|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Grossly offensive"
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
When is a death threat not a death threat?
When it's hyperbole? In certain quarters, "I'm going to fucking kill you, you <epithet>" is a normal expression of mild irritation. If we put everyone that has ever uttered those words in jail, we'd have an economic boom driven by the massive wave of prison-building, followed rapidly by a massive crash when everyone discovered that there were no taxpayers left because they were all in prison.
Change the context, and exactly the same words could be a realistic death threat.
It's hard to parse nuance on twitter.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
In Canada, the Criminal Code says:
quote:
264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;
(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.
Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Idem
(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (c)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
So, "I'll get you and your little dog too" is not just one, but two offences.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, let's take a look at this bit, since it seems to be the nub of the matter.
When is a death threat not a death threat?
When it isn't a death threat?
quote:
Should a death threat always be illegal, only illegal sometimes, or never illegal? And for afters, how are the (a) police and (b) the object of the threat, going to be able to differentiate between an actual death threat and the merely crass?
Further to Soror Magna's post, s. 16 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861 says (emphasis supplied):
quote:
A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Since Riley was convicted of sending malicious communications, presumably the police didn't believe he'd sent a death threat? The fact his comments weren't directed towards any particular teacher suggests to me that this wasn't a threat. Also, would one perceive these tweets to be a threat when read in the context of his other, similarly-wacky tweets?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rufiki
Ship's 'shroom
# 11165
|
Posted
From the article, it seems that he wasn't convicted simply for his comments about the teachers, but also "...countless other vile messages [which] were racially and religiously aggravated..."
The Independent reports that he 'called the Nazi death camp Auschwitz a "health spa", and suggested that Muslim babies should be drowned.' The BBC reports that he was accused of tweeting the name of the boy who has been charged with the murder.
So this doesn't seem to be about death threats.
Posts: 1562 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
So, to conclude: the person or persons at whom the threat is aimed have no clue as to whether the threat is idle boorishness, a vague wish that the world would be a better place without them, or actually meant. The only way to differentiate is have the police investigate, arrest the suspect and interrogate them to ascertain whether they are in fact a gobshite or a murderer-in-waiting.
Which is, more or less, exactly the position we have now.
None of this is a free speech issue, either. People are still perfectly free to express their disenchantment of people, places and policies - just not with threats of extreme personal violence.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rufiki
Ship's 'shroom
# 11165
|
Posted
Also, we have laws against inciting racial or religious hatred. You don't have to be actually planning violence to be an offender.
Posts: 1562 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Since Riley was convicted of sending malicious communications, presumably the police didn't believe he'd sent a death threat?
DNF. People are often tried on lesser charges if the prosecutor doesn't think they can get a conviction, for whatever reason, on the greater charge. That someone is convicted for manslaughter doesn't mean the DA didn't think he was guilty of murder.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
None of this is a free speech issue, either. People are still perfectly free to express their disenchantment of people, places and policies - just not with threats of extreme personal violence.
Exactly.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Yeah I understand where your coming from, I don't fully understand it myself. It took some persuasion to convince me to go with the notion that the media we have today is a whole other kettle of fish to what I grew up with.
It's a bit like this. Before social media you had your rows face to face, if it ended in fisty cuffs at least it ended. Now what happens is a back n forth of tweets, face book posts or blogs goes out, people who don't know the parties involved get involved or form opinions of the parties based on just text. No contextual cues to help them decide right or wrong just the biases they bring with them. This is so different from verbal argy bargy that it requires different rules of behaviour.
I agree with this bit.
quote:
Yes, the law is heavy handed about it but it's not without reason, no big loss of freedom of speech or right to respond is lost or compromised, in fact clear and precise communication is encouraged by this.
And here is where I disagree. That simply hasn’t been the way that has played out on this side of the pond in my experience. The anonymity and technical savvy of the trolls is such that the scarier types of direct threats are still not being dealt with because they can't be traced (although I have certainly learned that one cannot criticize feminism or certain female public figures without expecting that someone is going to threaten to beat and rape you).
Meanwhile, other people have simply upped the ante in terms of what counts as ‘threatening.’ I once tried to contact an old friend because I was worried about him given some of the things I had heard were going on in his life and some of the dreams I had been having about him. He didn’t remember me and, as it turned out, didn’t want to talk to me - but I couldn’t have known that until he actually told me, at which point I ceased all contact. But that didn’t matter - I had already brought a relentless campaign of police harassment down on my head.
One of the oh-so-many absurdities was a conversation with a sociopathic police officer* in which he asked me if I was afraid I was going to hurt said person. I said no, of course not, I was simply worried about him and wanted to talk to him, but if he didn’t want to talk to me, that was his choice. The conversation moved on but he said later ‘so you said earlier that you were really afraid that you were going to physically hurt X.’ I insisted that I had not said such a thing, that I had in fact said the exact opposite, that I wasn’t at all worried that I was going to hurt him and I didn’t think he was in any physical danger. But by the time I realized I was dealing with a completely deranged human being the damage was done. The criminal justice system in the US is so profoundly broken I’m not sure it can be fixed, which is a problem you all don’t necessarily seem to have.** But if you create a tool that can be used to suppress speech, you have to realize that sooner or later it is going to fall into the hands of people who will use it to suppress speech they simply don’t like (because, for example, it threatens their arbitrary position of power and authority). How much do you trust your police and prosecutors not to use their authority to suppress the speech of people who are critical of them and the way they do things? Is anyone going to care if prisoners start getting charged with incitement of a riot for failing to obey a prison guard's orders or a previously unknown prison rule? What about being charged with damaging state property for self harm, or a sex offense for masturbation?
*lesson learned: do not ever talk to the police.
** I tremble for my country when I reflect that G-d is just.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If you told someone to their face they should be killed, you could be subject to arrest for assault. Everything on the internet is addressed to everyone in the world.
So do you agree with the claim that blogging counts as harassment because it is upsetting to the person being written about, even though as far as anyone can tell, the writer is simply stating facts that are in the public record?
quote:
That's nice. What does the legal profession say? What do the threatened teachers say? What does your opinion matter in a legal issue? Or mine for that matter?
You may have heard of the jury system? Not that it ever gets used in this country anymore, and not that it’s necessarily that great when it is used since, for reasons beyond my comprehension, prosecutors are allowed to straight-up lie to judges and juries, but the US does have a theoretical tradition of requiring that a jury of your peers actually find you guilty of the crime. (And yes, I know this case is not in the US).
I still think the solution to bad speech is more speech.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
So do you agree with the claim that blogging counts as harassment because it is upsetting to the person being written about, even though as far as anyone can tell, the writer is simply stating facts that are in the public record?
Is it harassment to state something once? Or does it require a consistent behavior over a long period of time? Rules are different for public figures than for private figures, also, and this can't be helped and indeed shouldn't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is it harassment to state something once? Or does it require a consistent behavior over a long period of time? Rules are different for public figures than for private figures, also, and this can't be helped and indeed shouldn't.
I don't think it's harassment to state something once; I think it requires a consistent behavior over a long period of time and notification that the behavior is unwelcome. Maryland law agrees that this is the case; Delaware law does not - any single act of communication which causes a person fear, alarm, distress, or annoyance can be considered harassment.
On the other hand, Maryland keeps ruling that recording cops as they go about their public duties in their public uniforms violates their two-party consent rule against wiretapping and surveillance, whereas Delaware is a one-party consent state, so who knows where all these chips are going to land.
But perhaps this is getting a bit too tangential to the intended purposes of the thread by making it about the US and US law.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
saysay, I'm going to call you on this:
quote:
(although I have certainly learned that one cannot criticize feminism or certain female public figures without expecting that someone is going to threaten to beat and rape you).
- the evidence is that the Twittersphere and social media generally is anti-feminism, anti-women, internationally.
There's currently a BBC program on i-player (so UK only) called Blurred Lines deliberately referencing the Robin Thicke song, discussing the way women are portrayed in the media that argues that there is a misogynistic feedback loop happening, amplified by social media. It's giving permission to people who are misogynist to see their behaviour as acceptable because they see jokes, videos and media being "ironically" anti-feminism and think that they can follow.
This documentary was triggered by the death threats that Caroline Criado-Perez received for campaigning for women's faces on UK banknotes and the torrent of abuse received by women appearing on Newsnight, famously Professor Mary Beard but it's there for any woman on the show.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Having read a very interesting article about Caroline Criado-Perez's own tweets (which I'm trying, but struggling to find again) I'm not sure she's any kind of poster girl for how to behave on Twitter.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I didn't say she was a poster girl, but the threats were bad enough to go to court.
That article also is more of the attitude shown by people like Rod Liddle, who said that women just had to 'man up' and ignore the abuse (it's in the Blurred Lines program). That was challenged by research showing that this minor Twitter abuse grows through a feedback cycle and is making women less safe and less accepted. What is actually happening is women are being pushed out of the public sphere by following those recommendations.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Yeah, you're covering yourself in glory with this, Anglican't.
Firstly, linking something which labels a woman as 'hysterical' is highly problematic. I'm going to let others tell you why if you don't know already.
Secondly, while she clearly needs a lesson from Rook as to the imaginative deployment of idiomatic Anglo-Saxon, telling someone who's just received hundreds of rape and death threats to just ignore it and calm down - well, it's not going to go down too well. Perhaps you could think of a worse situation that she should get upset over and let us know?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Privilege. Why do so many people with dicks think that people without them should put up with their abuse? Vile, horrific abuse in wholesale quantities. "Just put up with it, you hysterical bitch. We men know what's best for you so STFU."
It goes beyond sickening.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
saysay, I'm going to call you on this:
quote:
(although I have certainly learned that one cannot criticize feminism or certain female public figures without expecting that someone is going to threaten to beat and rape you).
- the evidence is that the Twittersphere and social media generally is anti-feminism, anti-women, internationally.
There's currently a BBC program on i-player (so UK only) called Blurred Lines deliberately referencing the Robin Thicke song, discussing the way women are portrayed in the media that argues that there is a misogynistic feedback loop happening, amplified by social media. It's giving permission to people who are misogynist to see their behaviour as acceptable because they see jokes, videos and media being "ironically" anti-feminism and think that they can follow.
This documentary was triggered by the death threats that Caroline Criado-Perez received for campaigning for women's faces on UK banknotes and the torrent of abuse received by women appearing on Newsnight, famously Professor Mary Beard but it's there for any woman on the show.
I thought that was a very waffly programme, though, full of anecdotal stuff. For example, Germaine Greer saying that misogyny has got worse - how does she know this? I think the internet has given misogyny greater expression, for sure, but I remember 50 or 60 years ago, and there was fierce misogyny where I lived. For example, we had men only bars.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
saysay, I'm going to call you on this:
quote:
(although I have certainly learned that one cannot criticize feminism or certain female public figures without expecting that someone is going to threaten to beat and rape you).
- the evidence is that the Twittersphere and social media generally is anti-feminism, anti-women, internationally.
That doesn't mean that no supporters of feminism will threaten those who disagree with them. That type of behavior can pop up anywhere.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the internet has given misogyny greater expression, for sure, but I remember 50 or 60 years ago, and there was fierce misogyny where I lived. For example, we had men only bars.
I would agree with this but add a modifier. That greater expression is also greater magnification. Smaller things can cause greater harm. Yes, as a society we have reduced misogyny, but the pervasive nature of our electronic world gives more weight to the troglodyte than would otherwise be the case.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
That doesn't mean that no supporters of feminism will threaten those who disagree with them. That type of behavior can pop up anywhere.
And there's something about the perceived anonymity of facebook, twitter and the like that leads people to feel able to say the foulest things online, as though all the rules of civilized behaviour are abandoned.
Now, you could argue that it is more honest, in that people say what they really think rather than what is polite, but I don't think that's even true - people often seem driven to compete to say the foullest, most offensive thing about someone, in some kind of sophomoric insult competition with their virtual "mates".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
I'm not sure it the anonymity that gives these people courage to post the stuff they post, I'v seen stuff from people who are known to each other that would make your hair curl. I suspect it's anonymity in some cases and the 'home ground' illusion for others. Some playing to the gallery and a lot of shit stirring by bored idiots.
If we assume the best way to deal with it is to block/ ignore these people then that must apply whether the target is male or female. If we take the view that name and shame is the best way then 'manning up' is not an option but for it to work as intended it needs to be from both sexes, no use men manning up and the girls taking offence. Both must strongly react to the provocation or it just becomes another example of sexism where you get to abuse men and defer to the weaker sex.
The fact is it's the abuse that's the problem, not the target. Whichever way you handle it.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
saysay, I'm going to call you on this:
quote:
(although I have certainly learned that one cannot criticize feminism or certain female public figures without expecting that someone is going to threaten to beat and rape you).
- the evidence is that the Twittersphere and social media generally is anti-feminism, anti-women, internationally.
I'm not arguing for the universality of my experience in this area; I completely avoid the Twittersphere because it has all of the disadvantages of other social media (no context clues, etc.) and a character limit which just seems guaranteed to lead to misunderstandings and hate and disengagement (people showing off rather than actually listening to each other and engaging with other people's points). You don't have to believe me (obviously), but the fact is that some of the most vicious comments I've gotten have been in response to things like blogging my objections to Slutwalk. It seems completely bizarre to me - you'd think that feminists wouldn't engage in that sort of behavior (and given the anonymity of the internet maybe it's not even feminists doing it), but it is what it is.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yeah, you're covering yourself in glory with this, Anglican't.
Firstly, linking something which labels a woman as 'hysterical' is highly problematic. I'm going to let others tell you why if you don't know already.
Secondly, while she clearly needs a lesson from Rook as to the imaginative deployment of idiomatic Anglo-Saxon, telling someone who's just received hundreds of rape and death threats to just ignore it and calm down - well, it's not going to go down too well. Perhaps you could think of a worse situation that she should get upset over and let us know?
Thank you for that.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl - I think the aggressiveness of the misogyny is worse. I can think of instances where I've been youth working and heard, for example, a young lad - 16/17/18 - talking about what he'd made his girlfriend do for him sexually. He was talking to a mixed crowd, and it was all about him, nothing about her. I asked the girls later why they hadn't told him he was being selfish and abusive, and they just shrugged.
Secondly, the things the teenage boys I work with say and say they do is far more abusive than anything I remember from when I was their age, and from what I heard 10 years ago from the same age group.
Now I realise this is as anecdotal as that program, but I do get the impression that the world is more misogynist.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:
From the article, it seems that he wasn't convicted simply for his comments about the teachers, but also "...countless other vile messages [which] were racially and religiously aggravated..."
The Independent reports that he 'called the Nazi death camp Auschwitz a "health spa", and suggested that Muslim babies should be drowned.' The BBC reports that he was accused of tweeting the name of the boy who has been charged with the murder.
So this doesn't seem to be about death threats.
But note the first point I made in the OP: he posted some vile stuff, but the tweet that triggered complaints was the one about Mrs Maguire.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it isn't any more offensive (to me) to tweet "he shoulda stabbed 'em all" or something like that than to tweet stuff mocking the victims of Auschwicz. The second is equally offensive to the first.
On the other hand, my view is that neither should be a criminal offense. And since something becomes a crime when it is "grossly" offensive, rather than "offensive", and the grossness of offensiveness is an entirely subjective judgement, it isn't the kind of law I want more of.
And no matter how revolted I am at some of the things posted about Professor Mary Beard, and CC-P, I don't think they should be crimes either.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
