# Twitter Stupidity! or I want to be a felon! **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 9, 2012, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446 "2012-11-09T03:18:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/21 "2012-11-09T17:37:08Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > yeah well, according to a little research, it’s a Class D felony–and here’s a pretty comparable-to-what-i-saw-on-twitter-list of events and this shit really is investigated. sometimes convictions come of it. > > Jay Martin made idle twitter threads and ended up under investigation–even tho he had no plan and it was all said in jest. according to the article… > he is banned from the internet now, even tho he had no weapons or anything serious… I was thinking that I really don’t want the SS knocking on doors over Twitter posts, partly because I don’t these douches to be able to post about how Obama’s thugs are persecuting them. But _ **banned from the internet** _? That would be an awesome punishment. The classic “Time Out”. Is there any way it’d be enforceable? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/22 "2012-11-09T17:42:46Z")
> [@digs](#): > > Is there any way it’d be enforceable? [Citizen activism.](http://xkcd.com/322/) ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/23 "2012-11-09T17:59:23Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > He was talking about military strikes overseas. Some political persuasions hold that these are “assassinations.” Far stranger are the political persuasions that hold that they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/24 "2012-11-09T18:02:13Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > It has been my understanding the Secret Service lacks a sense of humor when it comes to threats against the President. [Here](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/obama-twitter-death-threats-486712) is a [del]bright young man[/del] dumb fuck who found out just how seriously they take threats of this type on Twitter. I love how the story describes the moment this nitwit realized what he’d gotten himself into: > [@](#): > > In a sworn affidavit, Secret Service Agent Wayne Bourg, Jr. reported that Sims smiled as the federal investigator read aloud the five tweets. But Sims’s demeanor changed after he was transported to a police precinct… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Dord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3be4f8/32.png) [@The\_Dord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Dord)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/25 "2012-11-09T18:32:18Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I can personally confirm that the Secret Service takes each and every threat seriously. Back in 2008, I made some ill-conceived comments about George W. Bush while blowing off steam late at night in an AOL chatroom, and a week later two Secret Service agents showed up at my workplace insisting on speaking to me. After ten minutes of interviewing me the lead agent told me “I don’t believe you’re a threat to the president,” which is probably the nicest thing anyone’s ever told me, and let me know that I shouldn’t ever think about making those kind of comments ever again. Did a person report you or did the secret service have the chat service bugged/monitored? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/26 "2012-11-09T18:44:35Z")
> [@digs](#): > > I was thinking that I really don’t want the SS knocking on doors over Twitter posts, partly because I don’t these douches to be able to post about how Obama’s thugs are persecuting them. > > But _ **banned from the internet** _? That would be an awesome punishment. The classic “Time Out”. Is there any way it’d be enforceable? the muslim hate video guy was banned, too, wasn’t he? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/27 "2012-11-09T19:34:09Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > He was talking about military strikes overseas. Some political persuasions hold that these are “assassinations.” You dispute that the CIA targeting for death a non-combatant in a country we’re not at war with is an assassination? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/28 "2012-11-09T19:36:53Z")
IMHO, a targeted killing of a combatant in a country we _are_ at war with is an assassination. That doesn’t necessary mean it’s wrong or illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/29 "2012-11-09T22:37:09Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > you should read up on the law i just posted and note that the SS doesn’t have the tolerance you seem to employ. i dare you to say similar things and see how it goes. The only law you posted was about the mail. > [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > all i can say is sure, ok–you think “Freedom of speech” and on planet you “meh, this isn’t that bad.” but check the precedents and see how tolerant officials are. they send people at your work and talk to you when you say this junk. there’s tons of cites demonstrating exactly what will happen. :eek: Not…_talking_. I’m pretty sure that’s a felony. I read it on the Internet. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/30 "2012-11-09T22:54:55Z")
Besides the Secret Service, there’s the possibility of other consequences. [Here’s an example](http://gawker.com/5959209/woman-who-called-for-nigger-obamas-assassination-in-viral-facebook-post-confronted-by-news-crew-is-officially-the-worst-person-in-the-world) of a woman being fired for expressing hopes for Obama’s assassination, and using a racial slur to boot (_and_ the Secret Service is looking into it); it’s Facebook, not Twitter, but the principle holds. > [@](#): > > “Apparently a lot of people in Sacramento think I’m crazy and racist,” Helms wrote in a follow-up post on her Facebook page. “WOW is all I got to say!! I’m not racist and I’m not crazy. just simply stating my opinion.!!!” > > But when asked by Fox 40 if she “equated the president with the n-word,” Helms responded “sure.” I like this part. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/31 "2012-11-10T00:59:17Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The only law you posted was about the mail. > > :eek: Not…_talking_. I’m pretty sure that’s a felony. I read it on the Internet. 11 seconds to google it, man. or remain credulous… > **[18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871)** > **[Threatening the president of the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States)** > > Threatening the president of the United States is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict great bodily harm upon the president of the United States". The law also includes presidential candidates, vice presidents, and former presidents. The Secret Service investigates suspected violations of this law and monitors those who have a history Because the... ^ gives examples that i posted before. saying “someone should (take this action)” gets you visited. many examples. saying “i will do it” gets you arrested. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/32 "2012-11-10T01:02:34Z")
So the article is wrong, then. Most of the tweets aren’t felonious. The majority of them aren’t “i will do it” [sic]. (I agree that you might get visited by a cop, but being visited by a cop isn’t a felony conviction.) Four of them (10-13) are, one of them (3) might be, but the other eight aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/33 "2012-11-10T01:23:00Z")
On a slight tangent, this is new and interesting: > [@](#): > > Mapping racist Tweets in response to President Obama’s re-election > **[Mapping racist Tweets in response to President Obama's re-election](https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/09/mapping-racist-tweets-president-obama-reelection)** > > Data-mapping experts from the Floating Sheep blog mapped geo-located Tweets containing racist language during the build-up to the US election. How did patterns vary from state to state? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/34 "2012-11-10T01:44:19Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > So the article is wrong, then. Most of the tweets aren’t felonious. The majority of them aren’t “i will do it” [sic]. (I agree that you might get visited by a cop, but being visited by a cop isn’t a felony conviction.) > > Four of them (10-13) are, one of them (3) might be, but the other eight aren’t. i’m not sure, but i think you are mistaking the disproportion of actually, under the law \*illegal \*threats with the number that result in actual _prosecution_– making the threat _at all_ falls under 18/871 (IIRC)…_as i understand_, from this [article](http://mynorthwest.com/11/728028/Secret-Service-says-number-of-threats-against-president-overwhelming), SO MANY illegal threats are made in the vein of these nit-twits above (see what i did there?) that the CIA/FBI/SS shows up, evaluates if it was ^that kind of still-illegal-but-mostly-idle-bullshit and prosecutes accordingly or just warns them to knock it off FOREVER or else. again, if i understand the law and what the investigators are saying, it IS against the law but holy cow, they’d be up to their ears in prosecutions if they followed through with every loud mouth idiot who said something he ultimately, when it came down to it, didn’t mean it. anything where there’s an actual weapon in the person’s house or any other aspects deemed “more serious” results in arrests. again, i might be reading this wrong–but it would appear the twitter nonsense falls under the law. > [@](#): > > [THREATS AGAINST PRESIDENT](http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t028.htm) > > 18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States. > > A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: > > First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President; > > Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and > > Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully. > > A “threat” is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a “true threat” means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner. > > The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat. so let’s look at the case of Jay Martin. he said “someone should do it” then said “hell _I_ would if i were there” then a string of back-and-forths with people saying he was stupid, what he was doing was illegal, that the FBI would come, etc–to which he said things like “i don’t care. i’m serious. i mean what i am saying” and “i hope they do come. it’s more street cred for me.” once they DID come, he was all “it was all a joke.” ultimately, he wasn’t prosecuted and afaik doesn’t have the stigma of being a class D felon. so altho what he did and said qualifies as a felony under every aspect of 18/871, prosecution wasn’t sought. he did, mysteriously, evaporate from the internet in every way, at the behest of the FBI, and has turned pretty unreachable by anyone looking for him (like journalists or busybodies). the cited examples under the law in the wiki article 1:1 match most in the buzzfeed article. so i think prosecution is disproportionate to the actual legality of what they are doing. it’s still illegal, it’s just not often worth pursuing much past showing up and scaring the dumbguy poop out of them. twitter usually bans people for saying that stuff (as in the buzzfeed stuff) because it conflicts with terms of use–citing “making such statements is against the law and using twitter to break laws nullifies user agreement.” something like that. so how illegal it is vs how willing officials are to prosecute _seems_ to be disparate…but they still _seem_ to investigate like every single case… if i’m parsing this all wrong, someone who knows law more plz chime in. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/35 "2012-11-10T02:23:13Z")
> [@](#): > > A “threat” is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President So a majority of the tweets listed weren’t illegal. Musing about something happening isn’t expressing an intention to do that thing. Even _wanting_ it to happen isn’t expressing an intention. “I want someone to blow up that ugly-ass statue in front of city hall” and “I’m going to blow up that ugly-ass statue in front of city hall” are fundamentally different statements. Only one is a threat. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/36 "2012-11-10T04:34:51Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > So a majority of the tweets listed weren’t illegal. Musing about something happening isn’t expressing an intention to do that thing. Even _wanting_ it to happen isn’t expressing an intention. > > “I want someone to blow up that ugly-ass statue in front of city hall” and “I’m going to blow up that ugly-ass statue in front of city hall” are fundamentally different statements. Only one is a threat. eeh, i’m not so sure. because the law says: > [@](#): > > it is \*\*not \*\*necessary to prove that the person _actually intended_ to carry out the threat. so they don’t care about intent. they care about what you said. eta: i agree several are just a combination of the terms “president” and “assassinate” and are not threats. but at least 6 are, several are “true” threats as i understand it, and a few of the others are in some murky realm of “i wouldn’t have said that if i were you…” ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/37 "2012-11-10T05:14:34Z")
Yes, they care about what you said. And what you said has to be “a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President” according to your cite. Whether you actually had that intention is irrelevant, but the statement does have to _say_ you intended to do it. 1. “I can already see people making plans to assassinate that bitch” This is just talking about the likelihood of people planning something. 1. “I guess it’s time for the New Order of the Ages to step in. Come on bring down the corruption. Assassinate this son of bitch” I guess this would depend on whether the author sees himself/herself as a member of the New Order of the Ages. (Saying that someone else should do something is pretty much the opposite of a threat.) 1. “It looks as if we are left with only one choice. Assassinate the president.” I could see this being a threat. 1. “Obama made the wrong decision… he’s basically asking for someone to assassinate him…” The subjects are “Obama” twice and “someone,” so there’s no intention expressed by the author. 1. “Wish the mafia was still round to assassinate again…” This doesn’t mention the president at all _or_ the author’s intention to do anything other than have thoughts. 1. “Please don’t assassinate #obama, that would make Joe Biden president.” Despite the weak rationale, this is a plea to _not_ assassinate the president, so definitely not a threat. 1. “Honestly I feel like someone is gonna assassinate Obama within his next term anyways… I know that’s mean, but whatever” The only thing the author does is feel. 1. “Someone please assassinate our president.” Wanting someone else to commit a crime isn’t a threat, and it’s [usually protected.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) 1. “Assassinate” Can a statement be a threat without a subject _or_ an object? 1. “I might have to take one for the team and just assassinate him” This could be a threat. 1. “If someone doesn’t assassinate Obama ill have no problem doing it myself” This too. 1. “I’m gonna assassinate the president” Obviously this one as well. 1. “I’ll give anyone $20,000 if you assassinate Obama right now.” Quite possibly this too. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/38 "2012-11-10T05:39:25Z")
see post #20, of which you just basically agreed with. see previous post ETA, of which you just agreed with. see article on 18-871, noting guidelines to sentencing and the aspect of levels. note: \*advocating \*violence and saying you will commit violence is not a distinction anyone but you is making. see: Romney Twitter Threats interviews w SS agents. they explain advocating violence falls under 18-871. your distinction (qualification) is not lawful. see: case of Jarvis Britton, who has no intent but wouldn’t shut up, even after the SS told him to knock it off. his threats were a mixture of advocation “i wish he was dead/someone should do it” to “let’s do it.” according to the SS complaint documents, he said verbatim “i wish” and “let’s kill.” he was met with, told this was illegal, told to stop. no action taken. then he said “let’s kill” again (according to their complaint) and boom. indictment. now he’s in federal custody awaiting trial. no guns recovered. no plans. only direct threats (like the 6 above) and advocation of “someone” doing it (4 of the 13 above). in his case, what he said didn’t increase in illegality, but he wouldn’t stop saying the same things over and over, even after being told to stop. as noted, there’s a 12-level guideline for indictment which typically never supercedes level 1. you say the illegal thing, they say stop, you get scared, you stop. keep saying it, it doesn’t become MORE illegal, they just stop fucking around with you and haul you off. the distinctions you are making are just your wag. there is no distinction for the level of HOW illegal one threat is over another. there is no distinction between the avocation of others doing it or you doing it. according to precedent and law language–nuh uh. i’m not trying to be contrary, i’m just trying to explain that while _you_ can qualify why it’s different, case-study shows SS does not share your tolerance. advocation of violence and direct personal threat of action are not really mutual exclusive as far as they are concerned. however–as pointed out–while it’s illegal, action is typically not taken unless you either 1. have serious planning material (stock piles of ammo and guns) or 2. refuse to knock it off. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/39 "2012-11-10T05:49:11Z")
Advocating violence is protected speech. The Secret Service’s “tolerance” is irrelevant. _You_ posted a cite saying that “a ‘threat’ is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President.” I believe that cite (in _your post_) over an interview with a cop. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446/40 "2012-11-10T05:57:09Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Advocating violence is protected speech. The Secret Service’s “tolerance” is irrelevant. > > _You_ posted a cite saying that “a ‘threat’ is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President.” I believe that cite (in _your post_) over an interview with a cop. negative. see Immenent Lawless Action and Incitement. avocation of anything unlawful, especially violence–things like advocating riots, advocating violence (in one case specifically advocating violence to change the complexity of government) are illegal and are not covered by free speech, as set by the precedent in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Hess v. Indiana (1973) Rice v. Paladin Press (1997). the precendent was set that posting publically “someone should hang (the president)” is illegal advocacy of violence as per 18-871. again, your wag is wrong. i’m sorry. and, as per my cite–if you had read it all–the examples for what constitutes a threat match 1:1 to 6-9 of the 13. the rest i agree are not threats. but in the meat of the examples, it talks about avocation of violence. in the Jarvis case, it talks about the illegality of even saying “i wish someone would…” precedents! \*why are you so grumpy about this? \* you already agree… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twitter-stupidity-or-i-want-to-be-a-felon/640446.md?page=3)