Making Public Threats Online

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

CesarioRose
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:50 pm UTC
Location: United States

Making Public Threats Online

Postby CesarioRose » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:31 pm UTC

This question came up on another forum, but the quality of the arguments were in question.

So, I wanted to ask my new friends here the same question. As some of you may have been recently aware, Alec Baldwin made some disparaging remarks towards another, and insulted a (relatively new) community perfectly fine individuals on Twitter because deactivating his account. In a related case, an 18 year old made some comments about shooting up his school on Facebook, and is now being charged with Making Terrorist Threats. I'll concede that Alec Baldwin did not break the law per say, and his comments are in very poor taste. On the other hand, his comments were very similar to Paula Deen's poor taste in words.

Now, the question is, should Alec Baldwin be charged with the same crime? Here in the great Keystone state, I believe the law reads to the following extent: (I italicized part of the law where relevant.)
§ 2706. Terroristic threats.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:
(1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;

(2) cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation; or
(3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.


Now, I grant the point this is Pennsylvania State Law, and not, say, California Law. Which brings up another point: If the threat is being made online, who retains jurisdiction to charge the crime? If someone makes a threat on Twitter, from California, aimed at a man who lives in Nevada, is the man charged in Nevada? And are the statues defining the crime pretty much standard across all States? The 18 year old kid example above references the same kid living in the same state as to the threats being made to, but reported by a Canadian.

What does anyone else say?
Should Alec Baldwin be charged with making terrorist threats?

Nem
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby Nem » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:50 pm UTC

"I'm gonna find you and fuck you up"

Seems like pretty clear-cut threat with intent to make someone else terrorised to me. Obviously he didn't intend the other person to feel the warmth of humanity when he said it.

Urging others to commit violence seems more like it would be covered under some sort of inciting violence law than terrorism though.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby Adam H » Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:26 pm UTC

Nah, he's obviously not communicating a threat to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another. I realize that sounds ridiculous, but I mean that seriously. No one actually thinks Alec Baldwin is going to hunt down this guy and hurt him. Right? There was no threat to commit any crime of violence, just angry tweets.

The appeal to his followers to "straighten out" the guy is worrisome, because people are idiots and might actually do it.

Course, the kid who joked about killing everyone at his school was obviously not going to shoot anyone, so that was an extreme lapse of justice IMO (unless I don't have all the facts, which I don't).
-Adam

CesarioRose
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:50 pm UTC
Location: United States

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby CesarioRose » Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:50 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:Nah, he's obviously not communicating a threat to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another. I realize that sounds ridiculous, but I mean that seriously. No one actually thinks Alec Baldwin is going to hunt down this guy and hurt him. Right? There was no threat to commit any crime of violence, just angry tweets.

The appeal to his followers to "straighten out" the guy is worrisome, because people are idiots and might actually do it.

Course, the kid who joked about killing everyone at his school was obviously not going to shoot anyone, so that was an extreme lapse of justice IMO (unless I don't have all the facts, which I don't).


Which is the point I was trying to make. At which dichotomous point do words become threating? Where was the Malice? Is there Culpability in both or either suspected crimes?

User avatar
bouer
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:26 pm UTC

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby bouer » Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:10 pm UTC

I find the jurisdiction question most worrying. The USA has a reputation for acting over its borders already, even taking citizens of other countries from there home to detain them in USA prisons. While I'm online I am conversing with people from dozens of countries with many different laws regarding sharing information and free speech. For this reason alone I am strongly in favour of treating online threats much less harshly than in person.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby Azrael » Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:54 pm UTC

CesarioRose wrote:
Adam H wrote:Nah, he's obviously not communicating a threat to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another.
...
Course, the kid who joked about killing everyone at his school was obviously not going to shoot anyone...

Which is the point I was trying to make. At which dichotomous point do words become threating? Where was the Malice? Is there Culpability in both or either suspected crimes?

If I tell you to your face that I'm going to kick your ass, that isn't criminal*. At least not until I couple that with threatening actions (assault) or start to harm you (battery), or continue the behavior so it becomes ongoing harassment. And it certainly isn't a threat of terrorism by any reasonable interpretation of terrorism. But making a bomb threat is illegal and is a threat of terrorism.

So apply this standard to the two situations. Guy says he'll kick someone's ass via a digital medium rather than verbally. Some kid said he'd shoot everyone instead of blowing them up**. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

More importantly, if threatening to kick someone's ass (a historically non-criminal act*) gets them charged under a relatively new terrorism law, then the law is being misapplied and needs to be changed. Or at least have it's application clarified.



* After some research, some jurisdictions had misdemeanor charges that cover this.
** Clearly the authorities are vastly overreacting in the specific case cited. It's ludicrous.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby cphite » Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:12 pm UTC

CesarioRose wrote:This question came up on another forum, but the quality of the arguments were in question.

So, I wanted to ask my new friends here the same question. As some of you may have been recently aware, Alec Baldwin made some disparaging remarks towards another, and insulted a (relatively new) community perfectly fine individuals on Twitter because deactivating his account. In a related case, an 18 year old made some comments about shooting up his school on Facebook, and is now being charged with Making Terrorist Threats. I'll concede that Alec Baldwin did not break the law per say, and his comments are in very poor taste. On the other hand, his comments were very similar to Paula Deen's poor taste in words.

Now, the question is, should Alec Baldwin be charged with the same crime? Here in the great Keystone state, I believe the law reads to the following extent: (I italicized part of the law where relevant.)
§ 2706. Terroristic threats.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:
(1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;

(2) cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation; or
(3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.


Now, I grant the point this is Pennsylvania State Law, and not, say, California Law. Which brings up another point: If the threat is being made online, who retains jurisdiction to charge the crime? If someone makes a threat on Twitter, from California, aimed at a man who lives in Nevada, is the man charged in Nevada? And are the statues defining the crime pretty much standard across all States? The 18 year old kid example above references the same kid living in the same state as to the threats being made to, but reported by a Canadian.

What does anyone else say?
Should Alec Baldwin be charged with making terrorist threats?


Frankly I think both cases are rather weak examples of a terroristic threat; I don't believe that any reasonable person thinks that Baldwin is going to travel across the country to beat up someone over a Twitter issue; and it seemed pretty obvious that, in context, what the kid wrote was a joke. It may have been in really poor taste, but still a joke.

This whole "zero tolerance" thing is getting more and more ridiculous.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby Azrael » Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:15 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Frankly I think both cases are rather weak examples of a terroristic threat.

If Baldwin did physically harm that individual, he would be charged with Assault & Battery. Not with a charge that falls anywhere near "terrorism". So I have a hard time with the idea that the empty threat to perform Assault & Battery is terroristic.

Parse the legal requirement:
... if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to: (1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;

Crime of violence AND intent to terrorize. The law itself makes the distinction that this stipulation does not apply to every act of violence. The crime of violence has to be done with the intent to terrorize other people (i.e. not the victim).

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby Chen » Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:25 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Parse the legal requirement:
... if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to: (1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;

Crime of violence AND intent to terrorize. The law itself makes the distinction that this stipulation does not apply to every act of violence. The crime of violence has to be done with the intent to terrorize other people (i.e. not the victim).


Its not obvious the "another" there refers to someone other than the victim of violence. If that is the intent it certainly could use a re-wording. Right now "another" simply seems to imply anyone except the person committing the violence to begin with.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby Azrael » Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:31 pm UTC

Even if you ignore the interpretation (or existence) of the word 'another', there's still the distinction between an act of violence intended to terrorize and other acts of violence.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:10 pm UTC

Regardless of how the statute is interpreted, it's unlikely that the Constitution allows for Baldwin's tweets to be treated as a threat. Constitutionally unprotected "true threats" are "those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals." Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003). Further, because Baldwin is in California, he's under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, which has construed Black to establish a subjective test, meaning that Baldwin himself must have intended to threaten George Stark. United States v. Bagdasarian, 652 F.3d 1113, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2011). I don't see a prosecution flying under that standard.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

CesarioRose
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:50 pm UTC
Location: United States

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby CesarioRose » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:36 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Regardless of how the statute is interpreted, it's unlikely that the Constitution allows for Baldwin's tweets to be treated as a threat. Constitutionally unprotected "true threats" are "those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals." Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003). Further, because Baldwin is in California, he's under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, which has construed Black to establish a subjective test, meaning that Baldwin himself must have intended to threaten George Stark. United States v. Bagdasarian, 652 F.3d 1113, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2011). I don't see a prosecution flying under that standard.


Hmm. interesting. I guess I have some more reading to do. Thank you for the reference to precedence.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:24 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
cphite wrote:Frankly I think both cases are rather weak examples of a terroristic threat.

If Baldwin did physically harm that individual, he would be charged with Assault & Battery. Not with a charge that falls anywhere near "terrorism". So I have a hard time with the idea that the empty threat to perform Assault & Battery is terroristic.


Yeah, if that hits "terrorism" levels, then frigging everything is terrorism. The word just becomes mostly meaningless, and we can rename all jails to "terrorist internment camps" or the like. Joy.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby cphite » Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:50 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
cphite wrote:Frankly I think both cases are rather weak examples of a terroristic threat.

If Baldwin did physically harm that individual, he would be charged with Assault & Battery. Not with a charge that falls anywhere near "terrorism". So I have a hard time with the idea that the empty threat to perform Assault & Battery is terroristic.


The point is, neither of these threats has any credibility. One is an empty threat made as part of a childish tantrum; the other is a joke in poor taste made while playing a game.

Parse the legal requirement:
... if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to: (1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;

Crime of violence AND intent to terrorize. The law itself makes the distinction that this stipulation does not apply to every act of violence. The crime of violence has to be done with the intent to terrorize other people (i.e. not the victim).


If you're going to parse the legalese, you need to include the word "threat" in that. Who exactly is being threatened, let alone terrorized? In the Baldwin case, it's a bunch of people he has little to no chance of ever meeting in person; in the case of the kid, it's a hypothetical school. A true legal "threat" generally involves a requirement that the speaker communicates a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence. I have yet to see any reasonable argument made that either of these cases involves a serious expression of intent, or against whom.

On a stretch - and even this would be absurd - I could see maybe checking into the kid based on his statement; see for example if he has the means, or has made similar statements in the past, etc. But to actually arrest him and charge him with a crime based on an obvious joke is ridiculous.

CesarioRose
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:50 pm UTC
Location: United States

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby CesarioRose » Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:56 am UTC

cphite wrote:On a stretch - and even this would be absurd - I could see maybe checking into the kid based on his statement; see for example if he has the means, or has made similar statements in the past, etc. But to actually arrest him and charge him with a crime based on an obvious joke is ridiculous.



Ah, this was something I had not initially considered. Thank you. By which I mean, question the young man. Not by the police, but by a Psychiatrist who would have the legal power to commit any adult if they seriously believed the threat was real and imminent.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10341
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby addams » Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:02 am UTC

CesarioRose wrote:This question came up on another forum, but the quality of the arguments were in question.

So, I wanted to ask my new friends here the same question. As some of you may have been recently aware, Alec Baldwin made some disparaging remarks towards another, and insulted a (relatively new) community perfectly fine individuals on Twitter because deactivating his account. In a related case, an 18 year old made some comments about shooting up his school on Facebook, and is now being charged with Making Terrorist Threats. I'll concede that Alec Baldwin did not break the law per say, and his comments are in very poor taste. On the other hand, his comments were very similar to Paula Deen's poor taste in words.

Now, the question is, should Alec Baldwin be charged with the same crime? Here in the great Keystone state, I believe the law reads to the following extent: (I italicized part of the law where relevant.)
§ 2706. Terroristic threats.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:
(1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;

(2) cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation; or
(3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.


Now, I grant the point this is Pennsylvania State Law, and not, say, California Law. Which brings up another point: If the threat is being made online, who retains jurisdiction to charge the crime? If someone makes a threat on Twitter, from California, aimed at a man who lives in Nevada, is the man charged in Nevada? And are the statues defining the crime pretty much standard across all States? The 18 year old kid example above references the same kid living in the same state as to the threats being made to, but reported by a Canadian.

What does anyone else say?
Should Alec Baldwin be charged with making terrorist threats?


This is so interesting to me.
Social Media? I know Nothing about Social Media. Nothing.

Not knowing anything does not Stop Internet people from Writing.
I am Internet People, too.

Social Media? The Kid first. Let us consider The Kid.
He was in a Social Space inside Cyber Space.
That is Hard to Understand for some of us.

There are Rules of Engagement inside Games.
The Games are Located inside The Internet.

phew. That is Hard.
The people inside the Game are able to communicate the same way we on xkcd do. Correct?
Social Media? What he said to his Friends was overheard by a casual observer.

The casual observer Knows Americans are dangerous.
The casual observer Knows Dangerous Americans often Tell Social Media before Doing Something irreversible.

Out of a sense of Social Responsibility the Authorities were contacted. ok. It makes sense. So, far.

Social Media? The Man was 18 years old.
Who taught him to type like that?

The guys in his Social Group that play an online game? Of course.
xkcd has a Game where Bastardly is the preferred Style.

I don't play. They still let me type, for some reason.
What was he doing? In The Spirit of The Game?
Was He being a Bastard in The Spirit of the Game?

Social Media for Social Media.
An Eye for An Eye?

That is Stupid. People are Stupid.
People could do that.

It would work for both cases.
You said something mean to them on Social Media.
Now we are going to say something Mean to You!

We can threaten his family and threaten to take 8 years of his life.
The older richer one of The Two was more out of control and more Offensive. (to me.)

They were both Bad. Bad boys! Bad!
Now; Play nice!

Play Nice? Social Media is like speaking in Public.
This is a Very Hard one for me to Think Through.

I walked into a Room one time and Spoke.
I said, "Parking Errors Should Be A Capital Crime."

It got a Laugh. I was late. I walked in Winded and Late and Winded and my hair was all in my face and Well?!
I had not been able to get to my parking spot. Some first year Sociology Major had taken my Spot.

I had to Park out in What Was That? The Wasteland of Open Parking! It was a Lesson to Me.
Parking was a problem? It had Never been a problem for Me, before. My Department had Parking.

After I caught my breath and we settled down and got some stuff done, I wandered back to my car.
I looked at The First Year Socialogy Major's car as I walked by it. I talked to her.

She broke a nail. She did not understand Skinner. She was late, too.
She had more important things to do than worry about some Privileged Parking Sticker.

I did not tell her she was in My Spot. I liked her. I thought about that on the way to my car out there in The Wastelands.
I started going in a little early and parking Off Campus. Or; Parking out in The Wasteland.

I, also, had to Learn some stuff about Capital Punishment. I did not mean it! They laughed!
Still; It is a serious subject and Damn... I knew what Capital Punishment was.
I knew More within several weeks of That Day.

Do we Need to be careful of what we say? Yes and No.

"Protect Freedom of Speech! That's how we Know who The Assholes are."

When we say things we tell the World who we are. Who do you tell The World you are?
That Rich, Spoiled Adult; He is an Actor? Does he play Noble Men on The Screen?

Why would an Adult type such things? Because he is a Childish Adult?
Because he and his do not get enough of The Good Things in Life?
Because other people not only put up with it, Other People encourage him!

Have you called his Mother? Who Raised Him?
You did? You, the internet, Raised them both.

You may not be one of Those Good Families.
What are Good Families like? Do they have Childish Adults?

Yes, Sir. There are Childish Adults in Every Family.
It runs in The Human Family.

What kind of a Family has Childish Adults that are The Bosses of EveryOne?
Americans? A large dysfunctional Family?
They are, just, words on a Computer Screen. Any Harm Done?

Yes, Sir. That man, The Adult, He is to be spoken to by Really Nice people.
Then he Must copy That Style until is seems almost natural for that Childish not Childlike Foul Typing Ding-Dong.

Now; What is so wonderful about that man that he is in The Center of so many lives?
I don't know him. Did an Adult type those words? It may not be True. He may have been Hacked.
The Man, Alex Baldwin, may be innocent.

The Young Man can learn to communicate with his Friends in New and Better ways.
People are listening to him. The poor young man. Did he not know other people could hear him?

His online friend called him Crazy.
He, like many young men, responded with Sarcasm.

Sarcasm is Dangerous. It is like a Stupid kind of Fire.
Did he get burnt? He is in Jail and they are telling him 8 years of his life may Go Away.
Yes. That looks like burnt to me.

I wonder; Is being a sarcastic jerk as much fun as sitting in a jail cell is?
Is it Worth It? Sarcasm! It is Our Right! We of The Internet Have Rights!

Sarcasm! Our Rights as Stupid Adolescents. Then We Grow Up.
He is 18. It is Time for him to Grow Up.

It is too late for the Other One. He is as Mature as he will ever get.
He is well Paid and You Love a Bad Boy! We Love a Bad Boy?
We are the internet people and We Love Him? I don't.

I don't want to know a man that will respond with That Level of Stupid.
He is a Rich and Powerful Man. Thin Skinned Too?

The Rich and the Powerful can afford to be Thin Skinned.
That 18 year old man is not a Throw Away, yet.

What do you think? Me?
There is a book in most Libraries.

If he were mine he would be Reading That Book.
It is horrible! He would Hate it. It is Long.

Nine hundred and thirty five pages on Etiquette.
There will be Tests. There will be a Final.

Yes. I know this book Hurts You.
It is Like Plastic Surgery for The Mind.

You will be more beautiful, After.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
drkslvr
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:59 pm UTC

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby drkslvr » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:01 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Frankly I think both cases are rather weak examples of a terroristic threat; I don't believe that any reasonable person thinks that Baldwin is going to travel across the country to beat up someone over a Twitter issue; and it seemed pretty obvious that, in context, what the kid wrote was a joke. It may have been in really poor taste, but still a joke.


I don't know, it seems that Baldwin's was really a much more credible threat than the kid's. I mean, Baldwin could, in theory, buy about anything, right? And even if he didn't directly pay someone to hurt a guy, you know there have to be people out there crazy enough to try it just because of how much they like him and because they think it will make him happy.

On the other hand, the kid made an obviously sarcastic remark about eating still beating hearts, followed by "jk lol". Not any kind of credible in my book, and if it's not credible it's not a crime.
Help a paralyzed kitten get surgery! Fundly.com/Help-Link-Walk-Again
Image
Like Link's page for photos and updates on his status: Facebook.com/HelpLinkWalkAgain

lgw
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:52 pm UTC

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby lgw » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:19 pm UTC

I never believe what I read in "social media" of any kind, and it boggles my mind that others clearly do. Any threat should be legally ignored if a reasonable person would conclude the threat was not meant seriously - and I think both Alec Baldwin and the 18-year old who threatened to "rip out and eat the hearts" of those who offended him "lol jk" should get a pass just on that regardless of the medium. But I also think that no reasonable person should ever take anything said on any kind of social media seriously. How could you possibly believe this stuff? This is just the latest in a long line of incidents where I'm amazed that anyone could believe anything coming from such an un-credible source.

I think it's because we still have this tendency to give undue credibility to anything written, even when written in a medium that exists for un-edited thoughtless stream-of-consciousness ranting.
"In no set of physics laws do you get two cats." - doogly

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby cphite » Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:13 pm UTC

lgw wrote:I never believe what I read in "social media" of any kind, and it boggles my mind that others clearly do. Any threat should be legally ignored if a reasonable person would conclude the threat was not meant seriously - and I think both Alec Baldwin and the 18-year old who threatened to "rip out and eat the hearts" of those who offended him "lol jk" should get a pass just on that regardless of the medium. But I also think that no reasonable person should ever take anything said on any kind of social media seriously. How could you possibly believe this stuff? This is just the latest in a long line of incidents where I'm amazed that anyone could believe anything coming from such an un-credible source.

I think it's because we still have this tendency to give undue credibility to anything written, even when written in a medium that exists for un-edited thoughtless stream-of-consciousness ranting.


I think that it's partly a case of the powers that be wanting to cover their collective asses - so for example if this kid did do something stupid at a school, someone couldn't point a finger at them saying they didn't do anything to stop him, despite the "warning" he gave online blah blah blah...

I think also it's partly a case of the powers that be not wanting to admit that their initial reaction (arresting him in the first place) wasn't outrageously asinine.

Finally, I think there is also a small part of this which is that those same powers that be actually want people to be just a little paranoid about what they say and do online. There are a lot of folks who think it's a swell idea to not only monitor what everyone says and does, but also to "correct" those things that they don't quite agree with.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10341
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby addams » Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:57 pm UTC

If you would not walk into a Room with your Great-Aunt Sally, Your Mother and the Preachers Wife in it and say ...."What?"
What are All of These Strangers doing in Your Special Little Game?

It is time for The Child to Grow Up.
Is it OK for a 10 year old man to walk into a Room with Guns Blazing?

The very little walking ones will walk into a Room and shoot everyone.
That is how they say, "Hell-o! I Love You! Who Are You? Hell-o, Mommy!"

Yes. Ten year old children do That, too.
Fifteen year olds do, Sometimes.

At Eighteen a man may be held responsible for what he says and does.
Of course, saying is not as bad as doing.
Saying is a Path to Doing.


What? Does it Remove the Man's reason for Living?
No Friendly Banter during Games? None?

oh. That is a Standard too High for The Normal?
Is he Retarded. IQ? Normal or Low?

Low IQ people sometimes learn One Set of Responses and.... jeeze.
They really can't understand Why that would be a problem.

So, Don't Teach Retarded People to say Mean Things.
When they get big, The Church Ladies will Gasp.

The people of The Internet are So Understanding with one another.
It is enough to Warm the Cockles of My Heart.

Your Brotherhood of Understanding is Cute.
Everyone wants to Belong. Foul Language lets us know we Belong?

Spoiler:
I have used foul language to let me Know I belong.
It was a Stupid thing to do. I did it, Anyway.

I sprained both of My Ankles on The Same day at the Same Time.
Fuck/Shit. Fuck/Shit. Fuck/Shit. Every/Step. Ouch/Fuck

No That is not right.
Ouch is What I think before I walk.

Fuck is Right?
Shit is Left?

Right.....Left.....
I like it.

Left=Fuck; Right=Shit.
No.
First foot fall is Fuck.
Second foot fall is Shit.

I felt a sense of Belonging to every Man or Woman that ever Jumped, Ran or Walked themselves into Painful Recovery.
Getting to The Car was not too bad.
The next day was brutal.

The day after that was Not much fun.
The day after that I had to call in.
I did not work for several days.

That is One way to tell if it is a Good Day to Call In.
I can't stop cussing long enough to do My Job.
I'll stay home.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

lgw
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:52 pm UTC

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby lgw » Fri Jul 12, 2013 5:13 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Finally, I think there is also a small part of this which is that those same powers that be actually want people to be just a little paranoid about what they say and do online. There are a lot of folks who think it's a swell idea to not only monitor what everyone says and does, but also to "correct" those things that they don't quite agree with.


Oh, I think it's mostly this. Like water wants to flow downhill, government agencies want more power, whether naturally just to make it easier to do their job, or because of internal empire building. It's not fascism, but every time is a step in that direction.
"In no set of physics laws do you get two cats." - doogly

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby Nylonathatep » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:44 pm UTC

Here's Penny Arcade's take on the issue:

You have probably heard about Justin Carter in passing, maybe on one of the sites you read, or video channels you watch, but it comes down to the fact that a dumb kid said something dumb and because of the world we live in now this entitles the state to steal eight years of your life.

Context is, as they say, important; part of that context must almost certainly be derived from who happens to be participating in the conversation, what it concerns, and where it is taking place. And even if - taking all of this into account - even if you still feel a compulsion to determine whether a young man in Texas is the next Osama Bin Laden, get a warrant to watch him or turn his house upside down. Don’t throw him in jail for months. Don’t throw him in jail for month, singular. Don’t set bail at a half-mil. Is there something we don’t know? Something on his computer? The mind reels. I want there to be a reason. Some reason.

I’m not exaggerating very much in the second panel of the strip, or the third for that matter. I’ve talked about it before. It took me a very long time to figure my shit out, most of it at any rate, and you’ve had a front row seat to the rest. If you want to know why people are making big to-do about this that they are, it’s because they know full well that they’d be in there with him. We used to understand that young people said things they didn’t mean, that people leveraged abstraction to expel demons. Euphemism. We aren’t safer since we’ve adopted this “be terrified of young men” stance. Demonstrably.

Shouting fire in a theater is frowned upon because it has lead directly to loss of human lives; it’s not a “terroristic threat” in any case and it’s got nothing to do with this conversation. That’s not why he’s in jail.

We can talk about what “could have happened” all fucking day, and that’s generally where people cap out, but just for novelty’s sake we can look at what did happen and what is still happening. He said something dumb about murder, and now he’s in jail learning violence from professionals. God only knows what kind of man will come back out, but we know for certain who made him.

(CW)TB out.


http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/07/08

With Comic Attached too:

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Making Public Threats Online

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:37 pm UTC

So, for anyone interested, there is now a cert petition before the Supreme Court which raises the question of whether you have to specifically intend to convey a threat, or just make a communication that a reasonable person would perceive as threatening. SCOTUSblog has listed it as a petition to watch.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests