> The man "understood that it was a federal crime to send a threatening communication to anyone and will never do it again," the FBI wrote. Was his understandi

> The man "understood that it was a federal crime to send a threatening communication to anyone and will never do it again," the FBI wrote. Was his understanding correct? Is it in fact a federal crime to be mean and threatening to someone online? I'm not sure where the line is drawn with respect to protected speech, and the article takes more of a moral than a legal or objective point of view. > During those months, much of the video game world — which is massive — became obsessed with the idea that women might ruin the future of games by persuading game studios to abandon sexy female characters or tone down the default machismo of male characters. This is simply false. Yes, the video game world is massive, but the part that discussed gamergate and women in games is very, very small. Most people that play video games have never heard of gamergate, most of the rest have no problem with women in games (in fact, many of those players are women themselves). The author of the article is living in a bubble. But to its credit, the article does admit > It is difficult to estimate just how big the Gamergate movement really was [..] 10,000 users discussed Gamergate on Reddit. That's probably the best estimate. So 10,000 out of many, many millions. The article dismisses the alternative narrative of "the authorities investigated and concluded no crimes were committed, thus showing that the concern about gamergate was largely unwarranted," but that seems more accurate.