5 ms·

Lynch mobs are real things and have a real history. Lynch mobs as defined, always results in the death of a person or persons at the hands of a mob. An attorney

Lynch mobs are real things and have a real history. Lynch mobs as defined, always results in the death of a person or persons at the hands of a mob. An attorney who bit off more than he can chew and as a result received a number of nasty emails is not the victim of a lynch mob.

freehunter 14y ago
Though it could be argued that a digital lynch mob could be defined as a group who "kills" someone online. If this gets any more out of hand, how much business or reputation do you think this lawyer would have left? A digital lynch mob killed HB Gary Federal. It's happened before. ++edit++ guys, I wasn't arguing that this guy deserves reputation or has a right to do whatever he wants. I was arguing that a "lynch mob" can and does exist on the Internet. Like the parent said, lynch mobs harass and sometimes kill people. Digital equivalents to lynch mobs exist.
- ansible 14y ago
  > If this gets any more out of hand, how much business or reputation do you think this lawyer would have left? And what makes this lawyer deserve a good reputation? It was his responsibility to investigate the case, and apply his best judgement as to if FJ had any legal ground to stand on. From what is publicly known, FJ has no basis for their threat of legal action, and the situation appears so cut-n-dried that I doubt the existence of any hidden facts which could change this. The lawyer had a choice to inform his client of the legal situation. The lawyer had a choice whether or not to represent FJ. And the lawyer is now paying for the consequences.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    And what makes this lawyer deserve a good reputation? Never made this claim. That was a hypothetical situation that I used to back up my argument of "Though it could be argued that a digital lynch mob could be defined as a group who "kills" someone online."
- chc 14y ago
  You don't have a right to business or a good reputation. If I act like a jerk and you accurately report it to people and they decide they don't like me because of it, the resulting damage to my reputation is my fault, not yours. And remember, what LulzSec did to HBGary Federal is hack their servers and leak their private data. If LulzSec's techniques were limited to sending strongly worded letters, I don't think they would be controversial at all.
- ereckers 14y ago
  I sure wouldn't try and argue that a digital lynch mob "killed" HB Gary Federal or this attorney. If you look at these two cases and the resultant internet backlash you'll notice a pattern of escalating the issue at which point they eventually end up backing down once they realize how utterly stupid they look. Then once their incompetence is up for display for all the world to see they claim they where "killed" by a "digital lynch mob". Please excuse me if I'm less then sympathetic.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    Well what is a lynch mob if not a group of people harassing someone (for good or bad) who then is forced to defend themselves (for good or bad) until the group get riled up enough to take them out (in any way, for good or bad)? My argument was that this backlash could cause enough harassment to put the lawyer out of business, in an attempt to refute the parent's claim that a digital lynch mob could not exist on the Internet. I don't claim to be sympathetic to the lawyer's cause, merely trying to hold a reasonable discussion on a web forum by debating new-tech terminology.
- danilocampos 14y ago
  > A digital lynch mob killed HB Gary Federal. It's happened before. It hasn't happened before because HB Gary Federal is not a person and thus cannot be killed. No one can be "killed online." Killing is the ending of a human life. It is a word with a very specific meaning. Even if Internet action somehow led to someone's death, they still would not be "killed online" – they would be killed. In reality. By a person or group of persons. Not by "online." Is this conversation really happening? This needs to be explained?
  - freehunter 14y ago
    No one can be "killed online." Killing is the ending of a human life. It is a word with a very specific meaning. Nonsense. All the time I go into Task Manager and kill processes. I was working on a project that went over budget and it got killed. When I get out of my car, I kill the engine. Kill does not only mean the ending of human life. It's possible to kill ideas or even non-biological physical processes.
    - danilocampos 14y ago
      A very splendid example of deliberate obtuseness, sir/madam. I hereby grant you the degree of Doctor of Internet Trolling, with all the rights, privileges and honors thereto pertaining. A very nice parchment is coming in the mail – you can display it proudly beside your many collected downvotes.
      - freehunter 14y ago
        Trolling? I put "kill" in scare quotes for a reason... the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention.
        danilocampos 14y ago
        It's all good, homie. Don't gild the lily. You've already hit the home run by comparing the very real, very brutal killings of blacks, gays, and other minorities at the hands of actual, real lynch mobs to silly Internet jerkoffery. And car engines! Let your masterpiece speak for itself.
MartinCron 14y ago
It's a metaphor* While I've never been on the receiving end of an Internet community outrage like this, I can imagine that it can feel legitimately scary. You can't know how many threats over email are empty or how many come from genuinely disturbed individuals who may take real-world action. * see also "witch hunt" and most contemporary usages of the word "terrorism"
- shabble 14y ago
  I think you'd find it's much closer to the historic "Rough Music"[1] form of social justice, in which people disapproved publicly enough to make it known, but typically refrained from violence. I don't know what the numbers would show, but I'm not sure there'd be any significantly greater actual risk from 'genuinely disturbed individuals who may take real-world action' over a particular cause like this vs doing something because the demon in the neighbour's dog told them to[2]. The mental impact of having to wade through the messages is a different matter, of course. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_music [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    The mental impact of having to wade through the messages is a different matter, of course That mental impact is, I'm guessing, a big deal, and I'm having a hard time coming up with a good takeaway. If you're a person who feels legally infringed by a beloved internet celebrity, should you be able to get legal representation? Sure, this particular case doesn't appear to have any merit, but if I were a lawyer, I sure wouldn't be very eager to take on any clients who would go up against the angry hordes. Would that have a chilling effect for legitimate cases?
    - engtech 14y ago
      "beloved internet celebrity" We've also had non-internet celebrities for a long time, not to mention politicians, etc. Trying to go after one of them is going to be a bad time too. The issue is when you try to use the law to go after someone with more _power_ than you. The Oatmeal's power is their internet fans, but obviously FunnyJunk thought they had the same power and were on equal footing. You probably have not been following this issue as long as others, but do you realize that in May 2011 that FunnyJunk's admin sent out a message to all of their users asking them to harass the Oatmeal? "The FunnyJunk owner known as Admin responded with a message to all users “the Oatmeal wants to sue funnyjunk and shut it down! He thinks we're nothing more than dirty content thieves...Contact Oatmeal anyway you can!" and provided links to The Oatmeal's e-mail and Facebook page.[1] This triggered spamming by FunnyJunk users and a flame war with The Oatmeal readers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal_dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal...

freehunter 14y ago

Though it could be argued that a digital lynch mob could be defined as a group who "kills" someone online. If this gets any more out of hand, how much business or reputation do you think this lawyer would have left? A digital lynch mob killed HB Gary Federal. It's happened before. ++edit++ guys, I wasn't arguing that this guy deserves reputation or has a right to do whatever he wants. I was arguing that a "lynch mob" can and does exist on the Internet. Like the parent said, lynch mobs harass and sometimes kill people. Digital equivalents to lynch mobs exist.

ansible 14y ago
> If this gets any more out of hand, how much business or reputation do you think this lawyer would have left? And what makes this lawyer deserve a good reputation? It was his responsibility to investigate the case, and apply his best judgement as to if FJ had any legal ground to stand on. From what is publicly known, FJ has no basis for their threat of legal action, and the situation appears so cut-n-dried that I doubt the existence of any hidden facts which could change this. The lawyer had a choice to inform his client of the legal situation. The lawyer had a choice whether or not to represent FJ. And the lawyer is now paying for the consequences.
- freehunter 14y ago
  And what makes this lawyer deserve a good reputation? Never made this claim. That was a hypothetical situation that I used to back up my argument of "Though it could be argued that a digital lynch mob could be defined as a group who "kills" someone online."
chc 14y ago
You don't have a right to business or a good reputation. If I act like a jerk and you accurately report it to people and they decide they don't like me because of it, the resulting damage to my reputation is my fault, not yours. And remember, what LulzSec did to HBGary Federal is hack their servers and leak their private data. If LulzSec's techniques were limited to sending strongly worded letters, I don't think they would be controversial at all.
ereckers 14y ago
I sure wouldn't try and argue that a digital lynch mob "killed" HB Gary Federal or this attorney. If you look at these two cases and the resultant internet backlash you'll notice a pattern of escalating the issue at which point they eventually end up backing down once they realize how utterly stupid they look. Then once their incompetence is up for display for all the world to see they claim they where "killed" by a "digital lynch mob". Please excuse me if I'm less then sympathetic.
- freehunter 14y ago
  Well what is a lynch mob if not a group of people harassing someone (for good or bad) who then is forced to defend themselves (for good or bad) until the group get riled up enough to take them out (in any way, for good or bad)? My argument was that this backlash could cause enough harassment to put the lawyer out of business, in an attempt to refute the parent's claim that a digital lynch mob could not exist on the Internet. I don't claim to be sympathetic to the lawyer's cause, merely trying to hold a reasonable discussion on a web forum by debating new-tech terminology.
danilocampos 14y ago
> A digital lynch mob killed HB Gary Federal. It's happened before. It hasn't happened before because HB Gary Federal is not a person and thus cannot be killed. No one can be "killed online." Killing is the ending of a human life. It is a word with a very specific meaning. Even if Internet action somehow led to someone's death, they still would not be "killed online" – they would be killed. In reality. By a person or group of persons. Not by "online." Is this conversation really happening? This needs to be explained?
- freehunter 14y ago
  No one can be "killed online." Killing is the ending of a human life. It is a word with a very specific meaning. Nonsense. All the time I go into Task Manager and kill processes. I was working on a project that went over budget and it got killed. When I get out of my car, I kill the engine. Kill does not only mean the ending of human life. It's possible to kill ideas or even non-biological physical processes.
  - danilocampos 14y ago
    A very splendid example of deliberate obtuseness, sir/madam. I hereby grant you the degree of Doctor of Internet Trolling, with all the rights, privileges and honors thereto pertaining. A very nice parchment is coming in the mail – you can display it proudly beside your many collected downvotes.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      Trolling? I put "kill" in scare quotes for a reason... the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention.
      - danilocampos 14y ago
        It's all good, homie. Don't gild the lily. You've already hit the home run by comparing the very real, very brutal killings of blacks, gays, and other minorities at the hands of actual, real lynch mobs to silly Internet jerkoffery. And car engines! Let your masterpiece speak for itself.

MartinCron 14y ago

It's a metaphor* While I've never been on the receiving end of an Internet community outrage like this, I can imagine that it can feel legitimately scary. You can't know how many threats over email are empty or how many come from genuinely disturbed individuals who may take real-world action. * see also "witch hunt" and most contemporary usages of the word "terrorism"

shabble 14y ago
I think you'd find it's much closer to the historic "Rough Music"[1] form of social justice, in which people disapproved publicly enough to make it known, but typically refrained from violence. I don't know what the numbers would show, but I'm not sure there'd be any significantly greater actual risk from 'genuinely disturbed individuals who may take real-world action' over a particular cause like this vs doing something because the demon in the neighbour's dog told them to[2]. The mental impact of having to wade through the messages is a different matter, of course. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_music [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam
- MartinCron 14y ago
  The mental impact of having to wade through the messages is a different matter, of course That mental impact is, I'm guessing, a big deal, and I'm having a hard time coming up with a good takeaway. If you're a person who feels legally infringed by a beloved internet celebrity, should you be able to get legal representation? Sure, this particular case doesn't appear to have any merit, but if I were a lawyer, I sure wouldn't be very eager to take on any clients who would go up against the angry hordes. Would that have a chilling effect for legitimate cases?
  - engtech 14y ago
    "beloved internet celebrity" We've also had non-internet celebrities for a long time, not to mention politicians, etc. Trying to go after one of them is going to be a bad time too. The issue is when you try to use the law to go after someone with more _power_ than you. The Oatmeal's power is their internet fans, but obviously FunnyJunk thought they had the same power and were on equal footing. You probably have not been following this issue as long as others, but do you realize that in May 2011 that FunnyJunk's admin sent out a message to all of their users asking them to harass the Oatmeal? "The FunnyJunk owner known as Admin responded with a message to all users “the Oatmeal wants to sue funnyjunk and shut it down! He thinks we're nothing more than dirty content thieves...Contact Oatmeal anyway you can!" and provided links to The Oatmeal's e-mail and Facebook page.[1] This triggered spamming by FunnyJunk users and a flame war with The Oatmeal readers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal_dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal...