3 ms·
Internet threats should be considered as assault, harassment, libel, and defamation just like if the same threat was said in person. It's time that we quit thi
by bsder 2y ago
Internet threats should be considered as assault, harassment, libel, and defamation just like if the same threat was said in person.
It's time that we quit thinking that just because something is "online" it isn't harmful.
If anything, threats over the internet should be considered more dangerous as the reach is larger and you are more likely to attract people who are genuinely deranged along with the attendant increased risk of violence.
- petermcneeley 2y agoIm guessing you are not a fan of this work https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence#main-content https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence#main-content
- jcranmer 2y agoThe cypherpunk ideal of "you can't stop us in the digital world, so don't even bother trying" which runs up hard against the hard problem of yanks power cable.
- bsder 2y agoThe current crop of Bitcoin prosecutions shows that our legal laws and processes are quite capable of prosecuting violations of law in cyberspace if enough money is involved. The fact that we don't prosecute these kinds of online threats is simply because nobody cares about the plebians who don't have enough money to opt out of the problem.
- causality0 2y agoWhat a lovely vision that was. Back when we imagined the potential of the internet would make people more like us, instead of peoples' checkbooks making the internet more like them. Rest in peace, digital frontier. You were too beautiful to last.
- oceanplexian 2y agoThat's not how the law works. The threat needs to be imminent or a call to action, it needs to not be a parody, the person making it needs to reasonably be able to carry it out. The USA isn't like countries that have strict controls on speech, such as Germany or China. We have a very high bar to infringing on the right to free expression.
- HarryHirsch 2y agoYou clearly never had a stalker. Someone sending a stalker or ten to your doorstep is worse.
- nomel 2y agoThat is, clearly, not online harassment.
- Turing_Machine 2y agoWhether or not the OP ever had a "stalker" is irrelevant to the accuracy of the statement of how the law works.
- causality0 2y agoThat's exactly the issue I'm talking about: the practice of equating criminal behavior such as death threats or persistent targeted harassment with protected speech such as questioning, dissent, and heckling. When you put forth that someone's employer is responsible for stopping randos from calling them an asshole, a liar, a tool of the Illuminati, etc and say it's the same problem as someone having a threatening stalker or having someone camping at their front door, you make people think you might be lying or exaggerating about the latter.