6 ms·

Case of 8,000 Menacing Posts Tests Limits of Twitter Speech

34 points by grellas 15y ago

JoshTriplett 15y ago
This seems ridiculous and offensive, but since it almost certainly violates Twitter's ToS, that seems like the easy way to resolve this problem. You're free to shout from your own soapbox, but someone else can set limits on the use of their own soapbox.
nvictor 15y ago
one or two or even three is ok, but 8000 is disturbing...
hiss 15y ago
Deranged threats of bodily harm should not be defended as free speech. Neither should psychologically predatorial language. The EFF should not defend this nutjob. How can someone in good conscience support EFF when they support violence and insanity?
morsch 15y ago
A recent article on Ars Technica covers a similar story of a guy publishing threatening tweets, but also emails, to science writers and other people (including, finally and by accident, his local police officials). http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/08/crank-who-targeted-science-writers-lured-into-threatening-police.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/08/crank-who-target... What I find annoying is the conflation of free speech as a concept and the protected speech rights many nations have to various degrees. Prohibiting threatening emails and tweets clearly is a violation of free speech. That is not the question. The question is: is it an acceptable violation of free speech? Apparently some people feel that any violation of free speech is unacceptable. I'm not sure that they have thought hard enough about other cases of limiting free speech which they take for granted.
- geuis 15y ago
  I think there is a relatively well-defined, if somewhat broad, line that borders between free speech and harassment. For example, suppose that I were to write a couple of articles saying what a bad, unreliable programmer you were. Any time someone asked me what I thought of your programming skills, I would tell them that they're lousy and no one should hire you. Further, I go on to Twitter, Google+, HN, and Facebook and make a few comments about what a bad experience I had working with you. Maybe some of the people I know also know you. In my understanding, that scenario isn't harassment but it is free speech. I'm not making direct personal attacks against you and I'm not threatening you, although I'm not saying great things about you. There might be a case for civil libel there, but it would be a tough argument and would most likely need to be solved in court via lawsuit. Now lets take that scenario further. I think you're a shitty, horrible human being. Not only do I write a couple of articles about what a bad programmer you are, I go on to talk about how anyone that knows you should kick you in the ass or push you in front of a car. I start finding out background info like where you live, who your family is, what your phone number is. I start giving out all of your personal information. I start calling your house at odd hours, breathing heavy, and hanging up. I do that 20x a night for weeks on end. You change your number. I find out what your new one is. On Twitter, I create hundreds of fake accounts and send you DM's and @'s with some really awful messages. I start dropping indirect hints that I think you deserve to die. I do the same thing anywhere I can find you online. Now in that 2nd, really fucked up scenario, that's harassment. I get arrested and my lawyer claims that was my free speech. Total bullshit. So when I say I believe there's a well-defined but broad line it encompasses those two extremes. I believe the big defining difference is that if I say or do something to you, that's personal. If I say something about you, it leans towards public. There's of course all kinds of ways I can say stuff about you and have it be very personal though. So I think that issues like this are going to often be on a case-by-case basis because it can cover a range of scenarios. I might say something about you that you feel is harassment while to any 3rd party observer its obviously free speech, and vice-versa.
  - hammerdr 15y ago
    And, for this particular instance, standing in a room of 20 people, saying things like, "You are a terrible person. You make puppies cry. Someone should hurt you." over and over without actually talking directly "to" that person but with everyone knowing who "You" is is harassment. Being in public does not preclude harassment. Not mentioning a person by name does not preclude harassment. Note: IANAL. Not sure if this is the "legal" definition but it certainly seems like the right one.
mkross 15y ago
> The relationship soured after they came to doubt his reincarnation credentials and found that his claims of cancer were false. As someone who knows very little of Buddhism, what sorts of "reincarnation credentials" is an executive-level reincarnate supposed to have? Is this like claiming to have an MBA but leaving out the University of Phoenix part?
- gcb 15y ago
  i was almost taking this article serious until i got to that point. It's a bunch a new-age gurus fighting among themselves. Nothing to see here. now i'm picturing Mr. Natural in a jail in Maryland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Natural_(comics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Natural_(comics)
- michael_dorfman 15y ago
  Short version: most branches of Buddhism don't have this kind of notion at all-- it is pretty unique to Tibetan Buddhism, where there are a relatively small number of tulku lineages, where a person can be recognized as an incarnation of the prior holder of the lineage. (The Dalai Lama is the most famous example-- the current Dalai Lama is the 14th in the series.) Incarnations are officially recognized by other tulkus, according to tradition; for example, the Dalai Lama is usually recognized by the Panchen Lama. Without knowing the details in this case, I am assuming that the person in question falsely claimed to have been recognized as a tulku. I can't imagine that this was part of the job requirements. So, an analog would be falsely claiming on your CV to have won a prestigious award (say, the Turing Award). It's a pretty outrageous lie; but then again, so is claiming to have cancer.
artursapek 15y ago
Is posting a public message on Twitter akin to speaking from an old-fashioned soapbox, or can it also be regarded as a means of direct personal communication, like a letter or phone call? That is an interesting legal question. How much more direct is a call sent to someone's cell phone, or a letter to their mailbox, than a tweet sent to their Twitter home page? A letter shows up tangibly in your mailbox no matter what you do, and the same with a phone call. You can choose to ignore those, but they will show up and can still disturb you. A Tweet is a little more intangible, it's quiet until one to chooses to look at it. I wouldn't say it's as direct as the other two. But I guess it's the thought that counts.
cperciva 15y ago
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what the law is in the US, but in Canada one of the relevant bars for the charge of criminal harassment is "would these actions cause a reasonable person to fear for his/her safety?" It sounds like the conduct described absolutely meets that test; so I'd say that it's well outside of legitimate "free speech".
joelthelion 15y ago
This may not be the best occasion to discuss that, but I've always thought that a decentralized (maybe P2P) version of twitter in which free speech could not be denied by a central entity would be awesome. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with something convincing until now. If someone smarter than me wants to take the challenge...
- citricsquid 15y ago
  status.net
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  This is your "something convincing"? Let's all stick up for your right to terrorize Buddhist monks?
  - joelthelion 15y ago
    No, I mean a convincing idea to code it. I think everyone can understand the value of free speech, even if this story is not the best example of course!
ohashi 15y ago
This one bothers me for a variety of reasons. I am not sure where I fall on the issue because I support free speech but this calls into question of how far is allowed? Is it free speech if it is hurting another person? At 8000 messages and creating many personas, simply to harass a single person, this seems like a violation of the harassed person. Somewhere within the multiple personas used to attack, I've crossed a threshold in my belief to a right to free speech but I am not sure exactly where that line was.

34 points by grellas 15y ago

This seems ridiculous and offensive, but since it almost certainly violates Twitter's ToS, that seems like the easy way to resolve this problem. You're free to shout from your own soapbox, but someone else can set limits on the use of their own soapbox.

nvictor 15y ago

one or two or even three is ok, but 8000 is disturbing...

hiss 15y ago

Deranged threats of bodily harm should not be defended as free speech. Neither should psychologically predatorial language. The EFF should not defend this nutjob. How can someone in good conscience support EFF when they support violence and insanity?

morsch 15y ago

A recent article on Ars Technica covers a similar story of a guy publishing threatening tweets, but also emails, to science writers and other people (including, finally and by accident, his local police officials). http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/08/crank-who-targeted-science-writers-lured-into-threatening-police.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/08/crank-who-target... What I find annoying is the conflation of free speech as a concept and the protected speech rights many nations have to various degrees. Prohibiting threatening emails and tweets clearly is a violation of free speech. That is not the question. The question is: is it an acceptable violation of free speech? Apparently some people feel that any violation of free speech is unacceptable. I'm not sure that they have thought hard enough about other cases of limiting free speech which they take for granted.

geuis 15y ago
I think there is a relatively well-defined, if somewhat broad, line that borders between free speech and harassment. For example, suppose that I were to write a couple of articles saying what a bad, unreliable programmer you were. Any time someone asked me what I thought of your programming skills, I would tell them that they're lousy and no one should hire you. Further, I go on to Twitter, Google+, HN, and Facebook and make a few comments about what a bad experience I had working with you. Maybe some of the people I know also know you. In my understanding, that scenario isn't harassment but it is free speech. I'm not making direct personal attacks against you and I'm not threatening you, although I'm not saying great things about you. There might be a case for civil libel there, but it would be a tough argument and would most likely need to be solved in court via lawsuit. Now lets take that scenario further. I think you're a shitty, horrible human being. Not only do I write a couple of articles about what a bad programmer you are, I go on to talk about how anyone that knows you should kick you in the ass or push you in front of a car. I start finding out background info like where you live, who your family is, what your phone number is. I start giving out all of your personal information. I start calling your house at odd hours, breathing heavy, and hanging up. I do that 20x a night for weeks on end. You change your number. I find out what your new one is. On Twitter, I create hundreds of fake accounts and send you DM's and @'s with some really awful messages. I start dropping indirect hints that I think you deserve to die. I do the same thing anywhere I can find you online. Now in that 2nd, really fucked up scenario, that's harassment. I get arrested and my lawyer claims that was my free speech. Total bullshit. So when I say I believe there's a well-defined but broad line it encompasses those two extremes. I believe the big defining difference is that if I say or do something to you, that's personal. If I say something about you, it leans towards public. There's of course all kinds of ways I can say stuff about you and have it be very personal though. So I think that issues like this are going to often be on a case-by-case basis because it can cover a range of scenarios. I might say something about you that you feel is harassment while to any 3rd party observer its obviously free speech, and vice-versa.
- hammerdr 15y ago
  And, for this particular instance, standing in a room of 20 people, saying things like, "You are a terrible person. You make puppies cry. Someone should hurt you." over and over without actually talking directly "to" that person but with everyone knowing who "You" is is harassment. Being in public does not preclude harassment. Not mentioning a person by name does not preclude harassment. Note: IANAL. Not sure if this is the "legal" definition but it certainly seems like the right one.

mkross 15y ago

> The relationship soured after they came to doubt his reincarnation credentials and found that his claims of cancer were false. As someone who knows very little of Buddhism, what sorts of "reincarnation credentials" is an executive-level reincarnate supposed to have? Is this like claiming to have an MBA but leaving out the University of Phoenix part?

gcb 15y ago
i was almost taking this article serious until i got to that point. It's a bunch a new-age gurus fighting among themselves. Nothing to see here. now i'm picturing Mr. Natural in a jail in Maryland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Natural_(comics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Natural_(comics)
michael_dorfman 15y ago
Short version: most branches of Buddhism don't have this kind of notion at all-- it is pretty unique to Tibetan Buddhism, where there are a relatively small number of tulku lineages, where a person can be recognized as an incarnation of the prior holder of the lineage. (The Dalai Lama is the most famous example-- the current Dalai Lama is the 14th in the series.) Incarnations are officially recognized by other tulkus, according to tradition; for example, the Dalai Lama is usually recognized by the Panchen Lama. Without knowing the details in this case, I am assuming that the person in question falsely claimed to have been recognized as a tulku. I can't imagine that this was part of the job requirements. So, an analog would be falsely claiming on your CV to have won a prestigious award (say, the Turing Award). It's a pretty outrageous lie; but then again, so is claiming to have cancer.

artursapek 15y ago

Is posting a public message on Twitter akin to speaking from an old-fashioned soapbox, or can it also be regarded as a means of direct personal communication, like a letter or phone call? That is an interesting legal question. How much more direct is a call sent to someone's cell phone, or a letter to their mailbox, than a tweet sent to their Twitter home page? A letter shows up tangibly in your mailbox no matter what you do, and the same with a phone call. You can choose to ignore those, but they will show up and can still disturb you. A Tweet is a little more intangible, it's quiet until one to chooses to look at it. I wouldn't say it's as direct as the other two. But I guess it's the thought that counts.

cperciva 15y ago

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what the law is in the US, but in Canada one of the relevant bars for the charge of criminal harassment is "would these actions cause a reasonable person to fear for his/her safety?" It sounds like the conduct described absolutely meets that test; so I'd say that it's well outside of legitimate "free speech".

joelthelion 15y ago

This may not be the best occasion to discuss that, but I've always thought that a decentralized (maybe P2P) version of twitter in which free speech could not be denied by a central entity would be awesome. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with something convincing until now. If someone smarter than me wants to take the challenge...

citricsquid 15y ago
status.net
sliverstorm 15y ago
This is your "something convincing"? Let's all stick up for your right to terrorize Buddhist monks?
- joelthelion 15y ago
  No, I mean a convincing idea to code it. I think everyone can understand the value of free speech, even if this story is not the best example of course!

ohashi 15y ago

This one bothers me for a variety of reasons. I am not sure where I fall on the issue because I support free speech but this calls into question of how far is allowed? Is it free speech if it is hurting another person? At 8000 messages and creating many personas, simply to harass a single person, this seems like a violation of the harassed person. Somewhere within the multiple personas used to attack, I've crossed a threshold in my belief to a right to free speech but I am not sure exactly where that line was.