Convicted Serial Rapist Goes To Court To Forbid Newspapers From Reporting On His Whereabouts
from the news-is-news... dept
You may recall that last year we wrote about a convicted murderer in Germany who was going to court to try to get a injunction against Wikipedia, banning people from mentioning his conviction and role in the murder, under some notion of trying to get his life back. Damian Byrne points us to a slightly similar situation in Ireland, which is a bit more complex. Apparently there's a guy named Michael Murray who was convicted of multiple rapes -- including a string of four rapes (and two additional sexual assaults) in a period of six days -- as well as for exposing himself to children (as young as three years old). To say he's a serial offender seems like an understatement. Back in 1996 he was convicted (again) and given 18 years in jail, but was released last summer (after serving just 13 years).Since then, various newspapers have been reporting regularly on his whereabouts. Here's an example: Serial rapist Murray is spotted in popular seaside resort. However, Murray is annoyed by this. So he's gone to court to ask that newspapers not be allowed to report on his whereabouts:
[Murray] says he cannot live anywhere because as soon as he moves, newspapers reveal his address and print pictures of him....What amazes me is that the court is even considering this. Getting an injunction that prevents a newspaper from reporting on facts -- no matter how damaging those facts may be -- seems wrong. Yes, it may suck for Mr. Murray, but it's difficult to have sympathy for him. While I do have some concerns about the way certain sex offender list laws are structured, this is different. It seems like it is, in fact, newsworthy when someone with a record like Mr. Murray's moves into a certain area -- and barring publication of that fact seems like a dangerous precedent to set when it comes to press freedom.
He is claiming damages for for mental pain, distress and anguish caused by interference with his rights to privacy and to maintain a permanent dwelling as protected by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, journalism, reporting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
......wtf
Tough shit.
If he doesn't like the Newspapers tailing him and reporting to the public at large where he is so that they can stay as far away as possible from him - He should have thought about that before raping people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this any different ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this any different ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this any different ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cry me a river
Jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sex offenders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sex offenders
In Ireland? Do they have sex offender registries over there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sex offenders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sex offenders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sex offenders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sex offenders
When you say wear clothing marked with a big Red X, you mean like those big Yellow Star's of David that the Nazi's made the Jews wear during WW2.
(Apologies for invoking Godwins Law)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sex offenders
Now for those who actually want to argue the nature vs. nurture angle... DIAF ...it is a moot point that is essentially unprovable on its face because BOTH are relevant factors and it CAN NOT excuse or condone that level of anti-social behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sex offenders
GOOD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sex offenders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sex offenders
There IS a reason, and a need, to report on the whereabouts of this... person... because he has a criminal record for rape, sexual assault, etc.
If he moved into YOUR neighborhood, 2 houses away and starting eyeing your wife/daughter/any female relative then you probably wouldn't have the same opinion. Stop coddling the damn criminals.
He is claiming damages for for mental pain, distress and anguish caused by interference with his rights to privacy and to maintain a permanent dwelling as protected by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
F him. I don't really give a shit how he feels or is bothered by the reports. He gave up his rights when he forcefully and without permission ran it up into someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sex offenders
Additionally, you have to balance his right to privacy against the public's right to safety. Making the public aware of his presence does that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does his lawyer have a wife or daughter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does his lawyer have a wife or daughter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grounds for more lawsuits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grounds for more lawsuits
Mainly that would set the precedent that either the press or the courts are responsible for your own safety. "The newspaper didn't tell me to lock my doors when I went on holidays, so it's their fault I got robbed"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait...
This is no different than the Scarlet Letter unwed mothers had to bear for life. It's cruel and unusual punishment AFTER he was already punished. All they're doing is making it harder for him to live a legal life and be a productive member of society - do they want him to turn to crime of another sort just to live, or should he just kill himself rather than live with the misery of how he will be treated for the rest of his life?
Should we now allow newspapers the ability to publish the whereabouts of people who had a DUI for life? How about teens who got caught smoking marijuana? Let's make sure they can never get a job.
Yes, the press has freedom. This post would be covered by that fact - but when it extends to the point of stalking, then it becomes a crime when you aren't a journalist. Why should the newspapers be held to a different standard?
If anything, he has a civil case here, but considering the stricter privacy laws in Europe, he probably has a criminal case too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait...
Considering the fact that this guy spent the last 13 years in jail he probably hasn't heard of the Streisand effect. His response can only make the problems worse. His best course of action would be to live a crime free life and wait for this media coverage to blow over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait...
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait...
Because the damage he has done to society will never be repaid. His incarceration can NEVER undo or fix his incidious crime; it will NEVER correct the psychological, emotional, and possibly physical damage he did to those victims. They are not "made whole" by his incarceration; so having 'served his time' does not repay his debt.
Society has every right to be aware of his location... and especially his previous victims should be. They may not sleep soundly even 13 years later, and this minor inconvenience for him is nothing compared to that burden. This man should never have been released at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know...
Here in The States registered sex offenders can't live within a certain distance of places where children gather (church, school, public library, etc...). That sounds good on paper, until you notice that by having their living options cut like they end up on the streets and thus off the grid. Its a lot harder to keep up with a person who has a job, home, and assets than a person that lives on the street and has no assets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At the same time, in a more general context, the prison system is supposed to be about rehabilitation. While it may be true that often times rehabilitation does not happen, it is certain that it will not happen if a criminal is never allowed the opportunity to start a new life. After all, society felt that he should be sentenced to a certain amount of time in jail, not a lifetime of not being able to live anywhere. If that what the court wanted, then it should be written into law...that is if it could withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Even in the context of protecting society...ensuring that this guy can never start a new life only serves to dramatically increase the odds that he will revert to his old ways. Everyone wants to see him suffer, but at what point has a person paid for their crimes and at what point can they be allowed to move on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Him being punshed by it is a byproduct and in my option, to fing bad. I have zero sympathy for him regardless of how much time he spent behind bars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sex Offender's Register
Upon Murray's release last year, top Gardai (the Irish police) publicly stated he was a menace to society.
The good thing about his attempt at an injunction is that it only mentions a few newspapers: other papers, online blogs etc will not be affected, even if he wins.
If he does win, the locals here will just march on his place and force him out: a few weeks ago, a large crowd of people marched against a paedophile in Bray, just a short distance from where I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sex Offender's Register
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
see copyright and such THINKS OF CHILDREN
blame HOLLYWOOD and its supports for THINKING OF CHILDREN
this is sick
the guy should be a candidate for your chair or lethal injection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rehabilitation ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the UK, naming and shaming campaigns against sex offenders have resulted in serious harm to innocent people at the hands of crowds too stupid to know the difference between the offender and some innocent person. When newspapers enable this kind of life-threatening harassment, you have to wonder if it's not going too far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If there are people out there stupid enough to do that, I certainly wouldn't like to be anyone living in or visiting that resort who happens to look a bit like Murray, or have the same name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets go one step further and admit there's no such thing as a "debt to society". Even for crimes involving money, any debts are owed to those who were harmed rather than society as a whole. Also, jail shouldn't be about the repayment of debts, but about preventing people from doing any further harm while in jail and about rehabilitating criminals so they never reoffend.
"Additionally, you have to balance his right to privacy against the public's right to safety. Making the public aware of his presence does that."
Right. If that were the end of it, it would be OK.
What happens in practice is that the public, on being made "aware of his presence", will engage in vigilante action against the suspect, and that is not OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attn: Bleeding Hearts
Prison does the opposite of rehabilitation. It's like college for criminals. If anything he's learned better techniques and other ways to commit crimes.
And you think after spending 13 years in prison he's now attoned for his crimes? Ask his victims if they're now even. I'll bet they won't feel that way.
So no, I don't think he's "rehabilitated" nor has he paid his debt to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's an argument for fixing the prison system, not for keeping people locked up indefinitely regardless of what crime they've committed. Petty thugs have a high recidivism rate, but not all criminals do. Jail may generally suck as a way to rehabilitate criminals, but not all convicts end up as career criminals.
"And you think after spending 13 years in prison he's now attoned for his crimes? Ask his victims if they're now even. I'll bet they won't feel that way."
You can't expect most victims to think rationally about such things. A criminal could be honestly sorry and completely rehabilitated and the victim still wouldn't see it. Victims see their attackers as they were, not as they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Serial rapists should all be killed after having their testicles chewed by a small angry dog anyway. I don't care about their rights. I can forgive murderers, thieves, and even the guy who burned my house down several years ago. However, there are some people who need to be killed for the betterment of society as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So you wouldn't forgive a rapist, but you'd forgive a murderer? Does that mean murder isn't as bad as rape is? Perhaps we should start improving society by getting rid of people who think like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It sounds like you enjoy killing people, so I'll end my post here and let you get back to murdering your girlfriend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, murderer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worse off either way...
Yes, it may suck for Mr. Murray, but it's difficult to have sympathy for him. While I do have some concerns about the way certain sex offender list laws are structured, this is different. It seems like it is, in fact, newsworthy when someone with a record like Mr. Murray's moves into a certain area -- and barring publication of that fact seems like a dangerous precedent to set when it comes to press freedom.
Somehow I doubt the the press is reporting this out of any kind of sense of civic duty but rather as a way of selling mewspapers. On the other hand, that kind of unrelenting pressure is rather likely to become the trigger that will hasten Mr. Murray to reoffend. Though with his particlar "thing" reoffending is probably just a matter of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He has done no damage to "society", and as for undoing, fixing, correcting, or making whole, that is not and has never been the point of incarceration.
Society has every right to be aware of his location... and especially his previous victims should be. They may not sleep soundly even 13 years later, and this minor inconvenience for him is nothing compared to that burden. This man should never have been released at all.
Being chased out of your home by a pack of bloodthirsty idiots is not a "minor inconvenience".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, he did not. He chose to rape people, but that's the extent of his choice. The people who now choose to harass him because of what they've read about him in local newspapers are themselves the direct cause of this man's "lifelong problems" with harassment. To say he brought it upon himself is just a dumb excuse for vigilantism.
... he should not be making the public at large deal with the inconveniences for him.
Since "the public at large" are the ones imposing these "inconveniences", it is perfectly fair to expect the public at large to deal with the consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I shall take your previous statement as an admission that you actually are a rapist. You didn't deny it. Does it hurt to live with that? Does it hurt to know that you are reviled and hated? I hope one day you know what it is like to have someone stick something inside of you that you don't want there so you know how you've made people feel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Single word insults like "idiot" are just more economical than your irrational, emotional ramblings and cheap debating tricks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there's a high degree of his doing this again, then why the hell is he out of jail?
Once you get out of jail you should no longer be treated like a criminal. Don't like it? Then change the law to keep serial rapists like him locked up for life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If somebody caught him in the middle of committing rape, then it would be OK to use violence to get him to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be murder, so how about we don't? Just keep them locked up if they can't control themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A world without privacy.
No condoning or otherwise, just an observation on things to come.
On a more judgemental note the thing that shocks me is that some will not see a human being but will dehumanize that sick creature who probably shouldn't be in the wild but have rights none the less, and that will cause problems to the law, since there will need to be a way to discriminate against who deserve privacy and who don't, so it opens the door for politicizing anything, once that is opened everyone can be seen as a criminal an have their privacy stripped away, so I think people should start imagining how to live in a world you don't have privacy, that means everybody will know when you masturbate and they will have to learn to live with that knowledge, everybody will know when you go to the bathroom and not only you but everybody will have to learn how to live with that knowledge.
Moral will have to change because some human nature traits will be hard to ignore or stop or change.
Like sharing, I doubt people will stop despite the attempts from some people LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sleigh of hands.
If the only thing it takes is to label someone as bad then prepare yourself's for a future without privacy where everyone will know when you masturbate, go to the bathroom, have sex, curse etc. People will have to develop new morals and ways to deal with those information because people have needs and they act upon those needs in private most of the time, but the future will not allow that because it only takes a moral taboo to completely strip away privacy from anyone and that is so great(insert sarcmark here).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't believe it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can't believe it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can't believe it
I don't know you, so I'm not really accusing you of being a rapist. No hard feelings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]