TR Forums

Geez Ryu, that's pretty damning.

gecko575 wrote:

Just because he's been charged does not mean he is guilty. We're going to have to wait for more information

It does mean that there's been enough evidence to convince either a Grand Jury or Judge to make the accusation. Prosecutors are literally not allowed to accuse unless they at least have a bit of evidence.

BTW: Grand Juries are notorious for being "easy to convince". If you're ever found on a Grand Jury, remember that protecting the innocent's reputation from baseless accusations is literally your job. That's why they called you to court that day, even if you're going to 99% listen to the police report and let the accusations go through. Its your job to make sure that the Police really do have evidence before making an accusation, because these accusations can dramatically alter a person's reputation.

EDIT:

Ryu Connor wrote:

gecko575 wrote:

Just because he's been charged does not mean he is guilty. We're going to have to wait for more information

SDNY Complaint wrote:

6. PETER BRIGHT, the defendant, was thereafter advised of his Miranda rights, waived those rights, and agreed to speak with law enforcement officers. Among other things, BRLGHT admitted to having chatted with UC-1 regarding engaging in sexual activity with the Minors.

Link

I wouldn't recommend reading it. The submitted evidence is distasteful and that's too simplistic an adjective.

Now with that being said... if I were sitting at a Grand Jury and I saw this evidence, I would absolutely push for trial.

just brew it! wrote:

Topinio wrote:

Serious question to US/NY peeps: what's the expected sentence he's looking at, and will you keep him in your jails or try sending him back here?

If he's found guilty as currently charged, I believe Federal sentencing rules call for 10 to life. Upon release he will also need to register with local authorities as a convicted sex offender, and depending on jurisdiction there may be additional restrictions (e.g. where he can live, what he can do for a living, where he is allowed to go) to minimize the chances for physical interaction with potential victims.

I don't know what his citizenship status is; if he's here on a Green Card (legal permanent resident but not a citizen), I assume that would probably be revoked. In that case, he'd probably serve out his sentence here, then be deported upon release. (IANAL so obviously this is speculation.)

The top part is all accurate (10 years to life for the 1 count in the complaint, he could be charged with more later). I'm fairly certain he's on a Green Card. And yeah, you can get it revoked and deported (even for misdemeanors of some types) so I'm guessing that'll happen in this case. It's not a given though, so it'll be up to a number of decisions from a few federal agencies and/or the judge in SDNY.

Actually not sure on the sentencing guidelines now that I look it up.

Section 2422(b) of Title 18 provides that if the individual who has been persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced to engage in prostitution or other criminal sexual act is under the age of 18, then the penalty is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine. from: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-res ... 8-usc-2422

(b) 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. from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2422

DancinJack wrote:

Actually not sure on the sentencing guidelines now that I look it up.

Section 2422(b) of Title 18 provides that if the individual who has been persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced to engage in prostitution or other criminal sexual act is under the age of 18, then the penalty is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine. from: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-res ... 8-usc-2422

(b) 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. from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2422

Hate to be 'that guy' but y'all know me by now, lol.

The evidence doesn't match this particular crime you quoted unfortunately. The cop was pretending to be an adult woman who was putting her children in sexually explicit situations, while Peter here mostly just accepted the offer.

So Peter didn't 'coerce' the (fake) children in this sting operation.

---------

The section of law he is accused of is in the charge. There is certainly something Peter is accused of here, but it isn't that particular law you quoted.

dragontamer5788 wrote:

Hate to be 'that guy' but y'all know me by now, lol.

The evidence doesn't match this particular crime you quoted unfortunately. The cop was pretending to be an adult woman who was putting her children in sexually explicit situations, while Peter here mostly just accepted the offer.

So Peter didn't 'coerce' the (fake) children in this sting operation.

---------

The section of law he is accused of is in the charge. There is certainly something Peter is accused of here, but it isn't that particular law you quoted.

I literally copied it from the complaint. Though I only posted the parts about 2242 b and not II. I didn't say he did any or all of the above, I'm just literally giving you what's in the complaint. The differing language in both is why I posted both sources.

https://www.docdroid.net/UMNWMSx/bright.pdf

but hey, go off dude.

DancinJack wrote:

dragontamer5788 wrote:

Hate to be 'that guy' but y'all know me by now, lol.

The evidence doesn't match this particular crime you quoted unfortunately. The cop was pretending to be an adult woman who was putting her children in sexually explicit situations, while Peter here mostly just accepted the offer.

So Peter didn't 'coerce' the (fake) children in this sting operation.

---------

The section of law he is accused of is in the charge. There is certainly something Peter is accused of here, but it isn't that particular law you quoted.

I literally copied it from the complaint. Though I only posted the parts about 2242 b and not II. I didn't say he did any or all of the above, I'm just literally giving you what's in the complaint. The differing language in both is why I posted both sources.

https://www.docdroid.net/UMNWMSx/bright.pdf

but hey, go off dude.

Thanks for the reference. I read the charge again and you are correct.

Hmm. I don't think the prosecutors are doing as tight a job as they are supposed to be doing. He's clearly guilty of something, but I don't think the particular law they quoted for this case is a slam dunk.

It's probably going to pass jury trial though. But I can't square the quoted law with the evidence presented. ut y'all know me, I'm pretty detail oriented and a stickler for even minor mistakes in logic.

dragontamer5788 wrote:

Thanks for the reference. I read the charge again and you are correct.

Hmm. I don't think the prosecutors are doing as tight a job as they are supposed to be doing. He's clearly guilty of something, but I don't think the particular law they quoted for this case is a slam dunk.

It's probably going to pass jury trial though. But I can't square the quoted law with the evidence presented. ut y'all know me, I'm pretty detail oriented and a stickler for even minor mistakes in logic.

I'm not in the FBI, a prosecutor for SDNY, nor will I be a part of the jury, but I'm guessing if the FBI suggested this particular statute to the attorneys at SDNY, they have the evidence and it's the proper law. The FBI isn't (generally speaking) in a habit of referring stuff without evidence. /shrug

DancinJack wrote:

dragontamer5788 wrote:

Thanks for the reference. I read the charge again and you are correct.

Hmm. I don't think the prosecutors are doing as tight a job as they are supposed to be doing. He's clearly guilty of something, but I don't think the particular law they quoted for this case is a slam dunk.

It's probably going to pass jury trial though. But I can't square the quoted law with the evidence presented. ut y'all know me, I'm pretty detail oriented and a stickler for even minor mistakes in logic.

I'm not in the FBI, a prosecutor for SDNY, nor will I be a part of the jury, but I'm guessing if the FBI suggested this particular statute to the attorneys at SDNY, they have the evidence and it's the proper law. The FBI isn't (generally speaking) in a habit of referring stuff without evidence. /shrug

I agree. But we all could be part of a Grand Jury one day.

The Grand Jury will not hear the other side of the case. Therefore it is imperative to critically think. Yes, the FBI is composed of the best prosecutors in the country, but they make mistakes sometimes. You can't just trust the one sided opinion of experts. The decision to prosecute rests on the grand jury, ordinary non-expert people.

I used to argue with Bright (if that's his real/birth name) on Ars, years ago. We got into a couple of multi-page humdingers, IIRC... I have to say that I never cared for Bright--thought him somewhat of a pompous fraud--and after watching him appear on Paul Thurrott's site a couple of years later--with half his teeth pulled (!)--or else he blackened them deliberately--and listening to him talk (like a Mafioso with an affected speech impediment)--well, I'll just say that my opinion of the man, such as it was, dropped several more notches. He was appearing as a guest on Thurrott's site, via web cam, and the whole time Thurrott's eyes were as big as saucers as he just stared at Bright, as if he could not believe he'd asked the guy--and paid him--for an appearance...! It was actually very funny, in one sense, and I thought Bright did it just to indicate his disdain for Thurrott--to throw off on Thurrott and Thurrott's whole "shtick"--but had I been Thurrott I would not have thought it amusing at all. These days it's difficult to say anything surprises me, but grown men soliciting sex with children on the Internet certainly does, every time I hear of it! Disgusting! If offered sex with a child by someone on the Internet, there is only one correct response: "No!" and then to break off contact with the person offering up children.

dragontamer5788 wrote:

Hmm. I don't think the prosecutors are doing as tight a job as they are supposed to be doing. He's clearly guilty of something, but I don't think the particular law they quoted for this case is a slam dunk.

There's not likely an issue, the black letter writing of the law is rarely the full scope or interpretation of that law. Put another way, arguing that the famous SDNY charged you with the wrong statue isn't going to be a winning defense in court. It's more likely that we're laymen, we are, and we don't understand the scope of US federal law.

As an aside, I find it distasteful that ArsTechnica hasn't reported on this. They were more than happy to dredge up ancient posts about Edward Snowden from their forums when he frequented the site years before his crime, but one of their staff gets in trouble and it's radio silence.

Ryu Connor wrote:

There's not likely an issue, the black letter writing of the law is rarely the full scope or interpretation of that law. Put another way, arguing that the famous SDNY charged you with the wrong statue isn't going to be a winning defense at trial.

Put yet another way, if it was always possible for reasonable people to reach an unambiguous decision based on a strict reading of the letter of the law, we would not need appeals courts, or the SCOTUS.

Ryu Connor wrote:

As an aside, I find it distasteful that ArsTechnica hasn't reported on this. They were more than happy to dredge up ancient posts about Edward Snowden from their forums when he frequented the site years before his crime, but one of their staff gets in trouble and it's radio silence.

Probably afraid of losing sponsors. IOW a decision made by the bean counters.

Ryu Connor wrote:

As an aside, I find it distasteful that ArsTechnica hasn't reported on this. They were more than happy to dredge up ancient posts about Edward Snowden from their forums when he frequented the site years before his crime, but one of their staff gets in trouble and it's radio silence.

Yeah. Loved that place until the Snowden situation, only just getting over that these last few months and it's been 6 years.

But. This sucks, for all the staff and forum members there who knew and were involved with him, and his going off like this must be awful for them to have to deal with, they're going to have to grieve for the man they just lost and try to not blame themselves for not knowing about his awful crimes ... and I'm also certain that Legal is restricting what they can say, IMO it's not really fair to blame the staff for lack of comment.

I'm sure that nobody there wants to be the person to write it up. Still, writing it up is the job description of a journalist so it's time to get to work.

derFunkenstein wrote:

I'm sure that nobody there wants to be the person to write it up. Still, writing it up is the job description of a journalist so it's time to get to work.

He's probably made an enemy or two there over the years. I'm inclined to believe it is the bean counters and/or legal that are trying to keep it quiet.

Legal is running this show 100%.

Captain Ned wrote:

Legal is running this show 100%.

Absooooolutely. And rightfully so. Ars is a Conde Nast property now. They SHOULD be careful, but IMO they do need to make a post on the site about it once they know the extent of the legal ramifications.

One of my first moves would've been to lock comments on all his articles.

Captain Ned wrote:

Legal is running this show 100%.

https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic ... #p37491597

edit: this tweet has aged well: https://twitter.com/DrPizza/status/834118628312113152

Yeah, they're claiming legal, but it rings hollow. The 1st Amendment protections they have are a sufficient shield against both the FBI or SDNY trying to gag them or Bright trying to civilly sue them for libel.

I'm sure they don't want anything they say to come back and bite them in the ass if he's exonerated. Everyone tends to not comment on legal matters, and this gives them an out.

I can only speak for myself, but if I worked there, and legal had advised against any statement I wouldn't want to say anything.

If you're going to cause a ruckus and declare first amendment rights, then would you really want to do it over this guy?

dragontamer5788 wrote:

DancinJack wrote:

Actually not sure on the sentencing guidelines now that I look it up.

Section 2422(b) of Title 18 provides that if the individual who has been persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced to engage in prostitution or other criminal sexual act is under the age of 18, then the penalty is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine. from: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-res ... 8-usc-2422

(b) 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. from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2422

Hate to be 'that guy' but y'all know me by now, lol.

The evidence doesn't match this particular crime you quoted unfortunately. The cop was pretending to be an adult woman who was putting her children in sexually explicit situations, while Peter here mostly just accepted the offer.

So Peter didn't 'coerce' the (fake) children in this sting operation.

---------

The section of law he is accused of is in the charge. There is certainly something Peter is accused of here, but it isn't that particular law you quoted.

-the complaint might be based on previous admittance during the sting: i.e. "talk of having done so before" - presumably with details that they have/are verifying, though with enough detail to take to a Grand Jury (and that are within the Statute of Limitations). Of course it could just be an "end-run" to revoke his Green Card and deport his sorry @ss (.."criminal activity", NOT convicted criminal activity).


Child sex laws are weird in the US (..and in many other places as well).

Not only is there the double jurisdiction thing going on - and specifically one "feeding" off of another (Federal off of State/(local) laws like many other nations), the "numbers" are all over the place for the age of consent in the various States (16-18, not including near-age exceptions), and that's further compounded by marriage statutes (ie. age of consent: sex with a minor who is NOT married to that individual: an exception). A number of states don't even have a minimum age for Judicial review.. and some of those States quite likely have "Justice of the Peace" Judges that can perform marriages (and aren't even licensed Attorney's).

Laws on Rape (no consent) are typically more uniform, but actual sentencing is all-over the place. Ironically, Federal sentencing is FAR more stringent (..except for certain "bright-line" statutes where there is an additional law for children under a lower age: like Nevada's life-sentencing (for I *think* 12 or under.. if I'm remembering a certain episode of CSI correctly)).

Redocbew wrote:

I can only speak for myself, but if I worked there, and legal had advised against any statement I wouldn't want to say anything.

If you're going to cause a ruckus and declare first amendment rights, then would you really want to do it over this guy?

My statement isn't about some reporter going "rogue". As an organization they are protected. Do you think DailyDot, Business Insider, or any other news agencies that report about his arrest and charges are going to suddenly be liable for damages if he gets exonerated? No, that's not the way our system works. His reputational damage was done the moment the federal filings hit PACER. Bright is lucky he's a small fry and the SDNY didn't drag him out for a perp walk in front the local media.

I don't know why Conde Nast lawyers are being so cautious here, but it's not a good look for them. No civil libel challenge would survive summary judgement. So all that remains is the look of a company that wants to distance itself from the mess.

It is what it is. Internal company policy doesn't have to make sense.

Edit: The simplest answer is, general policy is not talk about fired employees, but policy never imagined one of their fired employees might end up news worthy. In which case, lol.

This is absolutely sickening. I've read through enough posts referenced in the thread (linked by derFunk) over at the Ars forum to know that this guy was a first-class douche and that there were plenty of warning signs. I was an avid reader of Ars way back, but haven't regularly read any of their content for well over a decade. I'm appalled that they let this guy stick around, let alone hired him as a writer.

Redocbew wrote:

If you're going to cause a ruckus and declare first amendment rights, then would you really want to do it over this guy?

Keep in mind that the First Amendment only guarantees that you can't be censored by the government. A private company can censor your statements all day long, especially when you'r acting on behalf of said company. That said, it would protect Ars/Conde Nast from being censored or sued if they released a statement. I'd like to think they're working up an appropriate response to the situation...if there is such a thing. However, you would think it would have been in their best interest to comment sooner, rather than later.

To be quite honest, though, after reading through a very small amount of his posts that have been referenced in the main thread that derFunk linked, IMO it appears that at the very least the Ars staff turned a blind eye to this guy's attitude. Even disregarding hind sight, there's no way someone shouldn't have questioned some of his comments or at least alerted the authorities to look into this guy. Maybe that's what eventually happened? On a personal level and aside from the now obvious statements, I can't forgive them for not doing something about this guy's treatment of their community, after multiple reported complaints...even before he was hired.



Edit for clarification: I did not read through the court documents or read the linked postings about said documents. I don't think I could, for multiple reasons.

CScottG wrote:

-the complaint might be based on previous admittance during the sting: i.e. "talk of having done so before" - presumably with details that they have/are verifying, though with enough detail to take to a Grand Jury (and that are within the Statute of Limitations). Of course it could just be an "end-run" to revoke his Green Card and deport his sorry @ss (.."criminal activity", NOT convicted criminal activity).

I see.

Hmm, I gave the document one more read over. Regardless of the technicalities in the wording of the law, #5 makes it clear that they were meeting for the solicited activity and arrested immediately. So he's guilty of... something... I'm no lawyer. But rereading paragraph #5 completely wipes away all doubt in my mind for this case. I just want to make sure this wasn't a case of entrapment. With #5 sitting there, it is clear that Peter Bright intended to commit the activities.

For everyone else's info: the document is organized into 6 paragraphs (numberd 1 through 6).

1. The charge
2. Background on the FBI Agent (4 years of experience)
3. Dirty details / Evidence (3 pages long). This is the disgusting stuff you'll probably want to avoid.
4. Phone records evidence
5. Arrest details (date, etc. etc.)
6. Miranda rights / Post-arrest stuff

I am waiting for an Ars article about this guy.

They are very happy to use the hammer, let's see how they come up with an article about their own guy.

curtisb wrote:

I'd like to think they're working up an appropriate response to the situation...if there is such a thing.

I guess that's my point. I don't think there is one, and I would rather have radio silence than a statement full of legalese which doesn't really say anything, but I guess that's just me.

Redocbew wrote:

If you're going to cause a ruckus and declare first amendment rights, then would you really want to do it over this guy?

Sorry, I have this compulsion where I am forced to nit-pick whenever someone says something like this. The First Amendment does not protect you from censorship by your employer. It applies only to censorship by the government ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press"), not to commercial entities.

If it applied to everyone across the board, then there would be no consequences for violating NDAs, improperly disclosing trade secrets or other proprietary information, etc...