4 ms·

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 bloc

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.

csydas 8y ago
Again, I believe you are misunderstanding the situation and creating an argument based on a misleading headline from the Think Tank that was sourced for the article. The complaint is not that YikYak wasn't blocked -- it's that no action was taken by the University to investigate the threats properly and readily. Blocking YikYak was simply __an option__ which the University could have taken, but that wasn't the thrust of the plaintiffs' argument at all. The point of Blocking YikYak was more of a point that "well, you absolutely could have done something", rather than a prescribed course of action. * I'm sorry, but you're arguing a point that was not made by the plaintiffs and also is not related to the actual court Opinion either. The crux of the complaint is that in light of real, credible threats, the University took no action whatsoever. The Opinion is more about how the defenses of anonymity made it "impossible" for the University to act and that 1st Amendment protections prohibited [the university] from doing so were considered invalid in light of other case law. *Nevermind that YikYak itself had built in a blackout system like this which would rapidly allow Universities to simple blackout the GPS coordinates of the University if there was a request from the Administration. YikYak had a built-in censorship/disabling tool for a long time. No effort would be needed to specifically block YikYak aside from a simple letter on some department letterhead.
- mbrumlow 8y ago
  I don't think it is the job of the university to investigate or take action. We already have laws -- use those. Universities are not equipped to investigate and have guidelines to do so with due process. Making them responsible completely bypasses entire sections of law. Somebody threatens you at the gym. It's not the gyms responsibility to investigate and take action. You call the cops. That is what you do. Making other organizations reposnable for legal matters is just a way to bypass the law and do whatever the hell you want. Simply put universities can't be the judge jury and executioner of the law.
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    You do realize that almost every university on the US has its own police force? They are absolutely equipped to investigate crimes, or they’re at least as qualified as the town police would be.
    - Fezzik 8y ago
      I was about to write that this was not true, because I could not believe it, but boy was I wrong: “in the 2004-05 school year, 74% of college campuses had sworn officers with the power to arrest, and 90% of these departments were armed”. [0]. That seems absurd to me! I went to tiny liberal arts schools for undergrad/grad school, and we just had nice dudes with pepper spray that walked around occasionally. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police
    - HarryHirsch 8y ago
      Pro Tip: the university police has a conflict of interest, they will prefer to sweep violent crime under the rug rather than deal with it because bad statistics will make the place look bad. The GP poster is correct to be concerned that investigative and judicial powers are vested in the same entity; we usually keep them separate, and for good reason.
      - Nasrudith 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

csydas 8y ago

Again, I believe you are misunderstanding the situation and creating an argument based on a misleading headline from the Think Tank that was sourced for the article. The complaint is not that YikYak wasn't blocked -- it's that no action was taken by the University to investigate the threats properly and readily. Blocking YikYak was simply __an option__ which the University could have taken, but that wasn't the thrust of the plaintiffs' argument at all. The point of Blocking YikYak was more of a point that "well, you absolutely could have done something", rather than a prescribed course of action. * I'm sorry, but you're arguing a point that was not made by the plaintiffs and also is not related to the actual court Opinion either. The crux of the complaint is that in light of real, credible threats, the University took no action whatsoever. The Opinion is more about how the defenses of anonymity made it "impossible" for the University to act and that 1st Amendment protections prohibited [the university] from doing so were considered invalid in light of other case law. *Nevermind that YikYak itself had built in a blackout system like this which would rapidly allow Universities to simple blackout the GPS coordinates of the University if there was a request from the Administration. YikYak had a built-in censorship/disabling tool for a long time. No effort would be needed to specifically block YikYak aside from a simple letter on some department letterhead.

mbrumlow 8y ago
I don't think it is the job of the university to investigate or take action. We already have laws -- use those. Universities are not equipped to investigate and have guidelines to do so with due process. Making them responsible completely bypasses entire sections of law. Somebody threatens you at the gym. It's not the gyms responsibility to investigate and take action. You call the cops. That is what you do. Making other organizations reposnable for legal matters is just a way to bypass the law and do whatever the hell you want. Simply put universities can't be the judge jury and executioner of the law.
- alistairSH 8y ago
  You do realize that almost every university on the US has its own police force? They are absolutely equipped to investigate crimes, or they’re at least as qualified as the town police would be.
  - Fezzik 8y ago
    I was about to write that this was not true, because I could not believe it, but boy was I wrong: “in the 2004-05 school year, 74% of college campuses had sworn officers with the power to arrest, and 90% of these departments were armed”. [0]. That seems absurd to me! I went to tiny liberal arts schools for undergrad/grad school, and we just had nice dudes with pepper spray that walked around occasionally. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police
  - HarryHirsch 8y ago
    Pro Tip: the university police has a conflict of interest, they will prefer to sweep violent crime under the rug rather than deal with it because bad statistics will make the place look bad. The GP poster is correct to be concerned that investigative and judicial powers are vested in the same entity; we usually keep them separate, and for good reason.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]