Tyler the Creator and online harassment

[Wise Fool]

So the legal response to online death threats (and the happy ability of online assholes to point at a target and have thousands of other online assholes send threats to them) is basically "that's a lot of work so fuck it."

 

The social response is, on the internet, largely apathetic as well. "It's the internet, everyone's an asshole on the internet!" I know right, because who DOESN'T send the occasional death and rape threat? Weirdos, that's who!

 

That's an issue, but one that can only be reasonably solved by better education, promoting better behaviour, making sure we have mature people instead of idiots and lemmings.

Because good luck prosecuting people for that. If you thought the "War on drugs" was a bloated failure, try the "War on online nastiness", and see the courts filled up and fed up with millions of accused and plaintiffs every single month, considering how many people act like assholes on the net.

"Online nastiness?" "acting like an asshole?"

"idiots and lemmings"

 

 

Euphemism much? You make it sound like just everybody and their mother sends out death and rape threats on the internet so there's no point in doing anything about it.

 

I would have no problems seeing the courts fill up with people who threaten bodily harm. It's not at all comparable to prosecuting people for using a controlled substance.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

So the legal response to online death threats (and the happy ability of online assholes to point at a target and have thousands of other online assholes send threats to them) is basically "that's a lot of work so fuck it."

 

 

That's possibly the least charitable interpretation.

 

A more charitable interpretation might be that each individual law enforcement agency, when confronted with the issue, realizes that they don't have the time, money, manpower, resources, technical training and know-how, and legal knowledge to prioritize these kinds of cases over other issues which seem to be vastly more pressing.

[aceluby]

 

That's possibly the least charitable interpretation.

 

A more charitable interpretation might be that each individual law enforcement agency, when confronted with the issue, realizes that they don't have the time, money, manpower, resources, technical training and know-how, and legal knowledge to prioritize these kinds of cases over other issues which seem to be vastly more pressing.

 

Yeah, who's going to be around to shoot unarmed people if they are tracking down death threats?

[Jo498]

We should have a worldwide ban of rap, twitter and a bunch of other things that obviously incite people to stupid behavior.

[DanteGabriel]

We should have a worldwide ban of rap, twitter and a bunch of other things that obviously incite people to stupid behavior.

 

Drugs, alcohol, the Internet, sex...

[sologdin]

nestor--

that cyberstalking statute is a felony, and we have a separate statute for inciting a felony. it may well be that it is not incitement if no actual criminal course is expressed in the communication; if I have argued for an implicit or constructive incitement, that may be beyond the bounds of useful inchoate offenses and lead to over-enforcement (likely i am unable to contend that the principle should be raised to universal law). but it is kinda ugly that dude focuses on the petitioner's internet address, rather than the person herself, or the state; it really makes no sense to single her out when the state has the visa request. maybe reasonable person with 2.5M twitter interlocutors might state 'hey not cool to send rape threats?' of course, this particular person might not be taken seriously, considering his apparent statements about rape otherwise.

agreed that 2000 messages saying 'U R A MORAN!' would be unpleasant, but not worthy of our attention. not sure if that's this case, though.

[Tempra]

 
Yeah, who's going to be around to shoot unarmed people if they are tracking down death threats?

Nestor laid out the tremendous practical and legal challenges that make prosecutions of these crimes (if they even rise to the level of crime) extraordinarily unlikely. Put simply, prosecutors do not have the time or resources to handle these cases and routinely decline prosecutions of crimes that are significantly easier to prove AND have broader harm to the community. If you want this to change, start writing to your local representatives to demand increased funding to combat cybercrimes. God knows there are plenty of unemployed lawyers who would love a job.

[Wise Fool]

Orrrr, we could try doing something about people who make death threats.

 

And yeah, I get that most police departments aren't currently

 

 

That's possibly the least charitable interpretation.

 

A more charitable interpretation might be that each individual law enforcement agency, when confronted with the issue, realizes that they don't have the time, money, manpower, resources, technical training and know-how, and legal knowledge to prioritize these kinds of cases over other issues which seem to be vastly more pressing.

Don't have the money and manpower and resources? My fat American ass, they don't.
They just don't consider it a priority. Just like most posters here just kind of shrug and blurt out something about "it's the internet, people are just assholes on the internet" type of 'boys will be boys' dismissal. Because it's just not important, really -- not compared to fighting terrorism. Police departments can afford armored vehicles, but figuring out whose jurisdiction it is when an online threat is made, that's gonna break the fucking bank, is it?

[aceluby]

Nestor laid out the tremendous practical and legal challenges that make prosecutions of these crimes (if they even rise to the level of crime) extraordinarily unlikely. Put simply, prosecutors do not have the time or resources to handle these cases and routinely decline prosecutions of crimes that are significantly easier to prove AND have broader harm to the community. If you want this to change, start writing to your local representatives to demand increased funding to combat cybercrimes. God knows there are plenty of unemployed lawyers who would love a job.

 

It was a joke.

[all swedes are racist]

Must have a new album coming out soon

[JonSnow4President]

Orrrr, we could try doing something about people who make death threats.

 

And yeah, I get that most police departments aren't currently

 

Don't have the money and manpower and resources? My fat American ass, they don't.
They just don't consider it a priority. Just like most posters here just kind of shrug and blurt out something about "it's the internet, people are just assholes on the internet" type of 'boys will be boys' dismissal. Because it's just not important, really -- not compared to fighting terrorism. Police departments can afford armored vehicles, but figuring out whose jurisdiction it is when an online threat is made, that's gonna break the fucking bank, is it?

Depends vastly on the police department in terms of funding, and no police department really has the manpower to track down thousands of death/rape threats while still maintaining their other duties.  Especially considering that approximately 0% of twitter death threats represent a real danger.

[Howdyphillip]

Depends vastly on the police department in terms of funding, and no police department really has the manpower to track down thousands of death/rape threats while still maintaining their other duties.  Especially considering that approximately 0% of twitter death threats represent a real danger.

Except this is not the truth at all. There are many examples of people threatening people on the internet and subsequently carrying out the threat. I find that tolerance for this behavior is becoming almost as egregious as the behavior itself. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Except this is not the truth at all. There are many examples of people threatening people on the internet and subsequently carrying out the threat. I find that tolerance for this behavior is becoming almost as egregious as the behavior itself. 

 

It's also worth reiterating that death and rape threats are crimes, and bad things, in and of themselves - not just because they might or might not be followed by an attempted murder or rape. 

[Glaurung]

Prosecuting these cases would simply be impractical in so many ways.  Yes there are a few departments that have a tank and military equipment.  The VAST majority of PDs in this country do not have anything of the sort.  And the bigger issue isn't money, it's time.  The time that would be required into looking into these threats is insane.  We're talking MILLIONS of threats, probably thousands every day.  Then you do decide to deploy the resources into investigating these types of incidents.  Half the time you can't even track the source, and if you can, there's a good chance it's just some immature 12 year old kids trying to get a rise out of people.  Then you have to take context into consideration.  It is not always easy to understand the mindset of somebody who made the remarks.  Was it a bad joke?  Was it sarcasm?  99.99% of these remarks are baseless and will never result in any kind of violence.  Trying to filter out the ones that are real is difficult.  Some people say shit they don't mean when they're mad, particularly if they have anonymity.  If you think the war on drugs is a drain that floods our prisons with nonviolent offenders, then get ready, because seriously tackling the issue of online threats or harassment will be much worse.  You'll have more cases like this:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/texas-teen-makes-violent-joke-during-video-game-is-jailed-for-months/

 

That kid made a shitty fucking joke.  He probably deserves to have his ass kicked.  But anybody with 2 brain cells could tell that he's just an immature asshat that was making a joke in poor taste.  

 

That's not to say that threats shouldn't be taken seriously or prosecuted in some circumstances.  But the vast vast majority of the time it just wouldn't make any sense. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Prosecuting these cases would simply be impractical in so many ways.  Yes there are a few departments that have a tank and military equipment.  The VAST majority of PDs in this country do not have anything of the sort.  And the bigger issue isn't money, it's time.  The time that would be required into looking into these threats is insane.  We're talking MILLIONS of threats, probably thousands every day.  Then you do decide to deploy the resources into investigating these types of incidents.  Half the time you can't even track the source, and if you can, there's a good chance it's just some immature 12 year old kids trying to get a rise out of people.  Then you have to take context into consideration.  It is not always easy to understand the mindset of somebody who made the remarks.  Was it a bad joke?  Was it sarcasm?  99.99% of these remarks are baseless and will never result in any kind of violence.  Trying to filter out the ones that are real is difficult.  Some people say shit they don't mean when they're mad, particularly if they have anonymity.  If you think the war on drugs is a drain that floods our prisons with nonviolent offenders, then get ready, because seriously tackling the issue of online threats or harassment will be much worse.  You'll have more cases like this:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/texas-teen-makes-violent-joke-during-video-game-is-jailed-for-months/

 

That kid made a shitty fucking joke.  He probably deserves to have his ass kicked.  But anybody with 2 brain cells could tell that he's just an immature asshat that was making a joke in poor taste.  

 

That's not to say that threats shouldn't be taken seriously or prosecuted in some circumstances.  But the vast vast majority of the time it just wouldn't make any sense. 

 

While I obviously agree that there are a lot of practical issues with enforcing these kinds of laws on the internet, the part of your post that I've bolded is very problematic. The idea that a death threat is only "real" if there's an intention to follow through with it displays a pretty profound ignorance about the nature of death threats, rape threats, etc. Generally speaking, the purpose of a death threat is not to give someone advance warning that they're about to be killed. Rather, it's a subspecies of harassment. The goal is to harass and terrify the victim of the threats. It actually doesn't matter whether or not the threatener actually intends to carry out the threat. That doesn't make it a fake threat. What matters is what the speaker intends to do to the victim of the threat - and the intent to is to harass and terrify. 

[deleted01]

In simple terms, if the victim feels frightened, then it's assault, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act, whether or not the threat will actually be carried out. Threats like that said in person would be taken seriously, so why they're acceptable on social media is beyond me.

And the guy mentioned in the OP just reminds me of Dapper Laughs and other "lad" bastards. They know what they're doing.

[HexMachina]

In simple terms, if the victim feels frightened, then it's assault, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act, whether or not the threat will actually be carried out. Threats like that said in person would be taken seriously, so why they're acceptable on social media is beyond me.
And the guy mentioned in the OP just reminds me of Dapper Laughs and other "lad" bastards. They know what they're doing.

Actually (you mean UK law presumably?) assault (on its own) doesn't appear in the OAPA. Only assault occasioning actual bodily harm does. Assault is a common law offence, if I'm recalling correctly...
Okay, that's enough being pedantic and annoying for one evening :/
I do agree with you though, about the threats. I've been fortunate enough never to receive these kinds of threats or anything before, but I can well imagine how terrifying they must be. Whether delivered in person or via some other kind of media it's a bit worrying when these kinds of things are just brushed aside with a "meh, no chance of being carried out." Or whatever.

[Biglose]

 

Thanks Nestor, that makes sense.  Still kind of sucks that there is literally no punishment for going online and threatening people with death and rape.

There is, if you are dumb enough to make it easy to get caught. Thats the SAME way for EVERY crime!

If you rob a bank, at some point the police will say fuck it, we do not find the person.

Severity of the crime against ressources needed.  Just take the case of a harressed dentist. And there you even have vandalism against his property. Which pushes it far beyond simple harresment and is already proof of potential violent behaviour.

I think the Rep. would be happy to oblige and build the biggest cyber criminal unit ever, well as long as the money comes from lets say planned parenthood.

 

And honestly: The US has not the problem of "underprosecution", quite the opposite. Like somebody said, this would be the war on drugs a thousand fold.

If you make the laws strict enough to actually work, police could arrest close to everybody and they probably could make the charges stick most of the time. Hell, go through this forum in the threads  about police violence or politics in general and you will see a lot of people some police officer might want to see behind bars. Speaking out publicly against the police might start to carrying a prision sentance. (Not as a law, but as a result of other laws)

 

It is always easy to want people you do not like to be prosecuted. But guess what, the guys on 4Chan will be the guy hard to catch. Some kid making a joke in a video game which a 3. person sees and reacts to won't.

[Wise Fool]

So on the one hand, prosecuting people for making threats is too impractical so let's not do it. But on the other hand, prosecuting people for making threats online is so easy that the police will wind up arresting just about anyone for anything, so let's not do it?

 

I don't know. I don't find these compelling arguments for not turning the other cheek to crime.

 

Most people who are opposed to the prosecution of nonviolent drug offenders in the US aren't really motivated by how it's wasting precious police and prison dollars, but because they (rightfully) see that drug abuse is more of a health issue than a legal one and that putting drug addicts in jail or prison will not help them, in fact it will only make everything worse.

 

But that's not the case with people who make rape and death threats online. It's not a mental health issue at all. And whereas most of us have experimented now and then with drugs, and maybe some of us are still experimenting like every day, ha ha.... I argue that most of us - in fact, the VAST majority of us - have not ever threatened a person over the internet with murder or rape or other forms of assault. Because the vast majority of us are not twisted fucking criminals who could stand to see some consequences to their actions.

 

So I would not mind using resources to prosecute people who threaten violent crime, the same way I mind using resources to prosecute nonviolent drug users.

 

And this is not, again, "people I don't like," nor is it "internet nastiness" or "typically being assholes on the web" or for that matter "boys will be boys." It's criminal behavior that warrants investigation and prosecution.

[karaddin]

One thing that isn't reducing the amount of death and rape threats (which just happen to be aimed disproportionately at silencing women) is the current approach of throwing our hands up in the air and saying it's too hard. If you see some high profile cases being prosecuted I would expect that the numbers of assholes willing to do this would drop.

Instead you have the SCOTUS ruling that some guy publicly posting on Facebook about killing his ex and the FBI/PD officer who talked to him about it is protected speech (the ex even had a fucking restraining order) so I don't expect anything to happen and it will get worse.