Talk:Justin Berry/Archive 4

Archives
March to June 2006

Justin Berry on Oprah

I recently wrote a subjective analysis of Berry's appearance on today's (rerun) episode of Oprah on my talk page. Unlike what I've written here, it isn't trying to objectively analyze the fact set, but rather to give my impression upon observing Berry in the act of telling his story. It may be illuminating, or it may just be one man's opinion. Take it for what it's worth. We should, however, work up inclusion of some of the details Berry & Kurt Eichenwald gave on the show into this article, so it becomes less dependent on the New York Times as a source, and, hopefully, less controvesial by having a broader base of support.--Ssbohio 02:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncited information removed from article to talk page

I removed the following information from the article because it was uncited & potentially inflammatory/derogatory. I relied on the archived discussion of WP:OFFICE's application to this article & of my reading of WP:BIO.

(Information deleted per WP:BLP and the passage of 4 months without any corroboration being presented.) --Ssbohio 18:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

TOCRight removed

I have removed the {{TOCright}} because I think the talk archive looks much better with out. I took two screenshots. Here is one with the tocright [1] and one without the tocright [2]. I believe the latter arrangement looks significantly better, no matter what it "historically" looked like. Hbdragon88 05:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While I still think it matters what historical consensus has been, I also think it looks fine the way you've changed it. Thanks for the improvement. --Ssbohio 03:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion on ampersand disagreement

Interesting article, glad this dispute gave me a chance to read it! I also note that both Ssbohio and (&) Hbdragon88 have made constructive edits contributing to the article. I note that there are relatively few ampersands at stake and have carefully read your discussions on user pages etc. and I think I understand where you are both coming from. However, SSbohio asked for an opinion, not mediation, so here is mine;

In the original edit [3] made by Hbdragon88 only two ampersands were changed and none in the URLs for the external links. In my opinion this made the text a little easier to read and it scanned more easily. The later revision [4] clearly needed to be fixed, but I think that the visible ampersands should have been left out. I find the new one which appeared in the " Larry King Live & C-SPAN" sentence to be incongruous. While I know that this is not a style policy I think that the 'stray' ampersands tend to distract because they appear to be used at random. However, if there is a particular reason for their inclusion (the Ampersand article cites its use in the name of professional firms) then I would not think they should be globally removed. I hope this opinion helps. All the best to both of you. Ekilfeather 13:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Ekilfeather, for your help & opinion. The ampersand is part of my natural style of writing, &, while I have no objection to replacing it with "and" in the article, I do have the concern that as I continue to edit this article, it will become a ping-pong situation, with my edits constantly being copyedited, even though they were in keeping with the MoS in the first place. It's the philosophy represented by the arbitration commitee in the Jguk case, where they identified the problem, finding that (emphasis mine):

When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

My preferences aside, I was wondering if your had considered the question of hbdragon88's use of the "&amp" HTML in place of the ampersand? My feeling is that using the HTML code will make the artcle harder to edit, especially for inexperienced editors, and that it is an unnecessary complication since the MediaWiki software already correctly renders the ampersand. So it's clear, I have nothing against the use of "and" in the article, just against removing the "&" for no other reason than that it's there, since it, too, is acceptable.--Ssbohio 14:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that a non-visible ampersand, when correctly dealt with by the software, should be left alone. It would seem to be an unnecessary extra bit of work to replace the character with an HTML entity. Generally URLS are copy/pasted from address bars in web browsers into the article text and I, for one, and you for two, wouldn't bother to convert it. On the other hand if someone else wanted to go to the bother of doing it for me I wouldn't object either :-) Visible ampersands in the text are, to my taste, a little distracting. Previous to starting wikipedia edits my writing experience has been academic and the guidelines I was introduced to discouraged the use of ampersands in the body text. As for wikipedia house style I agree that ampersands are not specifically discouraged. However, the use of contractions are discouraged and that section in the MOS states; "In general, formal writing is preferred." [5]. I have no firm evidence to support this view, but my guess is that most readers would marginally prefer "and" to "&" in the body text. I also think that the Jguk case is a little different in so far as the BC/BCE reverts reflect a certain socio-political difference between editors. I would say that the "and" vs. "&" discussion reflects only a "punctuation philosophy" (if such a thing can exist). I think the use of "and" is the more formal and, as such, is a little more in keeping with the spirit of the WP:MOS. I don't suggest for a moment that you need to change the way you write, I think that getting good content down is by far the more important task. However, I've copy edited plenty of articles myself and had my own prose copyedited (sometimes even by robots - oh, the shame :-), the important thing being that the meaning of the text remains unchanged. For this reason I agree that semi-automatic conversions are dangerous, you spotted the danger with the modified URL, but also because such a change might affect the meaning of text, even subtly (as the story goes wars have begun over a missing comma). Hbdragon88's original copy edit I think only reflected only his tendency towards what he regarded as the more formal style (correct me if I am wrong). Best. --Ekilfeather 13:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I really find your comments delightful. You helped me to see this situation with a bit more good humor than I felt at first. It reminds me of the argument in favor of the serial comma: "I'd like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand, and God" expresses a different idea than "I'd like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God." One is a list of people to thank, and the other claims God as a parent. In any regard, I perceive that, on the one hand, ArbCom was pretty clear about not making edits to change from one style to another where either is acceptable, but, likewise, formal style has definite merits. Since process is important, I'd like to see someone who feels strongly about deprecating "&" in favor of "and" propose that as an MoS change, thus allowing consensus to dictate the style. My view is ratifies the current status, where either is acceptable, is good, and that change for its own sake, isn't. Also, if you're interested, take a look at the talk page archive to see the foundation for my skittishness about edits to this article. Thanks again for your help. --Ssbohio 16:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Film

• *A feature film based on Justin Berry's life, Justin.com, began filming in July. Written, directed by Miguel Horte and starring Matthew Newton as Justin, ...

Does anyone have a source for this? I can't find any mention anywhere. -Will Beback 08:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked Google & IMDB. I can't find any notes on it. I'm going to remove it It has already been removed, apparently based on BLP. --Ssbohio 18:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep your eyes peeled; it keeps returning. -Will Beback 19:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage

this is fucking nasty. how did this kid's mother feel. I'd shot my self if i got caught. i mean that too. i wonder does C-SPAN or Oprah know about Xtube.com yet

Thanks for your comments. I'd invite you to sign them by typing --~~~~ at the end of your comment. From what I've seen & read, there's plenty of harm to go around. Berry's secret life has been exposed, but the exposure also got him to give up drug abuse, prostitution, & pornography. Those he accused have faced damage to personal & commercial reputation, as well as criminal prosecution for some. Without judging who did what to whom, it's clear that most parties to this situation have faced negative consequences. --Ssbohio 04:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

molestation

After reading the current article, I noticed that Justin Berry was 16 during the time he alleges Gourlay molested him, who himself was 23 at the time. If I am correct, that is completely legal under Michigan law as long as it does not include any acts of sodomy.--DANK 06:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The first issue that would arise is one of sate law. My understanding of the timeline is that Berry and Gourlay first had sex when Berry, just short of his 16th birthday, attended the University of Michigan's Camp CAEN. This would put Berry below Michigan's age of consent. Additionally, if valuable consideration was offered, Gourlay could face charges of soliciting prostitution. Gourlay was also charged with child pornography related activities stemming from his business relationship with Berry.

The second issue is that Berry apparently crossed state lines to have relations with Gourlay, and the arrangements for this trip were apparently made using Internet & telephone, both "interstate means of communication." On both these bases, Federal law would be applicable. The Federal age of consent is 18, so Gourlay could face Federal charges as well. --Ssbohio 04:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To update my previous comments, it appears that the U.S. Department of Justice has declined to prosecute Gourlay, leaving him to face state charges only. --Ssbohio 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Some modifications

I've added to the list of immunized charges wire and internet fraud since those are almost always filed when the suspect is accused of fraudulent credit card transactions involving the internet. It is also likely that he was in viloation of 18 U.S.C. § 2257 compliance, which I assume he was also immunized from. I also believe that this article, while much improved from the totalitarian WP:OFFICE action, still is much too sympathetic to Justin, thus it cannot honesty be seen as WP:NPOV. Why are there so many excuses for his illegal actions being peppered throughout the article? That alone set off my bullshit detector. In the eyes of the law, being under the influence of cocaine doesn't excuse your behaviour. Furthermore, why does it seem like the gist of this article is that he was tricked into taking cocaine? Again, this is no excuse in the eyes of the law. The appalling lack of any personal accountability in the article is glaring. All in all, good job. However more work needs to be done to better highlight his own bad behavior and emphasize how he willing exploited other victims for his own personal profit. --130.127.121.188 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I'm sympathetic to your concerns. My personal view is that, based on his own account, he was victimized at 13. However, where I differ from the orthodox view is that I believe Berry progressed rapidly from victim of manipulation to a manipulator in his own right. By his own account, some 1,500 subscribers were induced by Berry to pay up to $50/month (plus additional payments to induce Berry to perform on request) for the privelege of watching his self-produced erotic videos. However, be that as it may, we have to avoid defending NPOV in this article to the point of endangering the project. As I understand it, legal action had already been threatened, and extreme care needs to be taken in writing this biography of a living person. Thorough referencing is needed here, especially when posting any information negative or unflattering toward Berry. He is back on the web and had reportedly contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in the past, resulting in the previous OFFICE action (see talk page archives). --Ssbohio 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

An interesting update

To anyone interested, there's a new GQ story here. --130.127.121.188 15:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Broken links

There are many broken links in the External links section. Generally I would advise footnotes excerpting relevant text from news articles together with providing a link so that all is not lost when that web page is taken down. Haiduc 14:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

question re: other adolescent males involved

The way this article is written, it suggests that the other adolescent males involved in the later websites were already involved when Mr. Berry was convinced to join. Was this the case? I seem to remember one of the Eichenwald articles saying that other adolescent males joined in his activities at his request, instead. Can we get confirmation one way or another? Let's not mislead anyone. --65.64.201.127 16:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The sources I've reviewed indicate that Berry recruited both amateur and professional webcam performers for his sites, including minors. Court testimony and prosecutorial statements also indicate that videos exist of Berry engaging in sex acts with minors. --Ssbohio 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization

I'm starting to think that this article should be reorganized along chronological lines, which seems to be the house style when it comes to biographies. Thoughts, feelings, opinions? Perhaps a straw poll? --Ssbohio 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

prosecution of Richards

Am I mistaken, or does the information on Timothy Ryan Richards just come out of left field? Other that noting that some of the charges relate to Berry, there's no context at all given for who he is or why he's even relevant to this article. Esrever 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about that. The section on Timothy Richards isn't well tied-in to the overall narrative. I have primary sources that give a chronology of their business dealings, and I'm looking for secondary sources to support them. It's my hope hat if the article is reorganized chronologically, some of the confusion would be eliminated. According to my sources, Richards (a/k/a Casey) was approached by Aaron Brown, owner of neova.net, a credit card processor specializing in adult websites. Richards & Brown were long-time friends, and had performed on the same webcam sites before moving on to other opportunities. Brown asked Richards to administer Berry's latest site, JustinsFriends.net, as Berry had walked away leaving paid subscribers in the lurch. By his own account, Richards believe the site to be legal in every aspect, as it bore the correct legal compliance language. Richards administered the site, while, Brown, Berry, & Greg Mitchel still had access to it. Separately, Richards operated CaseyAndDew.tv, a non-pornographic webcam site that did depict a fully-clothed minor as he grew up as a gay teen. Once I get the sourcing straightened out, I'll be incorporating some of this information into the article. I'm also considering forking off the information on others involved in Berry's enterprises, to reduce the length & complexity of the article. --Ssbohio 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Berry sites

This material was recently deleted:

• Friends and relatives of Timothy Ryan Richards (a/k/a Casey), accused by Berry of distributing Berry's underage photos and videos, have created two websites: The Truth About Justin is an information sharing site, and Free Casey is an online community for his supporters, containing blogs, podcasts, and discussion forums. These sites have gathered extensive information on the subject.

The second site doesn't apper to meet our standards for an external link, but the first one might. It may offer a different POV which would help neutrality. Have we already discussed these links? -Will Beback · † · 19:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

These links have not been discussed and they should. If they're not included on this page then it should be removed completely as Justin Berry will likely want only his POV or those that parrot it. It should also be noted that neither of these sites are "pro-pedophilia". In fact, the very opposite. Justin Berry was 18 when Richards maintained Justin's servers. Child pornography was added by Justin without the knowledge of Tim Richards. So for Justin to come on here and claim that a website denouncing Justin's crimes is "pro-pedophilia"... well that's just silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.111.51.110 (talk • contribs).

I apriciate the help of the moderators on this site to continue with the effort of this article. JustinBerry 08:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Links removed. do not post again. JustinBerry 02:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)