Look at offline behavior. If someone’s at a bar, and talking in vague terms about going on a rampage, and others say, “You get 'em, buddy!” and still others say, “Yeah!” charges are almost certainly not going to be filed on anyone involved.
There were a couple of people in that thread who were giving specific advice how to commit murder–“go to an all-girls school,” for example. Although that adivce was not followed, I wonder whether that could count as incitement. I doubt it, but would be interested in the opinions of someone more knowledgeable than myself. Again, analogizing to blowhards at a bar might be helpful.
Also ostensibly anonymous, and with care taken to put a veneer of innocence on them (a “but these were only about arresting and convicting him, not killing him!” kind of thing).
I don’t think these were criminal charges, but need to double-check.
I do not acknowledge the treaty jurisdiction of this Admiralty Court in rem, as no UCC-105 Contract was duly signed under prima facie rights, thereby accepting for value the Sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) in Lawful Gold or Silver Coin Only.
robert,COLUMBIA, a foreign banking association registered in the Sheriff’s Court of the Domain of British West Florida, not required to register under Magna Carta rights of non-consent in and under GOD ALMIGHTY, agents of robert::columbia of the Family Col.Um.Bia in succession et al., Sovereign Immaculate CITIZEN of the Commonwealth Free Republic of Virginia (not Commonwealth of Virginia or State of Virginia), in legitime under guaranteed ancient Roman rights of lawful tenure. Under duress, year of our LORD 2015 (corrected calendar).
And you just hinted at an example. 4chan has anti-child-porn rules. This hasn’t increased the amount of child porn. They understand that the site itself and their anonymity could become compromised if they do that. Sure, it does happen there, but to a much lesser extent than places with no such rules.
I see no reason that incitements to violence couldn’t be raised to this level. If only moot were still there, I’d suspect he’d have the morals to do so. He did boot GamerGate off the site, after all.
But they are certainly not the same. As I type this response to your comment, keep in mind that I do not know you and you do not know me. You can not see my face and I can not see yours. I have no idea if your opinions are even serious, nor do you know that mine are either. We can not hear the tone in each others voice. We are basically pretending to be talking to each other. PRETENDING. In reality, we’re just typing our opinions onto a computer screen and then sending it to a web server. That’s not even close to the same as real-life communication.
The We gatcha nomiable levkonia put renner sapially corndog.
THAT is what “pretending to communicate” looks like. Except that now that I’ve explained it, not even that sentence counts as pretending to communicate: I communicated a counterexample to your claim.
The idea of “pretending to communicate” is almost intellectually incoherent. Unless you’re shouting at your toaster, you’re not pretending to communicate. You’re taking ideas in your head, using your muscular and nervous system to transmute those ideas into energetic patterns external to your body, and hoping that some intended audience is using their nervous systems to perceive the energetic patterns and transmute them back into thoughts inside their own heads.
Different media allow for more or less robust pattern communication. Face-to-face communication allows for body language. Written communication allows for revision of the message to be communicated. Music allows a robust transmission of aesthetic ideas.
But it’s ludicrous to suggest that, because you don’t know whether I’m a man or a woman, you’re just pretending to communicate with me. You know that I’m a person who’s got certain views; you know that I’m an intended audience of your words. That suffices to turn what you’re doing into real communication.
As for the “real world,” I’m afraid that until quantum engineers vastly improve the quality of their output, you’ll have no choice but to communicate entirely within the real world. You’ll find that my computer screen and yours, and the wires that connect them, and the wireless transmitter that communicate between them, all exist in the real world. None of them are in Narnia.
I write you a letter offering payment for killing my wife. We’ve never met. You kill her, and write to me requesting payment. You didn’t know if I was serious. You could not discern the tone of my voice from my letter. We weren’t having a conversation or anything.
With your letter we have a threat against a person in your immediate proximity. We also have your name and address as the stranger would have to know where to find her and we would likely have your fingerprints. On the internet we have none of this. Also, in your scenario, wouldnt the authorities want evidence of you actually making a payment?
Edited to add: Ill say it again that it would be pretty hard to prove who actually was sending the messages. In the original 4chan script one poster jokes about the person doing the encouraging hiding behind 7 proxies and the FBI being unable to locate him. This is just one problem involved in proving who actually posted the offending content.
Whether something is difficult to prove has no bearing on whether it is a crime. Whether or not to prosecute such people is a practical and policy choice. Whether they are criminals is not.
I agree with the gist of your post but before we can prosecute ‘such people’ we have to identify them. Professional trolls are likely going to be well hidden. This is the point that some are missing here.
The word “criminal” doesn’t have a single, unambiguous meaning. Indeed, it’s not really used very often as a legal term without further description, because it’s not precise.