Peter Bright legal issues

[Yuhong bao]

To be honest, there were calls for DrPizza/PeterB to do moderation in a separate account.

As an 11-year Ars veteran, I assume you know it's expressly verboten for a single person to post using >1 accounts, regardless of the reason? It's a banworthy offense, and people have been banned for it (despite the fact that there are justifiable reasons for it, e.g. posting for advice on the VR or BR without using one's real name, in case the Ars handle includes it).

As I remember, this was so that it can be blocked without blocking moderation announcements.

 

[Bad Monkey!]

I must say that through the years I've wondered how much of his libertine / extreme libertarian writing was a pose and how much was a true reflection of his true self. Like others posting before me, there were intervals when I was so offended by things he wrote (and the editorial decisions that approved his stuff) that I didn't visit Ars for months. I came back again and again and finally subscribed. I'm still a subscriber but one that would like an explanation for how an otherwise great venue for reasoned discourse made the decision to hire this grotesquely obnoxious outlier as a staff writer.

You answered your own question. Ars has and has always valued rational discourse on its forums. It's not illegal to be an asshole or have unpopular opinions, and while Peter may have been both, he also defended them rationally, nor did he give any serious indication that his basis for his arguments was anything other than his opinion, as opposed to justification for something he was actually doing. Furthermore, to my knowledge there was never anything controversial about his professional front page work (unless you find opinions about Microsoft controversial).

 

[tigas]

Even though I never engaged with PeterB nor have recollections (good or bad) of his time in the fora or even of his likes and dislikes (all I can remember is the McRib and... DOTA2?), I enjoyed his articles. Although it is completely Ars/CN's (legal department's) decision, I would also prefer that his articles remain up, maybe with a disclaimer explaining what we all know.

And what *do* we know? As far as I understand, bupkis.

WHO KNOWS WHAT EVIL LURKS IN THE HEART OF MEN? The Death of Rats looked up from the feast of potato. SQUEAK, he said. Death waved a hand dismissively. WELL, YES, OBVIOUSLY ME, he said. I JUST WONDERED IF THERE WAS ANYONE ELSE.

Even so, the BoingBoing article hit me like a ton of bricks. Therefore, I cannot begin to imagine what the staff at Ars, Peter's friends, and his family are going through. My thoughts are with them, and any (purported) victims, which I also hope are imaginary - for their sake.

But Dystopia, that video you linked? The first thing out of his mouth was, paraphrased, "And who are these disgusting people? Well for a start, they look like this. [presents a bad photo of Peter, certainly not of him enjoying his McRib]". Well, I don't care how good of a legal scholar he is and if Popehat shivers his timbers about him - he can fuck right off.

 

[papadage]

Just another mediocre right wing douchebag, serving other right wing douchebags.

 

[Elephantine]

/soapbox



I mean, that's all well and good.

But the fact remains is that he was a public figure. He was a blogger/journalist that interacted with the public and wrote articles for the public and went to public events. All his past views on consent and his attraction for teenage kids was information all found in this forum even before he was hired. And he continued to push his views on consent well after he was hired. Many other places would have fired him for less or not even bother hiring him in the first place, especially for a public figure.

Of course Ars isn't completely to blame, but his perversions and creepy ideas on consent was open knowledge beforehand and afterwards.

Yes, he's all of those things, and not just inside the microcosm of Ars. Quite the opposite, he has fooled many people from across the industry and the Internet and that is one of my points. A lot of people are provocateurs, iconoclasts and outright assholes. That alone is not enough to disqualify the capable from a career. For some that is the very reason for their careers. I know it's a popular approach these days marry a paid position with that of person's public and private personas, but I'm of the opinion that doing so is causing a great deal of harm on many levels. "Ars isn't completely to blame"? No, Ars isn't to blame at all. Peter is the one accused of these acts, nobody else.

Again, it's not a matter of what should be fair or not.

As a journalist/blogger he's a public figure and his past views and current views are all fair game to the public. And many of his views, especially regarding consent, was made well after he was hired and posted to the public with association of his legal name.

Ars knew of his past and his current views, but chose to hire him and keep him employed. They are not to blame for his heinous acts, but they are to blame for any PR and business fallout that will most likely occur from this.

Don't hire people to work in public positions and continue to employ those people who confess to wanting to have sex with teenagers and wanting to get rid of a definite age of consent.

 

[rodalpho]

I think the lesson to take from this is pretty simple-- when someone tells you who they are, believe them.

Nobody takes the devil's advocate position consistently for years. It isn't all internet bullshit for the lulz.

 

[pastoralchicken]

While I would have made a different choice, I can appreciate that Ars didn't ban him for purely contrary positions, but he was a fucking troll, and he played Ars, and Ars promoted him to mod, then author. He posted sexual things about kids multiple times, and he was laughed off with "ha-ha well, that's just peterb being edgy. Gosh, if you were smarter, you'd appreciate him and his debating skills."

Honestly, it's like listening to the BBC try to reconcile employing Jimmy Savile.

 

[Dystopia]

<snip for relevance>
Anyway, Nick has covered Peter's case in his last stream. Go to 2 hours, 13 minutes. It's a bit short (a relative statement here, about 20 minutes) since all there is so far is the initial charge, but if you're interested in following the case this (and not the general media) will be the highest quality source out there, since it's an actual lawyer reviewing the actual court documents.

I watched the video, I don't really find it adds value. He pretty much just reads the complaint, which I can and have done all by myself. Also, the continuous drumbeat of the political undertone in his conversation and the (assumingly approved) chat is incredibly petty. I don't care what "side" you're (general you) on, this is wrong and reprehensible behavior. Full stop.

It's possible that starting out with reading "The Blaze" predisposed me to read more into his tone than is warranted.

As I said, it's not so much for this video as for the ones he'll make when there's more to comment on. The reason he reads out the documents is that much of his audience treats his streams as a radio show. The reason I linked that particular video is because it's the one relevant to the PeterB case. If you want something that's more representative of the sort of analysis he does, check out this one where he goes through the Tfue vs Faze Clan lawsuit. He spends nearly 3 hours taking the filing apart, explaining the law surrounding it, and criticising various aspects of it. That's the sort of thing you can expect down the line, assuming there's actually a case and Peter doesn't just plead guilty at the first opportunity and decline to contest anything.

As for the chat, no, they're not approved. The only moderation is to keep the porn spammers out. If you meant the super chats, he has a policy of reading all super chats. High value ones as they come in, low value ones at the end of the stream. Something to keep in mind is that a lot of his audience started following him because of his coverage of the Vic Mignona case. Vic's case is one of a bunch of absolute scum in the US anime industry cloaking themselves in social justice in an effort to destroy an innocent man. That they would take the opposite politics from said scum should be quite understandable once one has the context. Most of the stream I linked was about Vic's case, with Peter's case tacked on at the end.

But Dystopia, that video you linked? The first thing out of his mouth was, paraphrased, "And who are these disgusting people? Well for a start, they look like this. [presents a bad photo of Peter, certainly not of him enjoying his McRib]". Well, I don't care how good of a legal scholar he is and if Popehat shivers his timbers about him - he can fuck right off.

Except that's not true. The first thing he says is a trigger warning. Followed by him expounding on how heinous the charges are, and consequently how vile it is to falsely accuse someone of same. The "they look like that" part was gallows humour in an effort to deal with the awfulness to come.

Just another mediocre right wing douchebag, serving other right wing douchebags.

And what would you know? Do you follow me around so you can make these worthless, content-free posts?

 

[kleshas]

The "they look like that" part was gallows humour in an effort to deal with the awfulness to come.

Certainly didn't seem like it to me. Very much turned me off the guy; highly unprofessional for the part he's trying to perform.

 

[Kagehiru]

/soapbox



I mean, that's all well and good.

But the fact remains is that he was a public figure. He was a blogger/journalist that interacted with the public and wrote articles for the public and went to public events. All his past views on consent and his attraction for teenage kids was information all found in this forum even before he was hired. And he continued to push his views on consent well after he was hired. Many other places would have fired him for less or not even bother hiring him in the first place, especially for a public figure.

Of course Ars isn't completely to blame, but his perversions and creepy ideas on consent was open knowledge beforehand and afterwards.

Yes, he's all of those things, and not just inside the microcosm of Ars. Quite the opposite, he has fooled many people from across the industry and the Internet and that is one of my points. A lot of people are provocateurs, iconoclasts and outright assholes. That alone is not enough to disqualify the capable from a career. For some that is the very reason for their careers. I know it's a popular approach these days marry a paid position with that of person's public and private personas, but I'm of the opinion that doing so is causing a great deal of harm on many levels. "Ars isn't completely to blame"? No, Ars isn't to blame at all. Peter is the one accused of these acts, nobody else.

Again, it's not a matter of what should be fair or not.

As a journalist/blogger he's a public figure and his past views and current views are all fair game to the public. And many of his views, especially regarding consent, was made well after he was hired and posted to the public with association of his legal name.

Ars knew of his past and his current views, but chose to hire him and keep him employed. They are not to blame for his heinous acts, but they are to blame for any PR and business fallout that will most likely occur from this.

Don't hire people to work in public positions and continue to employ those people who confess to wanting to have sex with teenagers and wanting to get rid of a definite age of consent.

To be clear, when I called for us to be reasonable regarding Peter and his relationship with Ars, it was in the context of them saying things similar to, "Well, he was always a bit creepy and the quality of coverage really has been slipping lately, etc." and "Ars should have known what he was like." These days, there is a PR risk with every employee you hire, re: my comments regarding the marrying of personas. Peter was obviously more of a visible risk, but only within the context his online behavior outside of his professional work. The quality of Ars' published work has absolutely nothing to do with Peter's forum persona, or his personal choices, full stop. I make that distinction in the hopes that regular readers and forum members will keep that in mind as we discuss this mess.

As to whether it's a matter of fair or not, it's always a matter of fairness, that's why I made the appeal. The Mob will come for Ars and anyone remotely associated with Peter. 4chan is already having a field day and others are sure to follow. As such, you can choose to descend to the level of online butchery that is sure to follow, or not. Distinctions like the one I make above won't matter to the Mob but hopefully it matters here.

 

[tigas]

Gallows humour? Or feeding the lizard-brain's idea that looks have anything to do with personality? No thanks. We're all full of (the same) shit underneath the skin. That's why I can't judge, and won't judge, Peter.

 

[papadage]

<snip for relevance>
Anyway, Nick has covered Peter's case in his last stream. Go to 2 hours, 13 minutes. It's a bit short (a relative statement here, about 20 minutes) since all there is so far is the initial charge, but if you're interested in following the case this (and not the general media) will be the highest quality source out there, since it's an actual lawyer reviewing the actual court documents.

I watched the video, I don't really find it adds value. He pretty much just reads the complaint, which I can and have done all by myself. Also, the continuous drumbeat of the political undertone in his conversation and the (assumingly approved) chat is incredibly petty. I don't care what "side" you're (general you) on, this is wrong and reprehensible behavior. Full stop.

It's possible that starting out with reading "The Blaze" predisposed me to read more into his tone than is warranted.

As I said, it's not so much for this video as for the ones he'll make when there's more to comment on. The reason he reads out the documents is that much of his audience treats his streams as a radio show. The reason I linked that particular video is because it's the one relevant to the PeterB case. If you want something that's more representative of the sort of analysis he does, check out this one where he goes through the Tfue vs Faze Clan lawsuit. He spends nearly 3 hours taking the filing apart, explaining the law surrounding it, and criticising various aspects of it. That's the sort of thing you can expect down the line, assuming there's actually a case and Peter doesn't just plead guilty at the first opportunity and decline to contest anything.

As for the chat, no, they're not approved. The only moderation is to keep the porn spammers out. If you meant the super chats, he has a policy of reading all super chats. High value ones as they come in, low value ones at the end of the stream. Something to keep in mind is that a lot of his audience started following him because of his coverage of the Vic Mignona case. Vic's case is one of a bunch of absolute scum in the US anime industry cloaking themselves in social justice in an effort to destroy an innocent man. That they would take the opposite politics from said scum should be quite understandable once one has the context. Most of the stream I linked was about Vic's case, with Peter's case tacked on at the end.

But Dystopia, that video you linked? The first thing out of his mouth was, paraphrased, "And who are these disgusting people? Well for a start, they look like this. [presents a bad photo of Peter, certainly not of him enjoying his McRib]". Well, I don't care how good of a legal scholar he is and if Popehat shivers his timbers about him - he can fuck right off.

Except that's not true. The first thing he says is a trigger warning. Followed by him expounding on how heinous the charges are, and consequently how vile it is to falsely accuse someone of same. The "they look like that" part was gallows humour in an effort to deal with the awfulness to come.

Just another mediocre right wing douchebag, serving other right wing douchebags.

And what would you know? Do you follow me around so you can make these worthless, content-free posts?

You have too high an opinion of yourself. I was in this thread before you stepped in with your need to threadshit alt-right garbage lawyer videos.

 

[ginger_swag]

<snip for relevance>
Anyway, Nick has covered Peter's case in his last stream. Go to 2 hours, 13 minutes. It's a bit short (a relative statement here, about 20 minutes) since all there is so far is the initial charge, but if you're interested in following the case this (and not the general media) will be the highest quality source out there, since it's an actual lawyer reviewing the actual court documents.

I watched the video, I don't really find it adds value. He pretty much just reads the complaint, which I can and have done all by myself. Also, the continuous drumbeat of the political undertone in his conversation and the (assumingly approved) chat is incredibly petty. I don't care what "side" you're (general you) on, this is wrong and reprehensible behavior. Full stop.

It's possible that starting out with reading "The Blaze" predisposed me to read more into his tone than is warranted.

As I said, it's not so much for this video as for the ones he'll make when there's more to comment on. The reason he reads out the documents is that much of his audience treats his streams as a radio show. The reason I linked that particular video is because it's the one relevant to the PeterB case. If you want something that's more representative of the sort of analysis he does, check out this one where he goes through the Tfue vs Faze Clan lawsuit. He spends nearly 3 hours taking the filing apart, explaining the law surrounding it, and criticising various aspects of it. That's the sort of thing you can expect down the line, assuming there's actually a case and Peter doesn't just plead guilty at the first opportunity and decline to contest anything.

As for the chat, no, they're not approved. The only moderation is to keep the porn spammers out. If you meant the super chats, he has a policy of reading all super chats. High value ones as they come in, low value ones at the end of the stream. Something to keep in mind is that a lot of his audience started following him because of his coverage of the Vic Mignona case. Vic's case is one of a bunch of absolute scum in the US anime industry cloaking themselves in social justice in an effort to destroy an innocent man. That they would take the opposite politics from said scum should be quite understandable once one has the context. Most of the stream I linked was about Vic's case, with Peter's case tacked on at the end.

I see. Well, I'll keep an open mind if/when he has a follow-up video relating to the case. I was referencing the regular chat, which I won't hold against him given that it's unmoderated (there's a few channels I watch that attract disagreeable chat contingents as well; that's just how some people run their chats, and that's fine).

I'm not sure that Peter's case being tacked onto this one is of any benefit though. I guess it's timely, but it feels very much like a deliberate compare/contrast. Especially given "the blaze" article that was the jumping off point.

In any event, I do find it frustrating that this kind of thing has any kind of politics associated, and wish that professionals (generally, not pointing fingers), no matter how tempted, refrain from going to the low hanging fruit. It's unbecoming.

Thanks for the info. Cheers.

 

[Caption Captain Chaplin]

I read all six articles I found, and the document filed, and, I do not think there is a story here past what we already know. I guess if they find the 11 year old and that is proven then, there may be another bit but, he confessed. This is pretty much over. They have no real motivation to offer him a deal, unless he has information they desire somehow.

He will be going to prison for the rest of his adult life, most likely. He really fucked up by using the internet. It makes me wonder how good at analyzing the tech world he ever was.

If he had done the same thing with a person he met at a coffee shop, and they turned out to be with law enforcement, he would still be in trouble, but, more things would come into play. Wiretap law and audio recordings would be compared for legality. The Feds would not be involved since nothing interstate occurred and no children were kidnapped. He would have better chances to see suspicious behavior and back out. The idea he would try this on the internet is just weird. He has written stuff that makes me think he wanted to get caught. This is absurd behavior for someone with technical knowhow trying to keep it hidden.

He does not have any chance at being out of prison before 2029 as far as I can tell based on only the first charge. If they double the charges for the two kids that may double the penalty to 20 years. If they find the 11 year old, he may get more severe charges.

Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life. 18 U.S. Code § 2422

 

[Elephantine]

/soapbox



I mean, that's all well and good.

But the fact remains is that he was a public figure. He was a blogger/journalist that interacted with the public and wrote articles for the public and went to public events. All his past views on consent and his attraction for teenage kids was information all found in this forum even before he was hired. And he continued to push his views on consent well after he was hired. Many other places would have fired him for less or not even bother hiring him in the first place, especially for a public figure.

Of course Ars isn't completely to blame, but his perversions and creepy ideas on consent was open knowledge beforehand and afterwards.

Yes, he's all of those things, and not just inside the microcosm of Ars. Quite the opposite, he has fooled many people from across the industry and the Internet and that is one of my points. A lot of people are provocateurs, iconoclasts and outright assholes. That alone is not enough to disqualify the capable from a career. For some that is the very reason for their careers. I know it's a popular approach these days marry a paid position with that of person's public and private personas, but I'm of the opinion that doing so is causing a great deal of harm on many levels. "Ars isn't completely to blame"? No, Ars isn't to blame at all. Peter is the one accused of these acts, nobody else.

Again, it's not a matter of what should be fair or not.

As a journalist/blogger he's a public figure and his past views and current views are all fair game to the public. And many of his views, especially regarding consent, was made well after he was hired and posted to the public with association of his legal name.

Ars knew of his past and his current views, but chose to hire him and keep him employed. They are not to blame for his heinous acts, but they are to blame for any PR and business fallout that will most likely occur from this.

Don't hire people to work in public positions and continue to employ those people who confess to wanting to have sex with teenagers and wanting to get rid of a definite age of consent.

To be clear, when I called for us to be reasonable regarding Peter and his relationship with Ars, it was in the context of them saying things similar to, "Well, he was always a bit creepy and the quality of coverage really has been slipping lately, etc." and "Ars should have known what he was like." These days, there is a PR risk with every employee you hire, re: my comments regarding the marrying of personas. Peter was obviously more of a visible risk, but only within the context his online behavior outside of his professional work. The quality of Ars' published work has absolutely nothing to do with Peter's forum persona, or his personal choices, full stop. I make that distinction in the hopes that regular readers and forum members will keep that in mind as we discuss this mess.

As to whether it's a matter of fair or not, it's always a matter of fairness, that's why I made the appeal. The Mob will come for Ars and anyone remotely associated with Peter. 4chan is already having a field day and others are sure to follow. As such, you can choose to descend to the level of online butchery that is sure to follow, or not. Distinctions like the one I make above won't matter to the Mob but hopefully it matters here.

Sure, in some cases your forum and social media persona should be treated differently than your professional persona, but that's not how it works, especially for a public figure. And frankly for many positions it shouldn't be.

And considering some of his views were illegal and subjectively creepy, he's lucky he was hired and kept employed. Again, many other places wouldn't have kept him around or hired him in the first place. His views go beyond simple boorish behavior. Expressing desire to have sex with teens is a straight up illegal act if done. And confessing that the age of consent should be abolished and changed to a 'per case' basis is creepy to most.

Yes, Ars' published work has nothing to do with Peter's illegal behavior, but that doesn't matter. And I agree that there is a risk with every employee you hire, especially for a public position. But many of his views were there in plain sight before and after his hiring.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

<snip for relevance>
Anyway, Nick has covered Peter's case in his last stream. Go to 2 hours, 13 minutes. It's a bit short (a relative statement here, about 20 minutes) since all there is so far is the initial charge, but if you're interested in following the case this (and not the general media) will be the highest quality source out there, since it's an actual lawyer reviewing the actual court documents.

I watched the video, I don't really find it adds value. He pretty much just reads the complaint, which I can and have done all by myself. Also, the continuous drumbeat of the political undertone in his conversation and the (assumingly approved) chat is incredibly petty. I don't care what "side" you're (general you) on, this is wrong and reprehensible behavior. Full stop.

++
I also wasted 25 min of my life watching this confused vlogger. I know lots of lawyers, and find it hard to believe he's ever tried a case or was involved in any practical legal negotiations.
Not a single sentence of analysis, or even identifying potential key points in the case for the future.
Most egregiously, he's presuming guilt. Not what anyone who knows the minimal basics of the legal system should be doing.

 

[RojBlake]

I guess if they find the 11 year old and that is proven then, there may be another bit but, he confessed. This is pretty much over.

Not necessarily. The complaint says he confessed at the scene but that doesn't equate to confession being accepted by a court. That's just evidence against him at this point. Plus, it's not at all uncommon to get booked into the system and then, having had lots of time to sit and think, lawyer up and find a way to render the prior confession inadmissible. Unless and until he pleads guilty in front of a judge and that plea is accepted, his confession at the scene doesn't mean very much.

He will be going to prison for the rest of his adult life, most likely.

Unless things change, he almost certainly won't be. If they charge him with what's on the complaint and only that (i.e. if there's no evidence that the 11-year-old he talks about is actually real) then that's nominally ten-years-to-life. Factor in the (I'm assuming) lack of priors, good standing in general, and federal sentencing guidelines and I'm betting he'd get close to if not actually the minimum possible sentence.

He has written stuff that makes me think he wanted to get caught. This is absurd behavior for someone with technical knowhow trying to keep it hidden.

With the waiving of rights, the confession, and the acceptance of a public defender rather than retaining his own lawyer, I think signs point to you being right on the money there.

 

[Dystopia]

Gallows humour? Or feeding the lizard-brain's idea that looks have anything to do with personality? No thanks. We're all full of (the same) shit underneath the skin. That's why I can't judge, and won't judge, Peter.

Oh for fucks sake, it was a throwaway insult directed at a pedophile. Why get so bent out of shape about it?

 

[cyber|kinetic]

Self-destruction can take odd forms... given his past as a huge troll, a very small part of me wonders if he isn't somehow trolling the FBI or something. But that sounds akin to 'death by cop'. If what he has apparently posted in the past is any guide, then this is real and an otherwise very smart and tech-savvy guy got suckered by (what looks to me, anyway) a very obvious bait post on whatever forum or site he was on. It's also quite possible he swallowed the MRA/alt-right cool-aid wrt being an 'alpha male' or whatever. Those guys are an entire legion of nasty misogynistic assholes, but like other shit on the far-right, people seem to fall for that 'rape is a right' stuff. But then ....why would he do this??? The indictment seems pretty clearcut but of course I would imagine such documents are deliberately written to sound that way. So I guess he's facing 10 years in prison, as one of the most hated of all prisoners, as a minimum. This guy apparently had so much going for him... but if that's how you swing then I guess, sooner or later, you're going to do something that is going to land you in jail for a very long time. I can only hope there was no 11yo girl and that was just a brag. Because on the bare minimum of information currently available, there's no evidence any actual child definitely has been hurt. I really really really hope so If he has been abusing and raping small children... then fuck prison. Add me to the league of ITGs wanting him flayed alive with electrified razorwire. I'm just reticent *at this point* to assume that what the DA has presented is the full picture. But then... wtf. Ugh.

As for his past, his content and his articles... I'm against putting anything in the memory hole or any form of erasure. Revisionism is always wrong. His punishment will be served in federal prison, deleting his posts or articles is hardly going to be any form of just or sufficient punishment. And that also inflicts an undeserved punishment on Ars, its readers and subscribers and all us in the forum. His articles at least were professional, technical and on-topic. And they are now part of written history, and be preserved as such. They in no way exonerate or mitigate whatever he's done elsewhere, either in the forum or in real life, so I cannot see the value or virtue in deleting his past. I do get the instinct to do it, but we have to resist those instincts sometimes.

 

[Trondal]

He really fucked up by using the internet. It makes me wonder how good at analyzing the tech world he ever was.

It's not logical to conflate the quality of his writing with the quality of his decisions in his personal life.

Many smart people make dumb decisions in their personal lives, me included. This goes double for decisions around sex, though it creeps me out to even relate pedophilia to the non-abusive forms of sexuality the rest of us experience.

The point is that him taking risks to get what he wanted isn't a marker of stupidity, it's a marker for being given over to abusive desires. In some ways not that different than a drug addict who buys from an under-cover.

To be clear, I'm in no way defending him; he has to be held accountable for his [highly probable] actions that were of his own volition.

 

[Louis XVI]

Why are you apologizing for this piece of shit who by his own admission repeatedly raped an 11 year old? Taking down his articles is a pretty damn light punishment for what he did. People like him are the worst kind of human scum. I wish we could give them the death penalty. What kind of site does Arstechnica want to be? Does it want to be a website that hosts the writings and opinions of a guy who rapes small children?

This doesn’t make any sense. I don’t see anybody apologizing for the guy. And taking down articles isn’t his punishment, light or otherwise—spending years and years in prison as a known pedophile will be his punishment.

The question is simply what to do with his work product. My feeling is, let it stay up, so long as he doesn’t get any money from it. Society hasn’t gone back and erased the work of Michael Jackson, Roman Polanski, or (mostly) Kevin Spacey, and in those cases I think it’s harder to separate the creation from the creator, since they made art rather than, say, computer reviews.

IIRC, you're a lawyer. I doubt he gets royalties on articles, but even if he does, why should that stop, legally or morally? Those articles have nothing to do with the things he's charged with doing (which, BTW, he hasn't been convicted of yet, and so far, it's a solicitation charge). Now I can certainly see deciding not to accept further content from him, but that's different altogether.

(and I'm not condoning anything he may have done -- I've complained loudly about him many times, and about the fact he hasn't been banned years ago, due ot his forum behavior)

Well, a former lawyer. Legally, whether he gets royalties or not depends on his contract with Ars; he probably doesn't get anything. Morally, I don't want any of my subscription money going to a known pedophile; it's that simple. It's why I didn't buy any of Michael Jackson's music from the time it became pretty clear that he was a pedophile until after he died.

 

[Bongo]

Speaking of alt- right.

[Link to shitty site removed, not gonna support their literal Nazi content]

 

[cerberusTI]

I guess if they find the 11 year old and that is proven then, there may be another bit but, he confessed. This is pretty much over.

Not necessarily. The complaint says he confessed at the scene but that doesn't equate to confession being accepted by a court. That's just evidence against him at this point. Plus, it's not at all uncommon to get booked into the system and then, having had lots of time to sit and think, lawyer up and find a way to render the prior confession inadmissible. Unless and until he pleads guilty in front of a judge and that plea is accepted, his confession at the scene doesn't mean very much.

He will be going to prison for the rest of his adult life, most likely.

Unless things change, he almost certainly won't be. If they charge him with what's on the complaint and only that (i.e. if there's no evidence that the 11-year-old he talks about is actually real) then that's nominally ten-years-to-life. Factor in the (I'm assuming) lack of priors, good standing in general, and federal sentencing guidelines and I'm betting he'd get close to if not actually the minimum possible sentence.

He has written stuff that makes me think he wanted to get caught. This is absurd behavior for someone with technical knowhow trying to keep it hidden.

With the waiving of rights, the confession, and the acceptance of a public defender rather than retaining his own lawyer, I think signs point to you being right on the money there.

I doubt it will be the minimum, demonstrating this is a pattern and he is a danger will be relatively easy. His posts on this site will be of interest to the court, unfortunately (which I am sure legal is thrilled about).

Also, his intended crime required his physical presence, and hiding that is not the kind of technical knowhow he has. They did not pick him up at home from what I understand, they let him come to them. The evidence they have looks pretty bad.

 

[Ecmaster76]

Also, his intended crime required his physical presence, and hiding that is not the kind of technical knowhow he has. They did not pick him up at home from what I understand, they let him come to them. The evidence they have looks pretty bad.

Between that and the STD tests it's pretty much a gaurentee of zero doubt on any/all charges

This was premeditated well in advance and him showing up in person can't be explained away even if the rest could be somehow

His posts here demonstrate he was at least lucid enough to know it was illegal even as he rationalized a justification for his disease. Certainly he was never shy about morally condemning others (I've been on the receiving end for what it's worth). The best that could be said is that some part of him was self loathing and was ready to get caught

 

[fester]

We told you years and years ago what a giant sack of shit PeterB was, yet you embraced him as a mod, hired him as staff, and defended him at every turn. And when it turns out his behavior is some on the most vile shit I've ever read, you have posters on the first page offering condolences and hoping he gets "help." Revolting. How about some concern for his victims whose lives have been ruined? PeterB drove me away from here ages ago, but that seems like a pathetic drop in the bucket compared to all the damage he did in other ways. I hope he rots in jail forever.

 

[Genome]

Fucking sad and horrible.

That said, I wouldn't want his articles scrubbed from the site. There are interviews, interesting stories and reviews and loads and loads of very interesting comment threads that are linked to them. Trying to make it so that it looks like he never existed on the site is wrong.

Speaking of alt- right.

[Nazi site link removed]

That's not "alt-right", that's the Daily Stormer. They're actual nazis and proudly call themselves that.

 

[Bongo]

We told you years and years ago what a giant sack of shit PeterB was, yet you embraced him as a mod, hired him as staff, and defended him at every turn. And when it turns out his behavior is some on the most vile shit I've ever read, you have posters on the first page offering condolences and hoping he gets "help." Revolting. How about some concern for his victims whose lives have been ruined? PeterB drove me away from here ages ago, but that seems like a pathetic drop in the bucket compared to all the damage he did in other ways. I hope he rots in jail forever.

I remember one time he argued in favor of post birth infanticide many years ago. Even the mods told him to knock it off.

 

[soytakyon]

I see. Well, I'll keep an open mind if/when he has a follow-up video relating to the case. I was referencing the regular chat, which I won't hold against him given that it's unmoderated (there's a few channels I watch that attract disagreeable chat contingents as well; that's just how some people run their chats, and that's fine).

I'm not sure that Peter's case being tacked onto this one is of any benefit though. I guess it's timely, but it feels very much like a deliberate compare/contrast. Especially given "the blaze" article that was the jumping off point.

In any event, I do find it frustrating that this kind of thing has any kind of politics associated, and wish that professionals (generally, not pointing fingers), no matter how tempted, refrain from going to the low hanging fruit. It's unbecoming.

Thanks for the info. Cheers.

I wouldn't expect another video on Bright from Rekieta. I assume Bright will take a plea deal and disappear into prison, only to be remembered once in a while on Ars until his very name is banned discussion here.

The political angle was invited by Bright himself, as he couldn't help himself with his hot opinions on Twitter, and made perhaps the ultimate self-fulfilling prophetic pizzagate tweet. Not much to be learnt there and no conspiracy, but definitely a valid point of mockery.

I also wasted 25 min of my life watching this confused vlogger. I know lots of lawyers, and find it hard to believe he's ever tried a case or was involved in any practical legal negotiations.
Not a single sentence of analysis, or even identifying potential key points in the case for the future.
Most egregiously, he's presuming guilt. Not what anyone who knows the minimal basics of the legal system should be doing.

There's admittedly not much to analyze. It was a 6-page document with most of the details being the chat transcript, portions of which Rekieta skipped out of disgust. The document was presented near the end of the stream mostly as a warning to remind viewers of the dangerous individuals that are out there. Of course, "To Catch a Predator" also did that for years, but the typical chat room sting formula has shown its age. I wonder how many people have even heard of "KinkD".

The key points in the case? Bright pleads guilty like most other defendants caught with their pants down by the feds. Stick a fork in him, he's done.

With that out of the way, I think we shouldn't gloss over this:

Or there's this classic post of his, in which he says to me

If I had kids, you wouldn't be allowed anywhere near them.

because I bought a doll. Yeah, I made an unboxing thread and attempted to dramatise the process of posting a parcel, an effort which I didn't execute very well. Still it was a non-sexual doll that depicted an adult, yet his mind leapt straight to "danger to children". PROJECTING MUCH PETWAR?

I'd also point out that my dolls had substantial defenders in that thread and were subsequently quite well received in the AV Club's photography threads. PeterB, not so much.

Actually that whole thread is a goldmine of PeterB posts in hindsight.

If only Mr. Bright had used such a "creepy" yet harmless outlet for his sexual frustrations.

Be suspicious of virtue signalers seeking to ban artwork, dolls, sex robots, etc. It's a dumb position to hold in the first place, and they might be on the prowl for their own pound of flesh.

 

[iAPX]

This is an ongoing legal affair, investigations are probably not closed and it obviously will go to court as the FBI did a great job to ensure it will. Kudos guys!

I think the Ars Technia staff should collectively make a statement, not on this specific case, but more generally about values and lawful behaviours of their Staff members.

I know some predators since I am 10, and I am a survivor. I don't want to comment on this affair, I have my own opinion but it's irrelevant.
I am for the right to a great defence in any court battle, he deserve to be well defended and us not to talk too much about this story before he's judged, in order for his sentence to be spotless.

Then, with all the public court documents, we will really know what happened and it will be time to write a great article that go in-depth...

 

[Bongo]

Fucking sad and horrible.

That said, I wouldn't want his articles scrubbed from the site. There are interviews, interesting stories and reviews and loads and loads of very interesting comment threads that are linked to them. Trying to make it so that it looks like he never existed on the site is wrong.

Speaking of alt- right.

That's not "alt-right", that's the Daily Stormer. They're actual nazis and proudly call themselves that.

My mistake, didn’t know there was a difference.

 

[Genome]

Well, the alt-righters are twats on their own, but I feel that if we start calling milksops like Shapiro and Posobiec nazis, we'll have problems with how to define the ones who actually want to call themselves nazis. The alt-righters are dangerous because they do a lot of vile, right-wing crap and a lot of them are very nazi-adjacent, but if we call them actual nazis, it's easier for them to defend themselves.

/tangent

 

[lunarworks]

Something to keep in mind is that a lot of his audience started following him because of his coverage of the Vic Mignona case. Vic's case is one of a bunch of absolute scum in the US anime industry cloaking themselves in social justice in an effort to destroy an innocent man.

Yikes. Wrong place, dude.

 

[Bongo]

Well, the alt-righters are twats on their own, but I feel that if we start calling milksops like Shapiro and Posobiec nazis, we'll have problems with how to define the ones who actually want to call themselves nazis. The alt-righters are dangerous because they do a lot of vile, right-wing crap and a lot of them are very nazi-adjacent, but if we call them actual nazis, it's easier for them to defend themselves.

/tangent

I’m not sure about Posobiec, haven’t heard of him.
Shapiro is that squirmy looking conservative kid right?

I guess he’ll probably get his own Fox News show at some point.

 

[papadage]

Dystopia, always on the wrong side of history, since....ever.

 

[Mat8iou]

/soapbox

It's an interesting construct, the demand that we separate a person's professional and personal lives while simultaneously holding them liable and accountable for both, separately and together, when convenient. It's a virtually impossible task except in hindsight.

Eric Gill was a sculptor, artist and typeface designer who's work covers buildings all over Britain.

Perhaps best known for the Gill San and Perpetua fonts (the former is used for the signage on London Underground).

We now know stories of invest with his teenage daughters and sexual practices with his dog...

Nobody has removed any of his works for this reason as far as I'm aware.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill

 

[pastoralchicken]

We told you years and years ago what a giant sack of shit PeterB was, yet you embraced him as a mod, hired him as staff, and defended him at every turn. And when it turns out his behavior is some on the most vile shit I've ever read, you have posters on the first page offering condolences and hoping he gets "help." Revolting. How about some concern for his victims whose lives have been ruined? PeterB drove me away from here ages ago, but that seems like a pathetic drop in the bucket compared to all the damage he did in other ways. I hope he rots in jail forever.

And yet somehow, this thread is becoming a debate about the alt-right - you know, in the Help and Feedback forum, probably in hopes of derailing this thread into a lock so no one has to face the support this troll had here. Probably.

 

[iAPX]

We told you years and years ago what a giant sack of shit PeterB was, yet you embraced him as a mod, hired him as staff, and defended him at every turn. And when it turns out his behavior is some on the most vile shit I've ever read, you have posters on the first page offering condolences and hoping he gets "help." Revolting. How about some concern for his victims whose lives have been ruined? PeterB drove me away from here ages ago, but that seems like a pathetic drop in the bucket compared to all the damage he did in other ways. I hope he rots in jail forever.

And yet somehow, this thread is becoming a debate about the alt-right - you know, in the Help and Feedback forum, probably in hopes of derailing this thread into a lock so no one has to face the support this troll had here. Probably.

Predators are not alt-left or alt-right or whatever: this kind of behaviour is politically agnostic. I don't understand why it turns to a political debate, is it an agenda or to sink the real subject?!?

For the victims I could witness since I was 10 that it's a life-changer, not in the good sense, and that 4 decades later it's still there, present, it's like encountering Evil, and Evil is here in me, in my own flesh and there's no way to remove it, delete it, you have to live with it. I don't know how to explain it to people not having experienced it but it's something that seems to change you forever, and thus your life.

It's obviously worse when it happens to child, way more, innocence disappear on a snap. That's the worst way to become adult as you become essentially an underage and broken adult...

 

[Surge]

Predators are not alt-left or alt-right or whatever: this kind of behaviour is politically agnostic. I don't understand why it turns to a political debate, is it an agenda or to sink the real subject?!?

If you politically engage with people on Twitter constantly and talk down to people and act morally superior to them (Peter did so, it was kind of his MO on here and there), it's expected that they'd react with vindication when someone that told them how terrible they were for years them gets their comeuppance or turns out to be a hypocrite. That said, I've seen people on both sides post disgust with it. Peter made enemies on Twitter, he made enemies on this forum, he turned a lot of people off to this community, and well they're all going to go "I told you so".

I don't get involved in politics on Twitter, the most vocal people are those on the fringes or extremes of political discourse, its mostly an echo chamber, it doesn't reflect the reality of most people in the country who are doing something more substantial, so I think its pointless. But if you choose to engage in that world, you make yourself a target for those you oppose, people you attack will come at you if you give them anything to point a finger at, so don't be surprised when that happens. Don't act like people on the opposite side don't do the same when a political opponent does the same, that level of immaturity is part and parsel for Twitter which is 90% outrage at something.

 

[rodalpho]

I do hope he gets help, as he obviously has an overriding compulsion. The fact that I don't want him tortured to death or raped in prison doesn't mean I excuse his actions. I don't want anybody tortured or raped because I'm not a psychopath.

 

[Demoulous]

Man oh man, what a fustercluck. I had a variation of this experience with a co-worker some years ago and eventually things do get back to normal and you realise that no one really looks like a robber, murderer, or pedo. You can't judge a book by its cover. Massive amount of sympathy to all those hurt by his actions.