People who make death threats on the internet should go to jail?

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
Naeras said:
Why should death threats over the internet be any different from death threats in real life?
Because proximity and intent are key factors in determining the severity of threat. There is a difference between standing outside somebodies house with a rifle and screaming that you are going to kill them and screaming at somebody on a video chat service with a rifle and saying you are going to kill them. The first example shows clear intent, the second is much less so, making the effort to get within proximity to threaten someone indicates intent. I'm not saying that nothing should be done, what I am saying is one is far more dangerous typically than the other and given the choice I would prefer the latter, because it demonstrates less intent to follow through with the threat.

They are different.
 

Naeras

New member
Mar 1, 2011
989
0
0
Do4600 said:
Naeras said:
Why should death threats over the internet be any different from death threats in real life?
Because proximity and intent are key factors in determining the severity of threat. There is a difference between standing outside somebodies house with a rifle and screaming that you are going to kill them and screaming at somebody on a video chat service with a rifle and saying you are going to kill them. The first example shows clear intent, the second is much less so, making the effort to get within proximity to threaten someone indicates intent. I'm not saying that nothing should be done, what I am saying is one is far more dangerous typically than the other and given the choice I would prefer the latter, because it demonstrates less intent to follow through with the threat.

They are different.
Sending someone a letter saying "I'm going to kill you, I know where you live" or something along those lines is already punishable by jail, at least in my country. Why is sending someone an e-mail or PM saying the same thing different?
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Strike 1: Warning.

Strike 2: Monetary fine.

Strike 3: Community Service.

Strike 4: Few months in jail.

Strike 5: Electric chair (for the crime of gross stupidity, I mean really, how many times do you have to be told to not do something?).
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
Naeras said:
Why should death threats over the internet be any different from death threats in real life?
Because punishing people for words expressed over the internet has through the last decade had the unfortunate side-effect that many people have been punished for sarcasm and comedy (mostly because the people in charge of "dispersing justice" can't tell the difference compared to experienced internet users like us).

The problem is that written messages can't express context in the same way that spoken language can. Spoken words, unless recorded, a like a still image in time, while something written on the internet is basically gonna be there forever (even if sites go down, there are backups, data interception/surveillance, internetcrawlers, caches etc.), and then there is the fact that reading something that's written cannot take into account any relevant real world context (and as a result, a jury can't either).

Bottom line is that it's a dangerous road to go down on.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
Jul 19, 2010
1,620
83
33
Country
Free-Dom
As I stated in the Hepler thread...

I won't argue that there isn't any weight at all [to threats online], since it's still communicating (sometimes) a genuine sense of hatred for the target. Perhaps I have a bit too much of a disconnect between the internet and reality, as I truly don't view 95% of the internet's diatribe as being worth so much as a passing glance or, at best, an irritated scoff.

I'm not saying to ignore threats relating to specific, accurate portions of a person's life, like...say...someone threatening to kill you the next time you visit your favorite coffee shop, which you've never mentioned on the internet before or threatening to string up your golden retriever named Goldy, which you've also never mentioned before. Of course, give proper attention to the threats that have some sort of angle like the aforementioned ones, but "You suck, Imma kill you, *****" isn't really something to get your knickers in a twist about.

I'm really just arguing against the irrational "censor everything and dole out real world punishment for words online" thing I've been seeing some folks say. I'd rather the world didn't head in a Justin Carter direction.
Pretty much sums it up for me.

I take a libertarian stance on this sort of stuff. I'd prefer people expressed themselves differently, but *shrug* so long as they don't act on it, then no real "crime" has been committed (to me at least). I'd really rather we didn't start limiting freedoms for the sake of people's peace of mind, since what can be construed as a threat varies based on the context and from person to person...as Justin's case proves...and I really don't trust the people in power to make those distinctions.
 

Dimitriov

The end is nigh.
May 24, 2010
1,215
0
0
There seems to be some confusion going on in this thread that the internet is somehow special - and that people behave differently there than in real life.

I routinely receive death threats at work for no goddamn good reason (If you want to know I work at a convenience store, and did you know that people don't like being asked for ID to buy cigarettes? or told they can't fucking steal shit? Well turns out they don't apparently like those things... and respond just as ridiculously in real life as do people on the internet).

And guess what? There are no legal ramifications for these people in real life and obviously there aren't going to be any for people on the internet. But that's not really a problem.

The simple fact of the matter is a majority of human beings are complete assholes. This is just who our species is. So everybody should just grow a pair and stop whinging. When someone actually decides to act on their words THEN you have a problem. Up to that point? It would be absurd and unnecessary to try and police it.
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
Absolutely fucking not and the number of people here who seem to consider it a possible option is downright terrifying.

People need to understand 2 things:

1) People will always find a way to be vile, especially online. All the moderation and police work in the world won't make certain places stop existing.

2) Pixels. Can't. Hurt. You. Yes, people on the internet are dicks, but until actual action is taken, bringing in the law is just silly. Perspective on crime vs punishment is important. The dickishness of something does not define its actual level of harm.

Now, I'm not saying internet death threats and other similar hate should simply be allowed to run rampant, but I feel it's a problem with specific cultures and the internet is simply the outlet. What REALLY needs to happen for things like the Bioware thing, is a vast social change in gaming culture.

Also as one person mentioned, possibly just having cops show up at a few doors would probably be pretty effective in the short term.
 

Naeras

New member
Mar 1, 2011
989
0
0
Athinira said:
Naeras said:
Why should death threats over the internet be any different from death threats in real life?
Because punishing people for words expressed over the internet has through the last decade had the unfortunate side-effect that many people have been punished for sarcasm and comedy (mostly because the people in charge of "dispersing justice" can't tell the difference compared to experienced internet users like us).

The problem is that written messages can't express context in the same way that spoken language can. Spoken words, unless recorded, a like a still image in time, while something written on the internet is basically gonna be there forever (even if sites go down, there are backups, data interception/surveillance, internetcrawlers, caches etc.), and then there is the fact that reading something that's written cannot take into account any relevant real world context (and as a result, a jury can't either).

Bottom line is that it's a dangerous road to go down on.
There's a big difference between writing "someone should kill person X" on a random webforum, which seems to be what you're referring to, and personally sending people threats, which is what I assumed the thread was about. Neither scenario is really acceptable, but the latter scenario is something that shouldn't be allowed. Period.
For the record, I know people who have received personal death threats for voicing opinions on the internet. To put it simply, it wasn't very pleasant. You have no idea how serious these things threats are(to be fair, they're usually just to scare you), but that's not very comforting then and there. It really does scare the shit out of you when people tell you that "they're going to break into your house while you're sleeping, rape you, and then slit your throat".

Also, if people feel genuinely threatened by a statement you have made -- which, as far as I know, is usually why people press charges when they have received death threats -- and you're claiming that "you were just joking", you've done something horribly wrong and should get the fuck off the internet.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
Naeras said:
Do4600 said:
Naeras said:
Why should death threats over the internet be any different from death threats in real life?
Because proximity and intent are key factors in determining the severity of threat. There is a difference between standing outside somebodies house with a rifle and screaming that you are going to kill them and screaming at somebody on a video chat service with a rifle and saying you are going to kill them. The first example shows clear intent, the second is much less so, making the effort to get within proximity to threaten someone indicates intent. I'm not saying that nothing should be done, what I am saying is one is far more dangerous typically than the other and given the choice I would prefer the latter, because it demonstrates less intent to follow through with the threat.

They are different.
Sending someone a letter saying "I'm going to kill you, I know where you live" or something along those lines is already punishable by jail, at least in my country. Why is sending someone an e-mail or PM saying the same thing different?
Because the jail time between the letter and being on that person's lawn with a rifle is different. In most online communications both parties are using an alias and can't obtain the other's identity without sustained effort. It's another level of intent; threatening DragonGod7165 shows less intent than obtaining that persons personal email address and threatening them which show less intent than mailing them a threatening letter to their home address which shows less intent than driving to their house with a firearm and threatening them. It's doesn't make sense to charge somebody the same for all of these instances because the actual intent to do violence decreases every step back we go from the guy on your lawn.
 

Esotera

New member
May 5, 2011
3,400
0
0
The answer is in the title, the person has been making death threats. The medium which they used to make those threats (verbal, post, or internet) doesn't matter - they're guilty of the same offence and deserve whatever sentence is decided as just.

If we're talking about offensive comments or controversial opinions, that's a completely different matter and we should not be arresting people for that. It's ridiculous that in the UK you can be put in jail for 'grossly offensive communication', and that there are several cases of this happening. Our free speech laws and libel laws suck so badly.
 

Naeras

New member
Mar 1, 2011
989
0
0
Do4600 said:
Because the jail time between the letter and being on that person's lawn with a rifle is different. In most online communications both parties are using an alias and can't obtain the other's identity without sustained effort. It's another level of intent; threatening DragonGod7165 shows less intent than obtaining that persons personal email address and threatening them which show less intent than mailing them a threatening letter to their home address which shows less intent than driving to their house with a firearm and threatening them. It's doesn't make sense to charge somebody the same for all of these instances because the actual intent to do violence decreases every step back we go from the guy on your lawn.
I didn't assume this conversation was about 12-year old shitheads writing "im going to kill you lol" because you're pointing out that his Starcraft-strategy doesn't work on higher levels. I assumed this conversation was about people sending you personal death threats over the internet, as the examples used in the OP was specifically people who have gotten threatening personal messages/mails.

And of course the case of sending a death threat lawn are getting different jail times: they're going to get different charges. The letter is going to get you charged with death threats, showing up on someone's lawn with a shotgun will get you charged with attempted murder.

edit: bad wording needed to be fixed, my apologies
 

McKinsey

New member
Nov 14, 2011
50
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
I'm curious why a death threat magically becomes more potent because it's done over the phone. There's no "physical interaction" in a phone call, either. People often make these calls without thinking or thinking of the repercussions, like with the internet.

So....Why is it magically different?
Internet is a means of indirect communication, i.e. you may send a message to someone and that person may not even see the message because of various reasons (had the system not notified me of your response, I would never have guessed it existed). As I've said, it's a bunch of scribbles on a wall, and you may decide not to read certain scribbles if you don't feel like it.
Phone, on the other hand, provides for direct communication - you can't speak to someone unless the recipient's speaking to you. It's an intrusion into someone else's private life, and there's no real way to shield yourself from unwanted calls except to stop answering the phone altogether.
To put it in simpler terms, you can wake somebody up in the middle of the night using the phone. Try doing the same with the Internet.
I hope the difference is clear to you now.
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
Naeras said:
There's a big difference between writing "someone should kill person X" on a random webforum, which seems to be what you're referring to, and personally sending people threats, which is what I assumed the thread was about. Neither scenario is really acceptable, but the latter scenario is something that shouldn't be allowed. Period.
For the record, I know people who have received personal death threats for voicing opinions on the internet. To put it simply, it wasn't very pleasant. You have no idea how serious these things threats are(to be fair, they're usually just to scare you), but that's not very comforting then and there. It really does scare the shit out of you when people tell you that "they're going to break into your house while you're sleeping, rape you, and then slit your throat".
First of all, too many deaths are sent over the internet for the court system to ever be able to handle them all (and the same for society, we can't throw everybody in jail). Threats can - and should - be dealt with by the appropriate people.

I have been on the internet for 15 years or so. I've received death threats too, and context really is everything in this regards. I've received both normal threats or death threats for corpse camping and ganking people in World of Warcraft. Is the police and courts the appropriate people to fix that issue? No, the Blizzard Game Masters are. Similarly i have also received death threats here on internet forums. Should i call the police again, or simply just ask the admins to ban the user in question?

And even if i involve the police, what if the perpetrator is in a different country? Should the two nations invest resources in a cross-country investigation (and potential extradition)?

The world isn't black and white. A basic principle in security is that resources are always limited, and if you misallocate resources, you only end up less secure, not more secure. Therefore, to get the government involved, you need to show probably cause that something is worth investigating and handling (i.e. that there is an actual threat). While i agree with you that death threats on the internet aren't acceptable, i disagree with letting the law handle it except in extreme circumstances, and i disagree with comparing it with real world death threats. They are still different in nature and - most importantly - different in actual threat level. And finally, they are also much tougher to investigate for the purpose of criminal prosecution.

Naeras said:
Also, if people feel genuinely threatened by a statement you have made -- which, as far as I know, is usually why people press charges when they have received death threats -- and you're claiming that "you were just joking", you've done something horribly wrong and should get the fuck off the internet.
You're just underlining the point i made: that it's pretty much impossible to tell sarcasm on the internet. And it's also pretty much impossible for outsiders to tell the actual context.
 

Ickorus

New member
Mar 9, 2009
2,887
0
0
I think the persons rights to the internet should be restricted much like how people have their right to freedom restricted when they're sent to jail; I also think a fine should be imposed.

I take issue with the comment that it's only been happening to women in the UK by the way, it's just because it happened to a public figure that this is highlighted whilst hashtags such as #killallmen are ignored.
 

Naeras

New member
Mar 1, 2011
989
0
0
Athinira said:
Naeras said:
There's a big difference between writing "someone should kill person X" on a random webforum, which seems to be what you're referring to, and personally sending people threats, which is what I assumed the thread was about. Neither scenario is really acceptable, but the latter scenario is something that shouldn't be allowed. Period.
For the record, I know people who have received personal death threats for voicing opinions on the internet. To put it simply, it wasn't very pleasant. You have no idea how serious these things threats are(to be fair, they're usually just to scare you), but that's not very comforting then and there. It really does scare the shit out of you when people tell you that "they're going to break into your house while you're sleeping, rape you, and then slit your throat".
First of all, too many deaths are sent over the internet for the court system to ever be able to handle them all (and the same for society, we can't throw everybody in jail). Threats can - and should - be dealt with by the appropriate people.

I have been on the internet for 15 years or so. I've received death threats too, and context really is everything in this regards. I've received both normal threats or death threats for corpse camping and ganking people in World of Warcraft. Is the police and courts the appropriate people to fix that issue? No, the Blizzard Game Masters are. Similarly i have also received death threats here on internet forums. Should i call the police again, or simply just ask the admins to ban the user in question?

And even if i involve the police, what if the perpetrator is in a different country? Should the two nations invest resources in a cross-country investigation (and potential extradition)?

The world isn't black and white. A basic principle in security is that resources are always limited, and if you misallocate resources, you only end up less secure, not more secure. Therefore, to get the government involved, you need to show probably cause that something is worth investigating and handling (i.e. that there is an actual threat). While i agree with you that death threats on the internet aren't acceptable, i disagree with letting the law handle it except in extreme circumstances, and i disagree with comparing it with real world death threats. They are still different in nature and - most importantly - different in actual threat level. And finally, they are also much tougher to investigate for the purpose of criminal prosecution.

Naeras said:
Also, if people feel genuinely threatened by a statement you have made -- which, as far as I know, is usually why people press charges when they have received death threats -- and you're claiming that "you were just joking", you've done something horribly wrong and should get the fuck off the internet.
You're just underlining the point i made: that it's pretty much impossible to tell sarcasm on the internet. And it's also pretty much impossible for outsiders to tell the actual context.
You realize that I'm specifically differentiating between random 'death threats' because of, say, getting beaten in DotA, and sending people e-mails where they're specifically telling you that they're going to kill you, right? Because you're still arguing about those kinds of 'threats' that I specifically pointed out that I wasn't talking about in the first place. Considering that the OP started with saying "There's been a spate of high profile threats here in the UK, mainly against women in the public eye, based on some controversy about who should go an our banknotes. And there's a topic about a Bioware writer who apparently quit over threats to her family, so this seems topical.", I didn't assume these people got threatened by playing games over the internet.

If you make a death threat towards someone, and that person genuinely feels threatened by it and charges you for it, it doesn't matter whether or not it's over the internet, it's still a death threat. And here's where the context actually starts mattering. Can people get so scared by random death threats yelled by a 13 year old kid in a Call of Duty-match that they're going to charge him? Probably not. Can people get so scared by death threats written specifically to them as a response to a blog post on a political subject, that they feel the need to charge the sender? That's a resounding 'yes'. People have every right to charge the person threatening them in the latter case. The fact that "it was over the internet" doesn't change that.
 

Subscriptism

New member
May 5, 2012
256
0
0
They shouldn't go to jail unless there is evidence of them taking steps beyond the words but every computer should be installed with a "punch this ****" button, which punches the **** on the other end.
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
Naeras said:
You realize that I'm specifically differentiating between random 'death threats' because of, say, getting beaten in DotA, and sending people e-mails where they're specifically telling you that they're going to kill you, right? Because you're still arguing about those kinds of 'threats' that I specifically pointed out that I wasn't talking about in the first place. Considering that the OP started with saying "There's been a spate of high profile threats here in the UK, mainly against women in the public eye, based on some controversy about who should go an our banknotes. And there's a topic about a Bioware writer who apparently quit over threats to her family, so this seems topical.", I didn't assume these people got threatened by playing games over the internet.

If you make a death threat towards someone, and that person genuinely feels threatened by it and charges you for it, it doesn't matter whether or not it's over the internet, it's still a death threat. And here's where the context actually starts mattering. Can people get so scared by random death threats yelled by a 13 year old kid in a Call of Duty-match that they're going to charge him? Probably not. Can people get so scared by death threats written specifically to them as a response to a blog post on a political subject, that they feel the need to charge the sender? That's a resounding 'yes'. People have every right to charge the person threatening them in the latter case. The fact that "it was over the internet" doesn't change that.
Then there is not much we disagree on, with the exception of this example from your earlier post.
There's a big difference between writing "someone should kill person X" on a random webforum.
(...)
Neither scenario is really acceptable
Various ways to let off steam, and saying indirectly that you wish someone would 'Go die in a fire' is perfectly acceptable in my eyes. I wish several people in this world (terrorists for example) would go die in a fire, and while i don't wish some other people would die, i do wish they would - to put it mildly - f*** off (which i sometimes express with the words 'go die in a fire' or 'take a bullet', but don't actually believe should die) in order to make the world a better place :)
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
Well this is a legal matter not one for your lynch mob, in most countries threats are illegal and the repercussions are really damn serious, however that is only after the severity of the offense has been determined based on testimony and evidence in a court of law, important to stress that lynch mobs have no say in this.
Just because you imagine "lol go die noob" is a comment straight for prison does not make it so, sure is laudable but a serious intent to harm someones is a completely separate matter.

And just to make it abundantly clear this shit has been going on for eons to anyone slightly popular long before internet of computer games even existed.
 

Naeras

New member
Mar 1, 2011
989
0
0
Athinira said:
Naeras said:
You realize that I'm specifically differentiating between random 'death threats' because of, say, getting beaten in DotA, and sending people e-mails where they're specifically telling you that they're going to kill you, right? Because you're still arguing about those kinds of 'threats' that I specifically pointed out that I wasn't talking about in the first place. Considering that the OP started with saying "There's been a spate of high profile threats here in the UK, mainly against women in the public eye, based on some controversy about who should go an our banknotes. And there's a topic about a Bioware writer who apparently quit over threats to her family, so this seems topical.", I didn't assume these people got threatened by playing games over the internet.

If you make a death threat towards someone, and that person genuinely feels threatened by it and charges you for it, it doesn't matter whether or not it's over the internet, it's still a death threat. And here's where the context actually starts mattering. Can people get so scared by random death threats yelled by a 13 year old kid in a Call of Duty-match that they're going to charge him? Probably not. Can people get so scared by death threats written specifically to them as a response to a blog post on a political subject, that they feel the need to charge the sender? That's a resounding 'yes'. People have every right to charge the person threatening them in the latter case. The fact that "it was over the internet" doesn't change that.
Then there is not much we disagree on, with the exception of this example from your earlier post.
There's a big difference between writing "someone should kill person X" on a random webforum.
(...)
Neither scenario is really acceptable
Various ways to let off steam, and saying indirectly that you wish someone would 'Go die in a fire' is perfectly acceptable in my eyes. I wish several people in this world (terrorists for example) would go die in a fire, and while i don't wish some other people would die, i do wish they would - to put it mildly - f*** off (which i sometimes express with the words 'go die in a fire' or 'take a bullet', but don't actually believe should die) in order to make the world a better place :)
Ah, that part was poorly worded by me. When I said "neither scenario is really acceptable", that's more of a "even those mild, nonserious scenarios should not be socially acceptable behavior, internet or not", not "JAILTIME FOR EVERYONE WHO IS BEING A **** ON THE INTERWEBS". =p

That being said, when I'm the ruler of the universe, I will pass a law that will allow you to send killer robots to forum trolls [http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=642].