11 ms·

Somewhere we went wrong when coming up with this idea of online harassment. People are going to say mean things to other people. This is never going to change.

Somewhere we went wrong when coming up with this idea of online harassment. People are going to say mean things to other people. This is never going to change. The solution is simple. If somebody is saying something you don't like then don't visit their site. If it is in a platform then block them and or set your profile to only interact with a white list. If they say something as fact about you that is not true, sue them, we already have the laws for this stuff. But most importantly stop worrying about what somebody else says to you online. People have a duty to police their own online content. Nobody should be telling me what I can and can't look at on the internet (please don't take that out of context of laws) Universities are not our parents.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Others visit their site. Some sites are very popular. It never stays on the internet, and its not all about what I'm seeing. Imagine a billboard that says "Joe is a deviant criminal". It's ok, I should just not drive that way again? And Universities have a special obligation, lets not forget that.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Imagine a billboard that says "Joe is a deviant criminal". The solution isn’t to ban billboards.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    True, but way to miss the point. Its to forbid posting crap like that (on existing sites). And the ban part is all about the special position of a University vs students. Not about the internet, not about the public in general. Anyway that's how the OP started...
    - williamscales 8y ago
      I think it is you who is missing the point. What is different between "forbidding posting crap like that" and "banning billboards"?
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      So who gets to decide what information is ok for adults to consume? What happens when this newly elected dictator decides that e.g. Jordan Peterson is a hate monger who must be censored? Is that ok? How do we prevent abuse when the subject matter is so often subjective? This is exactly why we have the first ammendment. This sort of power should not exist as those who would wield it are not infallible and cannot be trusted.
- npmaile 8y ago
  If Joe happens to be a deviant criminal and doesn't like to be reminded of the fact, then he should avert his gaze when driving by. If Joe is not a deviant criminal, then he can sue the person who put up the billboard for damages incurred.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    And then there will be a tide of amicus briefs making the same generic arguments about free speech and slippery slopes and parades of horribles, and it's a question of whether Joe wants to spend lots of money and time on litigating the issue, which may cost substantially more than the original libel, thus creating a market for lies which is effectively what we have now.
- nradov 8y ago
  Universities shouldn't have special obligations any more than any other employer or government agency. Another way to look at it is that regular people shouldn't have less protection against online harassment just because they don't happen to be university students. Rules and protections should apply equally to everyone. Should public libraries be obligated to block online content that harasses some of their patrons?
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Universities have parental responsibilities to legal children.
    - nradov 8y ago
      Very few university students are children. There are a lot more children in public libraries.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >Imagine a billboard that says "Joe is a deviant criminal" Well now Joe has a libel claim. If Joe is actually a deviant criminal then, well... he pissed off the wrong person. What's the issue?
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Well, on that subject, of course the internet is the issue. Once something is 'in the wild' on the internet it is very, very hard to quash it. The old legal mechanisms are slow, certainly not the speed of the internet anyway. A 'viral' video on social media isn't something you stop with a libel suit.
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      You can't unprint a libelous article in a newspaper either. You can sue them and they can print an apology, but you cannot erase history. The internet poses new hurdles because information is so easily accessible, but we have to be very careful about imposing rules which restrict an adult's ability to consume information.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      I don't' think it is that new given anonymous bill postings before forensics were sufficient to identify a publisher. If everyone already knows that someone posted a bunch of pamphlets that stated that the governor is an embezzling child molester. Enforcement has always been limited by practicality. Before forensics advanced sufficiently just a dead body in the street with no witnesses was a perfect murder.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    What about "I've heard Joe is a a deviant criminal"? The rumor does not have to be true for the statement (that the rumor was heard) to be true. What about "Joe has, at the time this sign was made, never denied beating his wife on Decemeber 31st." The claim could be very true in that Joe never has denied that specific claim because there was no reason to deny a claim that hadn't been made yet. What about putting up the sordid details of a teenagers love life on a bulletin board outside her high school? Assume you verified the statements as factual. Is there perhaps an issue even when it is the truth?
sgift 8y ago
> Somewhere we went wrong Yes. The moment we brought up the chant of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me". The brain can break the same way your legs or arms can and the "just tough it out" answer is not an answer at all. No one would suggest you should just not visit a neighborhood if people there attacked you. The proof that the web should be a special case because "muh, free speech above all" is very flimsy.
- yostrovs 8y ago
  Actually, people do avoid bad neighborhoods and suggest to their children and others to avoid those. There's a reason, many actually, for freedom of speech. And all those reasons are more important than your feelings.
- grawprog 8y ago
  >No one would suggest you should just not visit a neighborhood if people there attacked you. To be fair that's exactly what happens. People warn not to go into the crime/high gang activity areas of my city all the time.
- burke 8y ago
  Hate speech covers this, and it is illegal. Recently, there's a cultural idiom that offense is completely in the eye of the beholder. What people often feel uncomfortable with is not banning hate speech, but reclassifying milder and milder forms of offense as intolerable. To extend your analogy, bumping into someone intentionally on the street makes you a jerk, but not criminally so. It's assault in only the loosest interpretation. People that have done this probably don't need to go to trial for it.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    Hate speech is not illegal in the US.
    - burke 8y ago
      Right. Canadian. Sorry.
bobthechef 8y ago
> Nobody should be telling me what I can and can't look at on the internet (please don't take that out of context of laws). But the law is mutable and so we must appeal to deeper principles than those that the law hinges on. Otherwise, we could pass a law that restricts your access to exactly those websites that you wish to visit. This is the fundamental problem with liberalism. It desires to marry liberty and (an anemic version of) reason, but reason properly exercised also entails knowledge of good and evil. Thus we pass legislation to punish some evils for the sake of the common good and social order, and tolerate other evils the punishment of which would cause more harm than good. But when liberty chafes under the demands of reason, it will often resort to a tendentious skepticism in order to artificially erode certainty for the sake of securing greater permissiveness. Now it may be possible to argue that, given the way things are, and as broken as liberalism it, it is nonetheless the most prudent way to organize a (Western) society and that the best available way to deal with many social maladies is through softer means than legislation. Whatever the case, the laws themselves are to a large degree informed by culture, ethos, and circumstance and so what ought and ought not be legally restricted online is very much a core issue. It is insufficient to say on the one hand that nobody should be telling you what you can and cannot look at on the internet and on the other preface the former with the caveat that you are assuming conformity with the law because the law can be changed based on a change in understanding of what will best serve the common good here and now.
csydas 8y ago
I'm sorry, but this really is not reflective of the specific threats and comments made by the persons, and it's not a matter of simply "don't look at the posts", there were pretty clear written and verbal threats made which in any other context would be grounds for a real investigation [1]. Looking though the actual document and not the think tank summary, the threats are pretty explicit: • “Gonna tie these feminists to the radiator and [g]rape them in the mouth”;3 • “Dandy’s about to kill a bitch . . . or two”; and • “Can we euthanize whoever caused this bullshit?” The University certainly took the threats seriously enough to assign university security to events that the members of the plaintiff's group were attending, and the University did absolutely nothing in response to the threats by simply claiming they were powerless. Keep in mind that the context of these threats was around the time that a member of the plaintiff group had been murdered (while eventually the murder was disassociated from the events/threats, the investigation took some time). Such context lends a lot of credibility to the threats from my point of view. The basis of the appeal and the complaint in the first place was that the University made no action to even address such threats on YikYak (it is rather important to note that this is all about YikYak [2]). This means that one of two things was true: 1. The Yaks were posted by persons within a 1.5 mile radius of the campus 2. Someone was manipulating their GPS to alter their location to make the posts. Threatening speech has repeatedly not been protected by 1st amendment rights, and the University's refusal to even try to investigate despite having received specific complaints and requests from the plaintiffs. This isn't about randoms on twitch going KYS after someone trash talks in a game, there were specific acts of violence repeatedly threatened after this whole affair. The University had the ability to look into the events but did not, and their response was more exculpatory than educational/investigative. Universities in fact do have a legal requirement to investigate these things and maintain a position of neutrality and encouraging an atmosphere and culture on campus that promotes learning. When you have people openly threatening one another, that's not an atmosphere that supports learning. All this is further exacerbated by the fact that one member of the plaintiff group was killed by their roommate who was a former member of the Rugby Team which is noted in the actual opinion as having been a key element in the Yaks coming up. Even though eventually the murder was disassociated from the rest of the events, that was not for some time -- I don't see it as unreasonable for a group of persons who are receiving death threats and rape threats to take such threats very seriously after one of their members was actually murdered. Please just read the actual Opinions [1] top to bottom and not the think tank summary. Think Tanks are fine for finding issues, but their summaries are not to be trusted. They are always politically charged and often omit very important facts, such as the exact reasons the Court accepted the appeals (basically, the previous decision failed to meet the standards for protections under the 1st amendment and also the University did not fulfill its legal obligation in many ways) [1] http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/172220.P.pdf http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/172220.P.pdf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yik_Yak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yik_Yak (Edits are fixing formatting and introducing the context of the murder earlier for clarity of my second paragraph)
DanBC 8y ago
> People are going to say mean things to other people. This is never going to change. This case is not about saying mean thigns to other people -- US first ammendment allows people to say mean things to others. This case is about credible threats of violence being sent via a social network. One of the features of that social network was that you could only see messages from people who were geographically nearby. --begin quote-- We first address the University’s expressed apprehension about punishing students for their speech. Put simply, we are satisfied that its First Amendment concerns about penalizing speech lack a proper basis. The University could have vigorously responded to the threatening Yaks without implicating the First Amendment because “true threats” 27 are not protected speech. See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003) (recognizing that “true threats” are not constitutionally protected and describing them as “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”). 7 The Supreme Court and our Court have consistently recognized the principle that threatening speech is not protected by the Constitution. See, e.g., Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707 (1969) (upholding constitutionality of statute making it illegal to threaten president with physical violence); United States v. Maxton, 940 F.2d 103, 105-06 (4th Cir. 1991) (“Threats to kidnap or injure persons are legislatively proscribable, falling within that group of expressions, such as fighting words, which are not constitutionally protected pure speech.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, both federal law and Virginia law criminalize the communication of threats to kill or injure others. See 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (prohibiting transmission through interstate commerce of threat to injure another); Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60(A)(1) (criminalizing electronic communication of threat to kill or injure another if threat recipient is placed “in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury”). --end quote--
- mbrumlow 8y ago
  I don't care what the case is about. We already have laws on threats, its not the Universities job to hide or block those threats. Even if they did somehow block the sites these "credible threats" were posted on it still does not stop the fact that the threats were made. In fact I argue that if the university prevented a threat from reaching me that they could be held liable for any damage done to me should that threat come to fruition -- by blocking my ability to be aware I was in danger. Moreover, even if the Universities did so on their own networks that does not thing for the rest of the internet that lives in each and every students pocket. If somebody makes a credible threat you report it and take action. Banning sites that some people use to make threats is not the solution -- if it were, you might as well ban the entire internet.
bilbo0s 8y ago
I don't know man? What they are talking about is more than saying mean things. In the dorm I lived in at U Wisconsin, everyone was perfectly free to call anyone else a fat, ugly b word. But if you said, "I'm gonna go get my gun and kill all you fat, ugly b's." It should come as no surprise that you would be kicked out of the dorms. (Out of the university too, but I digress.) Point is, some things you say, the university, or high school, or whatever, they just have to take action on it. They can't just let it go. To expect them to do so is just being unrealistic. Sorry, but that's just not how anyone else in the world wants it to work. And those other people are able to sue the university or high school or what have you to press their point when situations like this arise.
- mbrumlow 8y ago
  The university does not, there might be a case for a high school or any place responsible for taking care of minors to take action, and that action simply should be the same action that individuals in public should take -- call the authorities -- that is the people we pay to enforce laws. A dorm is no different than living in a apartment. When somebody threatens you living in a apartment or a house you call the cops. You don't call the landlord -- or even the owner of the property. These people are not equipped with the resources to properly handle these situations. When you give these ill equipped organizations the power and authority you remove due process -- which is an assault on everybody rights and freedoms. When these organizations are responsible for "taking action" you will end up with a real quagmire, much like the one we have today where students are kicked out of school without any investigation into any allegations later to find out accusations were made out of spite. In the cases that are real, the universities should not be involved at all, the police and courts should be -- this ensures that offenders are removed from society and not just the campus. A university is a lot like a gym, or grocery store, or a library, or even a public park -- more so with ones that take in government money. It is none of these peoples jobs -- or should it be -- to vet who they are, and or monitor or interpret peoples online behavior. If one individual has an issue with another it is their duty to take action, not some 3rd party. University is the real life, you are a adult, and people need to start acting like an adult and expecting people to act like adults. Out in the world you don't run to your teacher when you are offended, threatened, or assaulted, you take real legal action -- involve local law enforcement. People, please stop acting like University is some special place where all the rules and laws are not valid and we need a entirely new set of them to be enforced by people who not equipped to do so.
briandear 8y ago
> Universities are not our parents. If that were only true! When universities set up grief counseling and support groups for election results. Requiring warnings by professors for “trigger words,” or set up so-called “safe spaces” — it’s clear that universities have lost the plot. Universities have become bastions of coddling and infantilization. It’s a true surprise that universities haven’t begun issuing bubble wrap to student with which they can wrap themselves lest they trip over a challenging idea. Universities have become a farce: institutions originally set up to prepare students for the the messy marketplace of ideas have instead morphed into expensive day-care centers for delicate children. A stand-up comedian can’t even tell jokes anymore without being banished in a chorus of boos and hurt feelings. Chris Rock doesn’t do colleges anymore because of the absurdity.
awaywopassd 8y ago
Absolutely not how real world works. As an online harassment victim, you may never know even know that it is happening online. But all your classmates would know. The sites might have lies about you or they might even have your real data. Someone might post your real photos; discussing your body, your fashion sense, or whatever that makes you loser. You are a broke college kid. Good luck finding a lawyer who would help you find anonymous posters and then sue them. In mean time, your social life is being destroyed. Online harassment seeps into the real world. Your classmates make fun of you in your earshot. You can complain about it once or twice but school get tired of it and stop taking you seriously. You will get depressed and sducidal unless you have a strong support system. Even then you will have poor grades, you might quit school. Your life is being ruined because people believe in black n white definition of freedom of speech. Perhaps we should recognize that there are shades of grey. We cannot harass someone in physical world without getting kicked out of establishment or getting arrested. Maybe we should go after platforms that let online harassment happen on their platform. After all they are profiting off your data, why shouldn't they be held responsible to police their platform better. That is like saying schools should not punish bullies, let the victim sue the bullies.
- kart23 8y ago
  It's called free speech. Yes, it sucks to be made fun of online, but most universities are getting better support systems to deal with this kind of stuff. Theres lots of free counseling services on campus that do provide the support in many ways, even with housing and food problems. Police does take threats seriously and will investigate to make sure it is not credible, and people do get kicked out of the university for making threats. But nowhere does blocking a site or service fit into the picture. I'm a student at a UC right now, and this is the message that was given to us.
  - ouid 8y ago
    Harassment is not protected speech. What are you on about?
    - ryanlol 8y ago
anigbrowl 8y ago
People are going to say mean things to other people. This is never going to change. I reject this premise. The social costs for abusing people like this need to be quite a lot higher. Right now it's virtually free and the internet is awash in trolls and malicious behavior. This is a novel situation caused by the confluence of effectively unlimited communication possibilities and we're in no way required to normalize its negative aspects. One novel approach to rebalancing such costs would be to give the recipient of a credible-seeming threat license to attack the threatening party in proportion to the perceived severity of the threat. So people who credibly threaten others with murder, for example, would be making themselves a legally valid target for homicide.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  > One novel approach to rebalancing such costs would be to give the recipient of a credible-seeming threat license to attack the threatening party in proportion to the perceived severity of the threat. So people who credibly threaten others with murder, for example, would be making themselves a legally valid target for homicide. not sure whether you're serious, but this actually seems like a decent idea. it would require some very well-written legislation to define "perceived severity", though. if someone threatens to kill you, specifically, and you can show that they know where you live, you shouldn't have to wait until they're in your house to do something about it.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    It's halfway between a Swiftian 'modest proposal' and a callback to duelling laws. Simply implementing this as described would of course lead to all sorts of undesirable outcomes, but really it's just a combination of the fighting words doctrine and an expanded concept of imminence that incorporates the erosion of spatial obstacles to information. Currently you shouldn't use deadly force absent a reasonable fear that it is about to be inflicted on you. But since it is entirely possible to send a threat like I know you live at [address] and I'm coming to [do crimes] and place the recipient in a state of continuous uncertainty, the very open-endedness of the threat manifests the fear of imminence in the target. Rather than making the victim devote resources to continually monitoring and assessing the behavior of the threatening party, we can simply expand the target's right of self-defense in proportion to the scope of the issued threat.
russdill 8y ago
I'm sorry, harassment is legal now? And society has solved the problem by telling people not to go where they get harassed? Called a #?$? $%%$ and told to go off and %$%$ die at the movie theatre? Don't go there. Harassed at work by your boss? Just stop going to work!
- kevinpet 8y ago
  Simple harassment has always been legal. It's only illegal when some other factors make it so, for example, sexual harassment by an employer or another person in a position of power. It's also legal to fire someone or kick them out for being an asshole. The problem with the 21st century is that people have lost the concept of anything between "illegal" and "forced to put up with". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbid...
  - russdill 8y ago
    I'm going by the legal definition of harassment. Specifically the definition of harassment that is not legal.
    - sweeneyrod 8y ago
      By the legal definition of harassment that is not legal, harassment is not legal. Seems a bit tautological to be worth sharing.
      - russdill 8y ago
        I'm not sure how to state it in a less convoluted way. https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/
- pixl97 8y ago
  Harrassed online, just dont go online! I hope you see the problem there.
- 8y ago
Klathmon 8y ago
I don't know if this is the answer, but "just block them" isn't a solution. I've had someone call my work and try to get me fired, I've had someone make dozens of accounts on various social media platforms to harass me, and even when I blocked them they would post my personal information and make up lies about things I've done, and because I blocked them I had no idea, and then more people would believe the harasser because I didn't respond to it, and would pile on. Filing a police report for some of the more threatening messages didn't do anything, as the police basically told me there wasn't going to be anything they could do. Locking or whitelisting accounts like GitHub wasn't really an option as I work with it and I maintained a semi-popular project that I wasn't willing to just delete, but it came close. In the end the harasser gave up eventually, and I was lucky that my job didn't believe them, but it was a pretty shitty time in my life that had me really worried that these lies would stick around my name forever and I wouldn't be able to escape them in the future.
- infogulch 8y ago
  This kind of harassment is completely incomprehensible to me. Especially as the work of a single individual. How one can be so full of spite and hate and so empty of empathy, I cannot understand. I get how mobs can do this by stirring themselves up into a frenzy, but for an individual to persistently lie and flame someone in an attempt to ruin their life, without stepping back and reconsidering what is the point. I must be naive to not be able to comprehend this kind of behavior.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Some people aren't rational (well that's an understatement, we are all at times, but some people are almost entirely incapable of rational thought at all times.) Some people have severe problems and should be receiving professional medical help, but aren't. If you try to understand what's going on inside their head, you will probably fail because their thought processes are alien to your own. But more important than understanding how they think is understanding that they exist.
mcguire 8y ago
The application in question allows geolocated (as in "nearby") anonymous "Yaks". The Yaks in question threatened violence. "Don't visit their site" indeed.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Others visit their site. Some sites are very popular. It never stays on the internet, and its not all about what I'm seeing. Imagine a billboard that says "Joe is a deviant criminal". It's ok, I should just not drive that way again? And Universities have a special obligation, lets not forget that.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Imagine a billboard that says "Joe is a deviant criminal". The solution isn’t to ban billboards.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  True, but way to miss the point. Its to forbid posting crap like that (on existing sites). And the ban part is all about the special position of a University vs students. Not about the internet, not about the public in general. Anyway that's how the OP started...
  - williamscales 8y ago
    I think it is you who is missing the point. What is different between "forbidding posting crap like that" and "banning billboards"?
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    So who gets to decide what information is ok for adults to consume? What happens when this newly elected dictator decides that e.g. Jordan Peterson is a hate monger who must be censored? Is that ok? How do we prevent abuse when the subject matter is so often subjective? This is exactly why we have the first ammendment. This sort of power should not exist as those who would wield it are not infallible and cannot be trusted.
npmaile 8y ago
If Joe happens to be a deviant criminal and doesn't like to be reminded of the fact, then he should avert his gaze when driving by. If Joe is not a deviant criminal, then he can sue the person who put up the billboard for damages incurred.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  And then there will be a tide of amicus briefs making the same generic arguments about free speech and slippery slopes and parades of horribles, and it's a question of whether Joe wants to spend lots of money and time on litigating the issue, which may cost substantially more than the original libel, thus creating a market for lies which is effectively what we have now.
nradov 8y ago
Universities shouldn't have special obligations any more than any other employer or government agency. Another way to look at it is that regular people shouldn't have less protection against online harassment just because they don't happen to be university students. Rules and protections should apply equally to everyone. Should public libraries be obligated to block online content that harasses some of their patrons?
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Universities have parental responsibilities to legal children.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Very few university students are children. There are a lot more children in public libraries.
EpicEng 8y ago
>Imagine a billboard that says "Joe is a deviant criminal" Well now Joe has a libel claim. If Joe is actually a deviant criminal then, well... he pissed off the wrong person. What's the issue?
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Well, on that subject, of course the internet is the issue. Once something is 'in the wild' on the internet it is very, very hard to quash it. The old legal mechanisms are slow, certainly not the speed of the internet anyway. A 'viral' video on social media isn't something you stop with a libel suit.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    You can't unprint a libelous article in a newspaper either. You can sue them and they can print an apology, but you cannot erase history. The internet poses new hurdles because information is so easily accessible, but we have to be very careful about imposing rules which restrict an adult's ability to consume information.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    I don't' think it is that new given anonymous bill postings before forensics were sufficient to identify a publisher. If everyone already knows that someone posted a bunch of pamphlets that stated that the governor is an embezzling child molester. Enforcement has always been limited by practicality. Before forensics advanced sufficiently just a dead body in the street with no witnesses was a perfect murder.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  What about "I've heard Joe is a a deviant criminal"? The rumor does not have to be true for the statement (that the rumor was heard) to be true. What about "Joe has, at the time this sign was made, never denied beating his wife on Decemeber 31st." The claim could be very true in that Joe never has denied that specific claim because there was no reason to deny a claim that hadn't been made yet. What about putting up the sordid details of a teenagers love life on a bulletin board outside her high school? Assume you verified the statements as factual. Is there perhaps an issue even when it is the truth?

sgift 8y ago

> Somewhere we went wrong Yes. The moment we brought up the chant of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me". The brain can break the same way your legs or arms can and the "just tough it out" answer is not an answer at all. No one would suggest you should just not visit a neighborhood if people there attacked you. The proof that the web should be a special case because "muh, free speech above all" is very flimsy.

yostrovs 8y ago
Actually, people do avoid bad neighborhoods and suggest to their children and others to avoid those. There's a reason, many actually, for freedom of speech. And all those reasons are more important than your feelings.
grawprog 8y ago
>No one would suggest you should just not visit a neighborhood if people there attacked you. To be fair that's exactly what happens. People warn not to go into the crime/high gang activity areas of my city all the time.
burke 8y ago
Hate speech covers this, and it is illegal. Recently, there's a cultural idiom that offense is completely in the eye of the beholder. What people often feel uncomfortable with is not banning hate speech, but reclassifying milder and milder forms of offense as intolerable. To extend your analogy, bumping into someone intentionally on the street makes you a jerk, but not criminally so. It's assault in only the loosest interpretation. People that have done this probably don't need to go to trial for it.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  Hate speech is not illegal in the US.
  - burke 8y ago
    Right. Canadian. Sorry.

bobthechef 8y ago

> Nobody should be telling me what I can and can't look at on the internet (please don't take that out of context of laws). But the law is mutable and so we must appeal to deeper principles than those that the law hinges on. Otherwise, we could pass a law that restricts your access to exactly those websites that you wish to visit. This is the fundamental problem with liberalism. It desires to marry liberty and (an anemic version of) reason, but reason properly exercised also entails knowledge of good and evil. Thus we pass legislation to punish some evils for the sake of the common good and social order, and tolerate other evils the punishment of which would cause more harm than good. But when liberty chafes under the demands of reason, it will often resort to a tendentious skepticism in order to artificially erode certainty for the sake of securing greater permissiveness. Now it may be possible to argue that, given the way things are, and as broken as liberalism it, it is nonetheless the most prudent way to organize a (Western) society and that the best available way to deal with many social maladies is through softer means than legislation. Whatever the case, the laws themselves are to a large degree informed by culture, ethos, and circumstance and so what ought and ought not be legally restricted online is very much a core issue. It is insufficient to say on the one hand that nobody should be telling you what you can and cannot look at on the internet and on the other preface the former with the caveat that you are assuming conformity with the law because the law can be changed based on a change in understanding of what will best serve the common good here and now.

csydas 8y ago

I'm sorry, but this really is not reflective of the specific threats and comments made by the persons, and it's not a matter of simply "don't look at the posts", there were pretty clear written and verbal threats made which in any other context would be grounds for a real investigation [1]. Looking though the actual document and not the think tank summary, the threats are pretty explicit: • “Gonna tie these feminists to the radiator and [g]rape them in the mouth”;3 • “Dandy’s about to kill a bitch . . . or two”; and • “Can we euthanize whoever caused this bullshit?” The University certainly took the threats seriously enough to assign university security to events that the members of the plaintiff's group were attending, and the University did absolutely nothing in response to the threats by simply claiming they were powerless. Keep in mind that the context of these threats was around the time that a member of the plaintiff group had been murdered (while eventually the murder was disassociated from the events/threats, the investigation took some time). Such context lends a lot of credibility to the threats from my point of view. The basis of the appeal and the complaint in the first place was that the University made no action to even address such threats on YikYak (it is rather important to note that this is all about YikYak [2]). This means that one of two things was true: 1. The Yaks were posted by persons within a 1.5 mile radius of the campus 2. Someone was manipulating their GPS to alter their location to make the posts. Threatening speech has repeatedly not been protected by 1st amendment rights, and the University's refusal to even try to investigate despite having received specific complaints and requests from the plaintiffs. This isn't about randoms on twitch going KYS after someone trash talks in a game, there were specific acts of violence repeatedly threatened after this whole affair. The University had the ability to look into the events but did not, and their response was more exculpatory than educational/investigative. Universities in fact do have a legal requirement to investigate these things and maintain a position of neutrality and encouraging an atmosphere and culture on campus that promotes learning. When you have people openly threatening one another, that's not an atmosphere that supports learning. All this is further exacerbated by the fact that one member of the plaintiff group was killed by their roommate who was a former member of the Rugby Team which is noted in the actual opinion as having been a key element in the Yaks coming up. Even though eventually the murder was disassociated from the rest of the events, that was not for some time -- I don't see it as unreasonable for a group of persons who are receiving death threats and rape threats to take such threats very seriously after one of their members was actually murdered. Please just read the actual Opinions [1] top to bottom and not the think tank summary. Think Tanks are fine for finding issues, but their summaries are not to be trusted. They are always politically charged and often omit very important facts, such as the exact reasons the Court accepted the appeals (basically, the previous decision failed to meet the standards for protections under the 1st amendment and also the University did not fulfill its legal obligation in many ways) [1] http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/172220.P.pdf http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/172220.P.pdf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yik_Yak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yik_Yak (Edits are fixing formatting and introducing the context of the murder earlier for clarity of my second paragraph)

DanBC 8y ago

> People are going to say mean things to other people. This is never going to change. This case is not about saying mean thigns to other people -- US first ammendment allows people to say mean things to others. This case is about credible threats of violence being sent via a social network. One of the features of that social network was that you could only see messages from people who were geographically nearby. --begin quote-- We first address the University’s expressed apprehension about punishing students for their speech. Put simply, we are satisfied that its First Amendment concerns about penalizing speech lack a proper basis. The University could have vigorously responded to the threatening Yaks without implicating the First Amendment because “true threats” 27 are not protected speech. See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003) (recognizing that “true threats” are not constitutionally protected and describing them as “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”). 7 The Supreme Court and our Court have consistently recognized the principle that threatening speech is not protected by the Constitution. See, e.g., Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707 (1969) (upholding constitutionality of statute making it illegal to threaten president with physical violence); United States v. Maxton, 940 F.2d 103, 105-06 (4th Cir. 1991) (“Threats to kidnap or injure persons are legislatively proscribable, falling within that group of expressions, such as fighting words, which are not constitutionally protected pure speech.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, both federal law and Virginia law criminalize the communication of threats to kill or injure others. See 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (prohibiting transmission through interstate commerce of threat to injure another); Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60(A)(1) (criminalizing electronic communication of threat to kill or injure another if threat recipient is placed “in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury”). --end quote--

mbrumlow 8y ago
I don't care what the case is about. We already have laws on threats, its not the Universities job to hide or block those threats. Even if they did somehow block the sites these "credible threats" were posted on it still does not stop the fact that the threats were made. In fact I argue that if the university prevented a threat from reaching me that they could be held liable for any damage done to me should that threat come to fruition -- by blocking my ability to be aware I was in danger. Moreover, even if the Universities did so on their own networks that does not thing for the rest of the internet that lives in each and every students pocket. If somebody makes a credible threat you report it and take action. Banning sites that some people use to make threats is not the solution -- if it were, you might as well ban the entire internet.

bilbo0s 8y ago

I don't know man? What they are talking about is more than saying mean things. In the dorm I lived in at U Wisconsin, everyone was perfectly free to call anyone else a fat, ugly b word. But if you said, "I'm gonna go get my gun and kill all you fat, ugly b's." It should come as no surprise that you would be kicked out of the dorms. (Out of the university too, but I digress.) Point is, some things you say, the university, or high school, or whatever, they just have to take action on it. They can't just let it go. To expect them to do so is just being unrealistic. Sorry, but that's just not how anyone else in the world wants it to work. And those other people are able to sue the university or high school or what have you to press their point when situations like this arise.

mbrumlow 8y ago
The university does not, there might be a case for a high school or any place responsible for taking care of minors to take action, and that action simply should be the same action that individuals in public should take -- call the authorities -- that is the people we pay to enforce laws. A dorm is no different than living in a apartment. When somebody threatens you living in a apartment or a house you call the cops. You don't call the landlord -- or even the owner of the property. These people are not equipped with the resources to properly handle these situations. When you give these ill equipped organizations the power and authority you remove due process -- which is an assault on everybody rights and freedoms. When these organizations are responsible for "taking action" you will end up with a real quagmire, much like the one we have today where students are kicked out of school without any investigation into any allegations later to find out accusations were made out of spite. In the cases that are real, the universities should not be involved at all, the police and courts should be -- this ensures that offenders are removed from society and not just the campus. A university is a lot like a gym, or grocery store, or a library, or even a public park -- more so with ones that take in government money. It is none of these peoples jobs -- or should it be -- to vet who they are, and or monitor or interpret peoples online behavior. If one individual has an issue with another it is their duty to take action, not some 3rd party. University is the real life, you are a adult, and people need to start acting like an adult and expecting people to act like adults. Out in the world you don't run to your teacher when you are offended, threatened, or assaulted, you take real legal action -- involve local law enforcement. People, please stop acting like University is some special place where all the rules and laws are not valid and we need a entirely new set of them to be enforced by people who not equipped to do so.

briandear 8y ago

> Universities are not our parents. If that were only true! When universities set up grief counseling and support groups for election results. Requiring warnings by professors for “trigger words,” or set up so-called “safe spaces” — it’s clear that universities have lost the plot. Universities have become bastions of coddling and infantilization. It’s a true surprise that universities haven’t begun issuing bubble wrap to student with which they can wrap themselves lest they trip over a challenging idea. Universities have become a farce: institutions originally set up to prepare students for the the messy marketplace of ideas have instead morphed into expensive day-care centers for delicate children. A stand-up comedian can’t even tell jokes anymore without being banished in a chorus of boos and hurt feelings. Chris Rock doesn’t do colleges anymore because of the absurdity.

awaywopassd 8y ago

Absolutely not how real world works. As an online harassment victim, you may never know even know that it is happening online. But all your classmates would know. The sites might have lies about you or they might even have your real data. Someone might post your real photos; discussing your body, your fashion sense, or whatever that makes you loser. You are a broke college kid. Good luck finding a lawyer who would help you find anonymous posters and then sue them. In mean time, your social life is being destroyed. Online harassment seeps into the real world. Your classmates make fun of you in your earshot. You can complain about it once or twice but school get tired of it and stop taking you seriously. You will get depressed and sducidal unless you have a strong support system. Even then you will have poor grades, you might quit school. Your life is being ruined because people believe in black n white definition of freedom of speech. Perhaps we should recognize that there are shades of grey. We cannot harass someone in physical world without getting kicked out of establishment or getting arrested. Maybe we should go after platforms that let online harassment happen on their platform. After all they are profiting off your data, why shouldn't they be held responsible to police their platform better. That is like saying schools should not punish bullies, let the victim sue the bullies.

kart23 8y ago
It's called free speech. Yes, it sucks to be made fun of online, but most universities are getting better support systems to deal with this kind of stuff. Theres lots of free counseling services on campus that do provide the support in many ways, even with housing and food problems. Police does take threats seriously and will investigate to make sure it is not credible, and people do get kicked out of the university for making threats. But nowhere does blocking a site or service fit into the picture. I'm a student at a UC right now, and this is the message that was given to us.
- ouid 8y ago
  Harassment is not protected speech. What are you on about?
  - ryanlol 8y ago

anigbrowl 8y ago

People are going to say mean things to other people. This is never going to change. I reject this premise. The social costs for abusing people like this need to be quite a lot higher. Right now it's virtually free and the internet is awash in trolls and malicious behavior. This is a novel situation caused by the confluence of effectively unlimited communication possibilities and we're in no way required to normalize its negative aspects. One novel approach to rebalancing such costs would be to give the recipient of a credible-seeming threat license to attack the threatening party in proportion to the perceived severity of the threat. So people who credibly threaten others with murder, for example, would be making themselves a legally valid target for homicide.

leetcrew 8y ago
> One novel approach to rebalancing such costs would be to give the recipient of a credible-seeming threat license to attack the threatening party in proportion to the perceived severity of the threat. So people who credibly threaten others with murder, for example, would be making themselves a legally valid target for homicide. not sure whether you're serious, but this actually seems like a decent idea. it would require some very well-written legislation to define "perceived severity", though. if someone threatens to kill you, specifically, and you can show that they know where you live, you shouldn't have to wait until they're in your house to do something about it.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  It's halfway between a Swiftian 'modest proposal' and a callback to duelling laws. Simply implementing this as described would of course lead to all sorts of undesirable outcomes, but really it's just a combination of the fighting words doctrine and an expanded concept of imminence that incorporates the erosion of spatial obstacles to information. Currently you shouldn't use deadly force absent a reasonable fear that it is about to be inflicted on you. But since it is entirely possible to send a threat like I know you live at [address] and I'm coming to [do crimes] and place the recipient in a state of continuous uncertainty, the very open-endedness of the threat manifests the fear of imminence in the target. Rather than making the victim devote resources to continually monitoring and assessing the behavior of the threatening party, we can simply expand the target's right of self-defense in proportion to the scope of the issued threat.

russdill 8y ago

I'm sorry, harassment is legal now? And society has solved the problem by telling people not to go where they get harassed? Called a #?$? $%%$ and told to go off and %$%$ die at the movie theatre? Don't go there. Harassed at work by your boss? Just stop going to work!

kevinpet 8y ago
Simple harassment has always been legal. It's only illegal when some other factors make it so, for example, sexual harassment by an employer or another person in a position of power. It's also legal to fire someone or kick them out for being an asshole. The problem with the 21st century is that people have lost the concept of anything between "illegal" and "forced to put up with". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbid...
- russdill 8y ago
  I'm going by the legal definition of harassment. Specifically the definition of harassment that is not legal.
  - sweeneyrod 8y ago
    By the legal definition of harassment that is not legal, harassment is not legal. Seems a bit tautological to be worth sharing.
    - russdill 8y ago
      I'm not sure how to state it in a less convoluted way. https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/
pixl97 8y ago
Harrassed online, just dont go online! I hope you see the problem there.
8y ago

Klathmon 8y ago

I don't know if this is the answer, but "just block them" isn't a solution. I've had someone call my work and try to get me fired, I've had someone make dozens of accounts on various social media platforms to harass me, and even when I blocked them they would post my personal information and make up lies about things I've done, and because I blocked them I had no idea, and then more people would believe the harasser because I didn't respond to it, and would pile on. Filing a police report for some of the more threatening messages didn't do anything, as the police basically told me there wasn't going to be anything they could do. Locking or whitelisting accounts like GitHub wasn't really an option as I work with it and I maintained a semi-popular project that I wasn't willing to just delete, but it came close. In the end the harasser gave up eventually, and I was lucky that my job didn't believe them, but it was a pretty shitty time in my life that had me really worried that these lies would stick around my name forever and I wouldn't be able to escape them in the future.

infogulch 8y ago
This kind of harassment is completely incomprehensible to me. Especially as the work of a single individual. How one can be so full of spite and hate and so empty of empathy, I cannot understand. I get how mobs can do this by stirring themselves up into a frenzy, but for an individual to persistently lie and flame someone in an attempt to ruin their life, without stepping back and reconsidering what is the point. I must be naive to not be able to comprehend this kind of behavior.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Some people aren't rational (well that's an understatement, we are all at times, but some people are almost entirely incapable of rational thought at all times.) Some people have severe problems and should be receiving professional medical help, but aren't. If you try to understand what's going on inside their head, you will probably fail because their thought processes are alien to your own. But more important than understanding how they think is understanding that they exist.

mcguire 8y ago

The application in question allows geolocated (as in "nearby") anonymous "Yaks". The Yaks in question threatened violence. "Don't visit their site" indeed.