public the moment they die? Are all of a person's belongings immediately stolen by the taxman upon their death?

I don't know what the law has to say specifically about hacking a dead person's phone but I don't think we can assume that people automatically lose all their personhood and all their rights as soon as they die. Talking about the reality here, not about a philosophically perfect world.

[RandBlade]

I think hacking a murder victims phone is much worse. Besides which, she could have still been alive at the time of the hacking - their deletion of evidence in a criminal investigation (again far more serious) gave the family false hope that she was still alive.