Advanced Search

Author Topic: On Being Sued by Followers of a Hitler-Praising Serial Rapist....  (Read 2348 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


March 19, 2016, 02:09:42 PM
Reply #1

Offline Peter

  • Administrator

  • *****

  • 2382
    Posts

    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog & Site
Re: On Being Sued by Followers of a Hitler-Praising Serial Rapist....
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2016, 02:09:42 PM »
Thanks to my friends at AAJA (Asian American Journalists Association) for inviting me along last night to talk about my recent experiences with JMS. I've been touched by the amount of support I've received:


March 24, 2016, 05:41:31 PM
Reply #2

Offline Peter

  • Administrator

  • *****

  • 2382
    Posts

    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog & Site
Re: On Being Sued by Followers of a Hitler-Praising Serial Rapist....
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2016, 05:41:31 PM »
I heard unofficially last Friday and officially a couple of days ago - innocent^. I don't think JMS ever expected to win; rather, the case was in my opinion an attempt to intimidate me. More about that in Part 2 of the above piece.

So many people to thank for their support and help. I certainly got by with a lot of help from my friends:



April 19, 2016, 07:31:01 PM
Reply #3

Offline Peter

  • Administrator

  • *****

  • 2382
    Posts

    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog & Site
Re: On Being Sued by Followers of a Hitler-Praising Serial Rapist....
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2016, 07:31:01 PM »
A very big thank you to John Power for interviewing me for Vice :)

When JMS first threatened to sue me, it occurred to me that being sued might offer some nice opportunities to spread some cult awareness goodness. I was tempted to voice that idea to the cult, but decided it would be better to hold my tongue.

How a South Korean Cult Tried and Failed to Sue This Australian Uni Lecturer


April 23, 2016, 12:15:15 AM
Reply #4

Offline Peter

  • Administrator

  • *****

  • 2382
    Posts

    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog & Site
Re: On Being Sued by Followers of a Hitler-Praising Serial Rapist....
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2016, 12:15:15 AM »
This was a lovely surprise. Thank you to whoever took the time to translate the above Vice article and parts of SBS's 2014 report into Chinese for Sydney's Chinese speaking community and beyond. It really means a lot to me.

韩国淫乱邪教渗透墨尔本 专捡大学美女下

April 26, 2016, 02:21:29 AM
Reply #5

Offline Peter

  • Administrator

  • *****

  • 2382
    Posts

    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog & Site
Re: On Being Sued by Followers of a Hitler-Praising Serial Rapist....
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2016, 02:21:29 AM »
2:20 am and I just finished my PPT for a 10 am guest presentation at a friend's university. Really grateful for the opportunity because this is exactly what I dreamt of doing back when this interest in cults was thrust upon me :)


May 19, 2016, 09:40:47 PM
Reply #6

Offline Peter

  • Administrator

  • *****

  • 2382
    Posts

    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog & Site
Re: On Being Sued by Followers of a Hitler-Praising Serial Rapist....
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2016, 09:40:47 PM »
I'm still working on part 2 of my "being sued by followers of a Hitler-praising serial rapist" piece. Theer are still quite a lot of stories and bizarre incidents I'm eager to tell for those interested. It's coming along slowly due to life, work, and other commitments that have all conspired to keep me unusually busy. Coming soon. In the meantime, here is an English translation of the prosecutor's decision. It's very "interesting" that the cult claimed copyright ownership of the videos when they have told members the videos were faked by "evil-doers" under the influence of Satan.

The Mr. Kim who was also charged - and those charges dropped - was one of the cult's founders. He's since seen the light, obviously. He was kind enough to accompany me to a mediation session at the prosecutor's office and speak on my behalf. And that meant a lot to me :). Quite a few interesting stories behind that mediation session, including the fact that Mr Kim was forced to call the police on a cultist who kept following us after the session. So many stories to tell...

Mr. Kim is actually in this picture from the 2012 press conference at which the videos of the naked members was shown. He's the guy in the dark tie who is sitting facing the camera and looking to his right at the screen - just to the left of the guy's head on the screen's far right.


Quote
                                                                              2016.2.25
Case No.: 2015, Criminal case 48828
Title: Decision of Dropped Charges
    A prosecutor Minjung Kim 2 rules the charges dropped as below
Ⅰ. Defendant 
1.   Na, Da,Ra,Ba Peter Daley (Daley Peter Anthony)
2.   Ga, Da, Ma, Ba Cho**
3.   Ga, Da, Ma, Ba Kim **
Ⅱ. Charges
Ga. Defamation
Na. Violation against the ‘Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection etc’  (defamation)
Da. Violation against the ‘Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc Sexual Crimes’ (Recording films using devices such as a camera)
Ra. Violation against the ‘Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection etc’  (Dispersing of pornography)
Ma. Broadcasting pornography
Ba. Violation against copyright law 

Ⅲ. Main
1.   The defendant Peter Daley cannot be charged against the violation of ‘Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc Sexual Crimes’ (defamation, dissemination of pornography) due to the lack of evidence. The charge against ‘Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc Sexual Crimes’ (Recording films using devices such as a camera) does not meet the standard of violation, and therefore cannot be proceeded.  The charge of copyright law cannot be charged. 
2.   The defendant Cho cannot be charged due to insufficient evidence for the violation against defamation and broadcasting pornography, as it does not meet the standard of a violation against ‘Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc Sexual Crime’ (Recording films using devices such as a camera), and does not constitute guiltiness. The charge of copyright law cannot be charged. 
3.   The defendant Kim cannot be charged due to insufficient evidence for the violation against defamation and broadcasting pornography, as it does not meet the standard of a violation against ‘Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc Sexual Crime’ (Recording films using devices such as a camera), and does not constitute guiltiness. The charge of copyright law cannot be charged. 
Ⅳ. Alleged charges and reasons for dropping charges
1.   The defendant, Peter Daley
Ga. The defendant posted a link and video that has footage of the naked bodies of the plaintiffs on jmscult.com website between February 18th, 2012 and April 30th, 2015. Alleged violation against ‘Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection etc’ (defamation)
○   The defendant’s intention was to stop the number of victims increasing to join the  cult by pointing out harm of this cult. His solution to protect the plaintiffs was to pixelate the video before uploading the link and the video. It is impossible to judge whether or not there was malice to slander and defame plaintiffs.
○   The defendant cannot be charged due to lack of evidence (furthermore according to Criminal Act 310 the defendant cannot be punished as this case is posting facts for public interest).
Na. The defendant allegedly violated against the ‘Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc Sexual Crimes’ (Recording films using devices such as a camera)
○ The defendant posted this video to make the public aware of the damages of this cult, since its influence was not decreasing even after the head of cult, CHO, was arrested. He   aimed to show viewers the dangers of the cult, but pixelated the video to minimize any potential recognition or damage that plaintiff might receive. Also the court acknowledges that the reason he posted it online is because the cult was recruiting in Australia and he felt the need to inform people about the dangers the cult has.
The defendant aimed to minimize the damage the plaintiffs would receive by creating a set of specific circumstances that the video would be seen. This was on a certain website in a way with a pixilated image. It is considered that the behavior of the defendant is justifiable hence it does not constitute ‘guiltiness’
○ It is not considered as guilty.
Da. The defendant violated the ‘Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc’ (Distribution of pornography) by posting a link and a video of naked body footage of plaintiffs.
○   To judge obscenity of a video, the following conditions need to be considered:
The degree of explicitness and detailed description, and method of description of sex. The purpose of posting the video, and the if the way the video is posted will arise sexual interest from an audience.
The following circumstances need to be taken into consideration: a) If it is against good sexual morality or sound social norm. b) If it stimulates sexual excitement. c) If it harms normal sexual desires. And reflecting upon the sound societal perception if it offends the public, and if it’s against the morality of the public. Simply uploading a video that contains naked bodies cannot be regarded as posting pornography.
○ In this video’s particular case, plaintiffs recorded the video on their own will and defendants posted the video to point out the harm of the cult that produced this video. The intention was to the actions and repercussions of joining the cult. They protected the plaintiffs by pixelated the video. All factors considered, it is difficult to judge that the defendants uploaded and played the video with pornography as its purpose. This case lacks the evidence that supports that argument.
○ No charges can be imposed due to insufficient evidence
Ra. Violation against copyright law by posting a video of naked bodies of plaintiffs.
○ This type of case can be filed only when a person with copyright sues a defendant. The copyright holder should be a person who made/recorded the video but plaintiffs are only the subject of the video not a copyright holder.
○ The charge cannot be proceeded.
2. The defendant Cho and Kim
Ga. Defamation charge: The defendants, Cho and Kim hosted a rally on July 7, 2012 at Jubu Hall and showed the video that plaintiffs appeared naked in. Remarks were made such as “this video recorded behaviors that associates pornography to an audience”.
○ The defendants gathered related people and played the video to inform and warn people of the harm of JMS, and the dangers of joining the cult.
The defendants played the video of the pixelated footage. The sole purpose of playing the video was to show the audience the dangers of joining the cult. The intention was not to defame or slander the plaintiffs.
○ The defendant cannot be charged due to lack of evidence (furthermore according to Criminal Act 310 the defendant cannot be punished as this case is posting facts for public interest)
Na. The defendant violated against ‘Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc Sexual Crimes’ (Recording films using devices such as a camera)
○ The defendants wanted to inform interested public as the damage of this cult was not decreasing even after, Chung, the head of the cult was arrested. They looked to achieve this by pixelating the video and showing the video in a certain space to minimize the bad effect it might have on plaintiffs. Taking into all things considered, the actions of the defendants are justifiable, hence it cannot be considered illegal.
○ It cannot be charged.
Da. Playing the video of plaintiff’s naked bodies as mentioned above (Broadcasting pornography)
○   To judge obscenity of a video, the following conditions need to be considered:
The degree of explicitness and detailed description, and method of description of sex. The purpose of posting the video, and the if the way the video is posted will arise sexual interest from an audience.
The following circumstances need to be taken into consideration: a) If it is against good sexual morality or sound social norm. b) If it stimulates sexual excitement. c) If it harms normal sexual desires. And reflecting upon the sound societal perception if it offends the public, and if it’s against the morality of the public. Simply uploading a video that contains naked bodies cannot be regarded as posting pornography.
○ In this video’s particular case, plaintiffs recorded the video on their own will and defendants posted the video to point out the harm of the cult that produced this video. The intention was to the actions and repercussions of joining the cult. They protected the plaintiffs by pixelated the video. All factors considered, it is difficult to judge that the defendants uploaded and played the video with pornography as its purpose. This case lacks the evidence that supports that argument.
○ No charges can be imposed due to insufficient evidence
Ra. Violation against copyright law by posting a video of naked bodies of plaintiffs.
○ This type of case can be filed only when a person with copyright sues a defendant. The copyright holder should be a person who made/recorded the video but plaintiffs are only the subject of the video not a copyright holder.
○The charge cannot be proceeded.