I was kidding. Geez
Context does matter, as does anonymity.
But if someone is following another online with socks and the like, I think the above could plausibly be viewed as harassment. You can’t just follow somebody on the street slinging verbal abuse if you are asked to go away or to stop following. The essence of free speech involves defending the right to express unpopular opinions. There’s probably a reasonable line between that and harassment.
I’ve made rude posts from prison, you nattering nabobs of negativism!
Not sure if this was posted already but I remember when this happened.
“Someone had said something to the effect of 'Oh you’re insane, you’re crazy, you’re messed up in the head,’” he called, “to which he replied 'Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts.’”
According to Carter, he ended the quip with “LOL” and “JK”— Internet shorthand for “laugh out loud” and “just kidding,” respectively. A witness to the conversation in Canada became worried nonetheless and alerted the authorities, who then arrested Carter and charged him with making a terroristic threat. His bond was set at half-a-million-dollars and he spent more than three months awaiting trial before hearings were scheduled to start up earlier this week. According to NPR, Carter’s attorney has had the start date moved back to July 16 to bring up abuse complaints to try to get bond lowered.
He faces up to 8-10 years. Not sure of the outcome…
Someone anonymously posted bail for him and he got over 126,000 signatures to free him.
Well, yes, a burned effigy is not inherently a threat. So what the fuck does it have to do with what I said? If they were shouting “We’re going to kill Bush,” then that would be a threat, political or not.
There is a bright line. You want to change it. You want to be able to go around harassing people online as long as you stay anonymous. You’re advocating for another bright line that lets you do something shitty.
Your argument is dumb–it’s the people you don’t know that are more likely to be dangerous. You don’t know if I actually know where you live. You don’t know whether I’m actually crazy enough to harm you.
The people I know are the people least likely to harm me. Yet you want them to be treated as the credible threat, and the anonymous stranger treated as just making a political statement.
As I point out, threats are not political statements. If they are political, they are a form of terrorism: “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” We don’t need a “get out of jail free” card for anonymous terrorists.
In context, this was clearly not a threat. But it was still an incredibly stupid thing to say, as it was also very predictable that it might be interpreted as a threat. Sarcasm doesn’t work well online.
Yes, he should walk. Yes, authorities should have noticed the context and not brought charges. But it’s still not surprising this happened.
It also doesn’t apply to Stringbean’s theory, since he was not anonymous, and it wasn’t a political statement. That’s still a stupid dividing line.
I know that there are Hate Speech Laws in Canada.
I understand that any forum has a right to ban anyone. But so far major Social Networks are very permissive – which can change anytime.
But most major Social Networks prefer not to police their hundreds of millions of users.
Do you know what requesting a cite means?
I must admit that I know these laws very vaguely – would be happy if anyone gave detailed citations.
Your argument fails empirically:
*In 2011, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 54.3 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members. *
Nearly 4 out of every 5 people (79.1%) is killed by someone they know. That’s why anonymous threats should not be taken nearly as serious.
And you’re wrong when you say threats aren’t political speech. The Supreme Court ruling previously cited is evidence of that.
This guy is facing six months for disagreeing with feminists online.
He’s actually being charged with harassment, not for “disagreeing with feminists online.” I would like to see far more facts before I jump to any conclusions.
Yes, and the statute requires the Crown to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused caused the victim “reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety.” That strikes me as quite a bit more than a rude post.
There was nothing harassing or threatening about his tweets at all. Rude tweets ? Not even that either. Tons of disagreement ? Yes. So they claimed to feel physically threatened and scared over that. It’s a joke that he was even charged.
So it’s even worse that rude posts imo, it’s just disagreeing.
I’m not taking your word for it.
In any case, harassment can happen just if you keep communicating with someone who has made it clear that it’s unwelcome.
Hey people, read this shit. It’s fucking bonkers. A god-damned injustice to humanity.
The “victim” was so fearful of her safety that she convened a group of like-minded people to initiate an online campaign of shaming and harassment.
She had previously posted online that she wanted to “sic the Internet” upon a young man in Northern Ontario who had invented a violent video game…
SHE SHOULD BE THE ONE ON TRIAL. THAT POST PRESENTS A FAR MORE TANGIBLE THREAT TO A PERSON’S SAFETY THAN ANYTHING THE ACCUSED DID.
This shit makes me wanna puke. It’s a fucking disgrace.