Now this is an investigation

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

In degrees maybe, but neither should be considered "funny". There are many reasons why a "harmless" prank can cause harm: the person may have a history where the particular joke may have a very bad reaction for them, folks may hide something that someone really needs that day, a person may have an emergency and really need a car that has been pranked, someone can get unintentionally hurt, etc. When that happens everyone gets all sheepish and apologizes but the harm has been done.

Yes, I believe that mild pranks between friends involving inside jokes are a different case as accidental harm is much less likely to happen and can be an integral part of bonding, but pranking strangers for kicks is a horrible way to treat your fellow human beings, whether it's a simple joke over a prank phone call, or causing physical damage like these folks did.

I understand what you're saying. There is still a massive difference between someone calling and asking if their refrigerator is running vs calling and telling them they'll be over to rape their children. It's not black and white. We don't treat the guy who steals a candy bar with the same outrage as Bernie Madoff.

The key difference to me is that the regular prank call that many enjoy is done for humor. The callers are not doing it to extract physical and emotional pain from their victimes. They just want a good laugh and I'd imagine would feel bad if anything bad happened due to it. These other guys wanted bad things to happen. They wanted people to be physically and emotionally hurt. They wanted to cause dangerous situations and monetary damage.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I understand what you're saying. There is still a massive difference between someone calling and asking if their refrigerator is running vs calling and telling them they'll be over to rape their children. It's not black and white. We don't treat the guy who steals a candy bar with the same outrage as Bernie Madoff.

The key difference to me is that the regular prank call that many enjoy is done for humor. The callers are not doing it to extract physical and emotional pain from their victimes. They just want a good laugh and I'd imagine would feel bad if anything bad happened due to it. These other guys wanted bad things to happen. They wanted people to be physically and emotionally hurt. They wanted to cause dangerous situations and monetary damage.

For the most part I agree, and there are degrees here. For example, the law recognizes the difference between assault, battery, intent to commit bodily harm, manslaughter, and murder. Just because murder is so horrible doesn't make assualt okay.

Let me ask this: how many prank phone calls are there that can generate humor without requiring a negative response in the recipient, be it anger, embarassment, or feeling stupid? They pretty much all require creating some negative feeling in the recipient to be funny. Even the refrigerator running one generally leaves the recipient feeling stupid and annoyed for having their time wasted. The golf course / sandtrap one above is intended to cause frustration in the owner.

But yes, these guys took it to the nth degree, I don't disagree, and should receive harsher punishments than I might expect for something like the refrigerator prank.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Let me ask this: how many prank phone calls are there that can generate humor without requiring a negative response in the recipient, be it anger, embarassment, or feeling stupid?

Didn't Heinlein write a book about this? You could replace the words 'prank phone calls' with 'episodes of Three's Company', and the question would remain much the same, in a purely philosophical sense. 99.9% of humor is based on the suffering of others, but the inability to see the line between an actor, or a cartoon character on a screen, and a real person on the end of your prank (AKA empathy) is when things cross into the territory of sociopathy.

[INDalltheway]

TSG needs to send this link to the Pranknet leader's neighbor he steals his wifi from.. http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html

[DaddyTorgo]

hahaha - do it TSG!

[watravaler]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

99.9% of humor is based on the suffering of others, but the inability to see the line between an actor, or a cartoon character on a screen, and a real person on the end of your prank (AKA empathy) is when things cross into the territory of sociopathy.

Agreed, on both points...

[Subby]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm just amused at the hypocrisy of this board getting all up-in-arms at these pranksters while admiring shows like Crank Yankers, defending the NC State fools that took over WRAL's weather closings announcements (that's a thread from a few years back), or worse defending the woman that pranked a girl over the internet and goaded her into a suicide.

And for the record I think they all suck as human beings.

You should try and speak in generalities a little more

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by INDalltheway

TSG needs to send this link to the Pranknet leader's neighbor he steals his wifi from.. http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html

That trick is great

SI

[boberot]

Am I the only one who thought it was a bit egregious for TSG to post the recordings of so many of those pranks?

I can see the journalistic value of posting one or two of them up there to give a "sense" of what these guys did. But posting something like eight or more of them is really confusing to me. It's giving the "Dex" douchebag the kind of audience he's always yearned for.

I haven't listened to any yet. I would have a hard time telling myself that it's somehow OK to listen to these recordings -- and God forbid, laugh at them -- because "it's part of the investigation."

It feels like it would somehow would put me in the same category as these pud-pullers who were part of the prank community.

Reminds me of the keyhole-recording of the ESPN hottie . . . Erin Andrews? Couldn't justify watching it.

Maybe that's just 13 years of Catholic education talking . . . .

[DaddyTorgo]

Nah I think that's true boberot. But maybe they can defend it by saying it's for educational purposes, so that more people don't get tricked?

[FrogMan]

followup to the initial story:
First Pranknet Arrest - August 26, 2009

FM

[bhlloy]

Holy shit. Not to threadjack but you only get 30 months for raping a five year old? What the hell?

Hopefully they can get this asshole on some sort of probation violation and he's going down for a long time.