4 ms·
I see your point re noise - the case here is a lot simpler I believe: Being able to prosecute effectively anonymous death threats (which is a criminal offence i
by Pyramus 5y ago
I see your point re noise - the case here is a lot simpler I believe: Being able to prosecute effectively anonymous death threats (which is a criminal offence in most jurisdictions) made via social media.
While not trivial it is fairly straightforward to get an anonymous e.g. FB account and a VPN and you are practically invisible to law enforcement. I suspect you don't even need the VPN for less serious offences.
- thr0wawayf00 5y agoThe problem is that a lot of what people post falls into more of a gray area than legally bulletproof death threat. This is the problem with dog-whistling[0] generally, it's very easy to make statements that you can later deny the intent of, which makes them hard to prosecute. For example, how would law enforcement go after someone who repeatedly said something like "Someone needs to take care of John Q. Politician because he's ruining the country"? That's just not legally sound enough to preemptively arrest the poster of that statement, but so many people talk that way online. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
- Pyramus 5y agoThat won't change. Legally grey will remain legally grey. What I'm saying is there is low hanging fruit: Clearly illegal death threats that are posted by anonymous accounts and therefore not/hardly enforceable.