3 ms·

> I’m not seeing anything in his messages that screams clear and present danger. I’m not sure that’s the standard applied. The standard seems to be that the sp

> I’m not seeing anything in his messages that screams clear and present danger. I’m not sure that’s the standard applied. The standard seems to be that the speaker understands the speech can be taken as threatening. The examples in the article easily satisfy the reception portion of that, and the decision seems to rely heavily on presuming lack of understanding of that.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
But why should that be outright criminal? I haven’t read the case. But wouldn’t first steps involve getting a restraining order and then finding breach of that? That gives someone who may not understand how their words are understood a fair warning. What if I perceive your comment to be threatening? Do we really want judges adjudicating on something so subjective?
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  I didn’t comment on what should be, just my understanding of what reasoning was applied. I’m also not very familiar with the case and it’s not immediately obvious what steps were taken prior to this becoming a criminal matter. It’s not clear whether any legal steps were taken before the stalking charge. But it is clear that the stalking persisted for years before this legal action. There are many circumstances where a threat is blatant enough that a single instance at a single time is clear enough. There are also many circumstances where people under threat are motivated by fear not to pursue justice when they’d be objectively right to pursue it. I’m inclined to believe that someone feeling threatened for multiple years shouldn’t need to fulfill an additional waiting period to be relieved from persistent threats, while the person threatening them is basically in a “don’t do it more than the last multiple years” probational period. And maybe that shouldn’t automatically escalate to criminal charges (if that’s what happened), but “you’ve endured years of threats, now you have to wait for potential escalation with no restraint on the person threatening you” isn’t the answer either.
  - Jiro 3y ago
    The problem is that when you convict someone, it's important that you convict him for the correct crime with the correct evidence. Letting him be convicted for threats without having to demonstrate that he meant it, and without other stalking-related evidence, may have caught a stalker. But it would have been bad precedent if you ever told someone on the Internet to FOAD and you got thrown in jail for it. It's like letting someone out of jail because the police searched him without a warrant. The correct thing to do here is to let the criminal go free; maybe the police will get a warrant next time. The fact that the ACLU supported the guy should be a sign that something is up other than just catching a stalker.
    - eyelidlessness 3y ago
      > But it would have been bad precedent if you ever told someone on the Internet to FOAD and you got thrown in jail for it. That isn’t even close to what the case was about. It’s not even within a charitable interpretation of what’s laid out in the article. I understand the inclination to make a principled case for defending speech, but if you’re doing it in the context of a specific case it’s a disservice to both to ignore the broad strokes of what the case is about. Edit: > The fact that the ACLU supported the guy should be a sign that something is up other than just catching a stalker. No, it really shouldn’t. I deeply respect the ACLU, but they take the wrong side of many cases as a matter of course. I respect their principles in doing so, but I don’t have to agree with their position every time they do it. This seems very much like they’re on the wrong side, and it’s not about “catching” a stalker but preventing persistent harm to the person being stalked.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

But why should that be outright criminal? I haven’t read the case. But wouldn’t first steps involve getting a restraining order and then finding breach of that? That gives someone who may not understand how their words are understood a fair warning. What if I perceive your comment to be threatening? Do we really want judges adjudicating on something so subjective?

eyelidlessness 3y ago
I didn’t comment on what should be, just my understanding of what reasoning was applied. I’m also not very familiar with the case and it’s not immediately obvious what steps were taken prior to this becoming a criminal matter. It’s not clear whether any legal steps were taken before the stalking charge. But it is clear that the stalking persisted for years before this legal action. There are many circumstances where a threat is blatant enough that a single instance at a single time is clear enough. There are also many circumstances where people under threat are motivated by fear not to pursue justice when they’d be objectively right to pursue it. I’m inclined to believe that someone feeling threatened for multiple years shouldn’t need to fulfill an additional waiting period to be relieved from persistent threats, while the person threatening them is basically in a “don’t do it more than the last multiple years” probational period. And maybe that shouldn’t automatically escalate to criminal charges (if that’s what happened), but “you’ve endured years of threats, now you have to wait for potential escalation with no restraint on the person threatening you” isn’t the answer either.
- Jiro 3y ago
  The problem is that when you convict someone, it's important that you convict him for the correct crime with the correct evidence. Letting him be convicted for threats without having to demonstrate that he meant it, and without other stalking-related evidence, may have caught a stalker. But it would have been bad precedent if you ever told someone on the Internet to FOAD and you got thrown in jail for it. It's like letting someone out of jail because the police searched him without a warrant. The correct thing to do here is to let the criminal go free; maybe the police will get a warrant next time. The fact that the ACLU supported the guy should be a sign that something is up other than just catching a stalker.
  - eyelidlessness 3y ago
    > But it would have been bad precedent if you ever told someone on the Internet to FOAD and you got thrown in jail for it. That isn’t even close to what the case was about. It’s not even within a charitable interpretation of what’s laid out in the article. I understand the inclination to make a principled case for defending speech, but if you’re doing it in the context of a specific case it’s a disservice to both to ignore the broad strokes of what the case is about. Edit: > The fact that the ACLU supported the guy should be a sign that something is up other than just catching a stalker. No, it really shouldn’t. I deeply respect the ACLU, but they take the wrong side of many cases as a matter of course. I respect their principles in doing so, but I don’t have to agree with their position every time they do it. This seems very much like they’re on the wrong side, and it’s not about “catching” a stalker but preventing persistent harm to the person being stalked.