3 ms·

That is a "threat" only under the loose definition that the government likes to use to arrest facebook users and the like.

by x1798DE 11y ago

afarrell 11y ago
For the U.S., this is Incorrect. That definitely does not meet the standard of a True Threat. It wasn't sent to the person involved, or even posted in their view by the speaker. Even if Elonis v. U.S. Had been decided differently, a Reasonable Person wouldn't look at that and conclude it was spoken seriously. But as it stands, a True Threat has a Mens Rea requirement. You should read up on the most recent Supreme Court case involving threats made on Facebook: A good intro to the case: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/01/feds-cant-base-threat-conviction-on-whether-reasonable-person-would-perceive-message-as-a-threat/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Collection of Primary Sources and commentary: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-s... An explanation of what "Mens Rea" means http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173 (yes, in webcomic form, but drawn by an attorney)
- x1798DE 11y ago
  I'm definitely aware of that case, but I wasn't seriously suggesting that this would pass muster in court, just that this is not a "threat" under the commonly understood definition of threat, and is only on the order of magnitude of "threats" prosecuted by government agents stretching their powers to the limits (charitably speaking). I was also obliquely referring to this case, which has a closer fact pattern: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/tech/social-media/facebook-threat-carter/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/tech/social-media/facebook-thr... (he was clearly joking and there wasn't any clear target to even send it to).
  - afarrell 11y ago
    That is actually totally an oversight on my part. Arrest != conviction and it is always the possibility that a random cop/DA is actually a bonehead.

That is a "threat" only under the loose definition that the government likes to use to arrest facebook users and the like.

by x1798DE 11y ago

That is a "threat" only under the loose definition that the government likes to use to arrest facebook users and the like.

afarrell 11y ago

For the U.S., this is Incorrect. That definitely does not meet the standard of a True Threat. It wasn't sent to the person involved, or even posted in their view by the speaker. Even if Elonis v. U.S. Had been decided differently, a Reasonable Person wouldn't look at that and conclude it was spoken seriously. But as it stands, a True Threat has a Mens Rea requirement. You should read up on the most recent Supreme Court case involving threats made on Facebook: A good intro to the case: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/01/feds-cant-base-threat-conviction-on-whether-reasonable-person-would-perceive-message-as-a-threat/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Collection of Primary Sources and commentary: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-s... An explanation of what "Mens Rea" means http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173 (yes, in webcomic form, but drawn by an attorney)

x1798DE 11y ago
I'm definitely aware of that case, but I wasn't seriously suggesting that this would pass muster in court, just that this is not a "threat" under the commonly understood definition of threat, and is only on the order of magnitude of "threats" prosecuted by government agents stretching their powers to the limits (charitably speaking). I was also obliquely referring to this case, which has a closer fact pattern: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/tech/social-media/facebook-threat-carter/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/tech/social-media/facebook-thr... (he was clearly joking and there wasn't any clear target to even send it to).
- afarrell 11y ago
  That is actually totally an oversight on my part. Arrest != conviction and it is always the possibility that a random cop/DA is actually a bonehead.