4 ms·

What constitutes a death threat? What should we do with all those twelve year old kids playing call of duty and taking on chat?

by mcny 9y ago

falcolas 9y ago
I’d advocate a spanking... ...for their parents.
ch4s3 9y ago
In the US, in most states, it is illegal to " knowingly utter or convey a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person."[1] California Penal Code 422 PC California criminal threats. ("Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat..." [2] California law even goes on to say that even absent intent, it is a crime. Which makes sense, because otherwise anyone making such a threat could argue that they were "joking", which happens to be a favorite defense of internet troll.s [1]https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/ [2]https://www.shouselaw.com/criminal_threats.html https://www.shouselaw.com/criminal_threats.html
- Spivak 9y ago
  Right, now write an algorithm that takes 140 characters of input and correctly identifies whether or not the intent of the author is to legitimately commit an act of violence. Right now the policy is heading toward cheating by equating anything that looks like a threat with a threat. This is not writing laws with human beings in mind. Removing the requirement for intent is literally banning certain types of speech for the sole purpose of allowing for algorithmic/lazy enforcement. And because almost all of the time it's going to be a false positive it's going to selectively enforced against certain subsets of the population or used to hang someone for a different crime that didn't stick. I don't buy the troll argument. If the message is coming from a troll it is almost by definition not a real threat and just a person trying to elicit a reaction or blowing off steam. I'm all for going after people that make legitimate death threats over the Internet but not this way.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Why is "I'm going to kill s73ver_" not ok, but "I hope someone comes over and kills s73ver_" just fine? I think your definition is far too narrow, and makes distinctions without a difference. I don't believe it matters at all if the person legitimately intends to commit violence against me. It's going to have the same impact.
    - mcny 9y ago
      > Why is "I'm going to kill s73ver_" not ok, but "I hope someone comes over and kills s73ver_" just fine? > I think your definition is far too narrow, and makes distinctions without a difference. I don't believe it matters at all if the person legitimately intends to commit violence against me. It's going to have the same impact. I think both are OK. Context matters. It seems you guys would send someone to prison for life for something like https://i.imgur.com/w8H43aQ.png https://i.imgur.com/w8H43aQ.png No, we do not live in a world of absolutes. Remember, if it is a criminal matter, the "victim" cannot choose to not press charges. I do not trust our legal system and neither should you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Vance_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Vance_Jr.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        I don't believe either is ok. But remember, we're talking about Twitter, not the government.
  - ch4s3 9y ago
    >Right, now write an algorithm that takes 140 characters of input and correctly identifies whether or not the intent of the author is to legitimately commit an act of violence You don't have to for 2 reasons. 1. The law states that intent is irrelevant and 2. people already report these threats. >Removing the requirement for intent is literally banning certain types of speech for the sole purpose of allowing for algorithmic/lazy enforcement Not it isn't. The threat absent intent is still illegal. It is illegal precisely because it hard for humans to judge intent. And, often you can't establish intent until after someone has acted upon a threat, which does you no good. Death Threats have been illegal in the US and preceding common law systems for basically forever. It has never been protected speech in the US. To reiterated, death threats are not protected speech and this isn't a free speech issue.
rainbowmverse 9y ago
You say that like nothing ever comes of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting

What constitutes a death threat? What should we do with all those twelve year old kids playing call of duty and taking on chat?

by mcny 9y ago

What constitutes a death threat? What should we do with all those twelve year old kids playing call of duty and taking on chat?

falcolas 9y ago

I’d advocate a spanking... ...for their parents.

ch4s3 9y ago

In the US, in most states, it is illegal to " knowingly utter or convey a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person."[1] California Penal Code 422 PC California criminal threats. ("Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat..." [2] California law even goes on to say that even absent intent, it is a crime. Which makes sense, because otherwise anyone making such a threat could argue that they were "joking", which happens to be a favorite defense of internet troll.s [1]https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/ [2]https://www.shouselaw.com/criminal_threats.html https://www.shouselaw.com/criminal_threats.html

Spivak 9y ago
Right, now write an algorithm that takes 140 characters of input and correctly identifies whether or not the intent of the author is to legitimately commit an act of violence. Right now the policy is heading toward cheating by equating anything that looks like a threat with a threat. This is not writing laws with human beings in mind. Removing the requirement for intent is literally banning certain types of speech for the sole purpose of allowing for algorithmic/lazy enforcement. And because almost all of the time it's going to be a false positive it's going to selectively enforced against certain subsets of the population or used to hang someone for a different crime that didn't stick. I don't buy the troll argument. If the message is coming from a troll it is almost by definition not a real threat and just a person trying to elicit a reaction or blowing off steam. I'm all for going after people that make legitimate death threats over the Internet but not this way.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Why is "I'm going to kill s73ver_" not ok, but "I hope someone comes over and kills s73ver_" just fine? I think your definition is far too narrow, and makes distinctions without a difference. I don't believe it matters at all if the person legitimately intends to commit violence against me. It's going to have the same impact.
  - mcny 9y ago
    > Why is "I'm going to kill s73ver_" not ok, but "I hope someone comes over and kills s73ver_" just fine? > I think your definition is far too narrow, and makes distinctions without a difference. I don't believe it matters at all if the person legitimately intends to commit violence against me. It's going to have the same impact. I think both are OK. Context matters. It seems you guys would send someone to prison for life for something like https://i.imgur.com/w8H43aQ.png https://i.imgur.com/w8H43aQ.png No, we do not live in a world of absolutes. Remember, if it is a criminal matter, the "victim" cannot choose to not press charges. I do not trust our legal system and neither should you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Vance_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Vance_Jr.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      I don't believe either is ok. But remember, we're talking about Twitter, not the government.
- ch4s3 9y ago
  >Right, now write an algorithm that takes 140 characters of input and correctly identifies whether or not the intent of the author is to legitimately commit an act of violence You don't have to for 2 reasons. 1. The law states that intent is irrelevant and 2. people already report these threats. >Removing the requirement for intent is literally banning certain types of speech for the sole purpose of allowing for algorithmic/lazy enforcement Not it isn't. The threat absent intent is still illegal. It is illegal precisely because it hard for humans to judge intent. And, often you can't establish intent until after someone has acted upon a threat, which does you no good. Death Threats have been illegal in the US and preceding common law systems for basically forever. It has never been protected speech in the US. To reiterated, death threats are not protected speech and this isn't a free speech issue.

rainbowmverse 9y ago

You say that like nothing ever comes of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting