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

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
Twenty Ninjas said:
Yeah something should be done about it, alright. People should stop taking them seriously and giving them attention.
When do we draw the line, though? As was asked before - what's the difference between sending a note, using phone, or the Internet? It's illegal in the other cases, what makes the Internet not serious?
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
McKinsey said:
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.
So sending threatening letters in the mail is fine? After all, you could just choose not to open your mail.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
Strain42 said:
MeChaNiZ3D said:
So if I were to look up the phone number for a random Burger King in say...Dinosaur, Colorado, a town I have never been to, will probably never go to, and is almost 2,000 miles away from me, and then call that number to inform whoever answers the phone that I want nothing more in life than to slit their throat and use that wound as a ketchup packet for some of their sweet potato fries before chucking their body into a sewer...That's totally okay and the person shouldn't think anything of it because there's no reasonable chance I'd ever be able to carry it out?

Death threats are a serious thing, and even over the net they should be treated the exact same way as face to face, over the phone, or through letters. I mean hell, it's already illegal through letters, isn't an e-mail literally an electronic letter? Why should it be any different?

The problem is we seem to be living in a society where death threats have become a standard form of comeback, or ways to express displeasure, especially over the internet, and because it's so common we have people with the attitude of "Eh, it's harmless."

Yeah, I guarantee that 99% or more of death threats made over the internet come from people who have no intention of acting on them and probably are just blowing off steam.

But we shouldn't have to try and figure out which ones are which. I dunno what the appropriate punishment should be for something like this, but I guarantee you that if there was any punishment we'd probably have a lot less death threats floating around the net, and I just can't understand why anyone would consider that a negative thing.
I think the first step towards making a judgment of how serious a threat is is the barrier to entry of information and effort. Phone and letter death threats are a bit more serious than face-to-face and internet death threats because your phone number and address take more effort to find out than seeing you in the street or finding your email address, and of the four, internet death threats are significantly more trivial because they require the least effort and information, unless your email address is confidential.

Secondly, it's not really about the results, it's about the principle. I would rather people be able to send empty death threats over the internet than give up casual use of "I'm going to kill you". Your argument of desensitisation falls on the deaf ears of one who thinks desensitisation as a concept is generally just a way to try and say something is more severe or hurtful than it is.

Last thing: If someone came up to you in the street, who you had never seen before and had no possible connections with, and threatened to kill you and your family and eat the corpses, how seriously would you take them?
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
Strain42 said:
MeChaNiZ3D said:
So if I were to look up the phone number for a random Burger King in say...Dinosaur, Colorado, a town I have never been to, will probably never go to, and is almost 2,000 miles away from me, and then call that number to inform whoever answers the phone that I want nothing more in life than to slit their throat and use that wound as a ketchup packet for some of their sweet potato fries before chucking their body into a sewer...That's totally okay and the person shouldn't think anything of it because there's no reasonable chance I'd ever be able to carry it out?

Death threats are a serious thing, and even over the net they should be treated the exact same way as face to face, over the phone, or through letters. I mean hell, it's already illegal through letters, isn't an e-mail literally an electronic letter? Why should it be any different?

The problem is we seem to be living in a society where death threats have become a standard form of comeback, or ways to express displeasure, especially over the internet, and because it's so common we have people with the attitude of "Eh, it's harmless."

Yeah, I guarantee that 99% or more of death threats made over the internet come from people who have no intention of acting on them and probably are just blowing off steam.

But we shouldn't have to try and figure out which ones are which. I dunno what the appropriate punishment should be for something like this, but I guarantee you that if there was any punishment we'd probably have a lot less death threats floating around the net, and I just can't understand why anyone would consider that a negative thing.
I think the first step towards making a judgment of how serious a threat is is the barrier to entry of information and effort. Phone and letter death threats are a bit more serious than face-to-face and internet death threats because your phone number and address take more effort to find out than seeing you in the street or finding your email address, and of the four, internet death threats are significantly more trivial because they require the least effort and information, unless your email address is confidential.

Secondly, it's not really about the results, it's about the principle. I would rather people be able to send empty death threats over the internet than give up casual use of "I'm going to kill you". Your argument of desensitisation falls on the deaf ears of one who thinks desensitisation as a concept is generally just a way to try and say something is more severe or hurtful than it is.

Last thing: If someone came up to you in the street, who you had never seen before and had no possible connections with, and threatened to kill you and your family and eat the corpses, how seriously would you take them?
 

Caiphus

Social Office Corridor
Mar 31, 2010
1,181
0
0
MeChaNiZ3D said:
Last thing: If someone came up to you in the street, who you had never seen before and had no possible connections with, and threatened to kill you and your family and eat the corpses, how seriously would you take them?
I'd just like to jump in and say that I would be perfectly happy for people who did something like this to be questioned heavily by the police and put in jail for the night. If someone goes up to you and threatens you like this, you have no idea if he's joking or if he is legitimately crazy. He could have followed you home, how can you know? I don't think I'm being paranoid by saying that. Feel free to stop me if I am. I'd be pretty damn scared though.

Now, on the internet, of course it's much more unlikely that anyone is going to act on death threats. It's still not cricket, and something should be done about it. I'm more of the opinion that the actual websites should be taking it into their hands. And they tend to, I know the escapist wouldn't let that stuff happen. And that works pretty well.


OT: No, sending kids to jail for sending death threats online isn't the way to go. If not for lack of police resources I might be happy with the police visiting the kids and telling the parents, but I dunno. It really is endemic to certain internet communities. Ideally, parents should know about it and they should sort it out, not the police.
 

Kungfusam

New member
Jun 26, 2013
45
0
0
Death threats sent online are illegal and you can be arrested and charged for them

Fact is most people will get threats online, the only reason we now care is because some have chosen to take them seriously and while I'm happy to see online psychopaths get arrested I'm not going to pretend their a serious threat

Also be nice if people STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS
 

w9496

New member
Jun 28, 2011
691
0
0
Just track them down and have a friendly chat with the local police? That could work. Most internet dwellers are going piss themselves when they realize that they can't hide behind their monitors their whole lives.

Might be difficult to track them down though. The internet is kind of huge at this point.
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
Eacaraxe said:
Is it legal over the phone, where it can be done with an equal amount of anonymity between public phone use, phreaking, and/or spoofing? How about mail, is it legal there? How about in person, is it legal to threaten to kill someone in person? If "no", then it shouldn't be bloody legal online, now should it.

The internet is not a privileged venue of telecommunications, where keyboard use is not some magical barrier from investigation, prosecution, and even conviction.
My thoughts exactly.

And I really don't like the argument that people are just dicks on the internet, that this is somehow normal, and we - and the people subjected to threats or other abuse - should just have to learn to live with it.
It might be difficult to change the sorry state of play, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try.
 

Iggy Rufflebar

Senior Member
Mar 26, 2008
184
0
21
Kungfusam said:
the only reason we now care is because some have chosen to take them seriously

Also be nice if people STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS
Totally this.

although, it's not because people are just now taking them seriously, it's because the normal population has now started using the web and arn't obeying the social rules, there needs to be some pamphlet or a mandatory introductory video people have to read/watch before they can use the internet.

Like people visiting the middle east: "Women, make sure you wear suitable clothing or you'll get attacked"

"People, if someone threatens you on a message board ignore and delete the message"
 

nuttshell

New member
Aug 11, 2013
201
0
0
Be very careful about what you wish for in this regard. This is no question that should be answered lightly without clearly framing limitations and dependencies. Treasure the little freedoms you have left.
 

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
Iggy Rufflebar said:
there needs to be some pamphlet or a mandatory introductory video people have to read/watch before they can use the internet.
See, you say that but then

Iggy Rufflebar said:
"People, if someone threatens you on a message board ignore and delete the message"
Did you read the OP before posting? It's not about random message in a random part of the internet where a random person who may or may not know you may or may not be serious. The OP is talking about death threats against public figures or otherwise people using social media (you know, where most aren't anonymous). Tell me, how is it different if the receiver is told over phone or a text message as opposed to something they get over Facebook? They both show that the issuer of the threat knows the receiver. So again I ask, why should that be treated differently than other death threats?
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
A death threat delivered over the internet is no less illegal than one spoken to your face, over the phone or wrapped around a brick thrown through your window. It shouldn't have anything to do with whether the victim wishes to press charges or not, these crimes should be pursued.
 

Bellvedere

New member
Jul 31, 2008
794
0
0
I think suitably large fines are warranted.

I imagine among the guilty are plenty of stupid kids or stupid young adults in some moron stage of life that they'll grow out of. Jail is a bit of an extreme solution that could create unnecessary serious problems for these folk.

I guess in cases of repeat offenders maybe, but locking up a 19 year old is going to do more harm than good.
 

Bruce

New member
Jun 15, 2013
276
0
0
Abso-fucking-lutely.

It is a crime in just about every other medium and there are no countries with free speech rights so broad as to not exclude death threats, because by their nature they undermine free speech.

As to the manpower issue, if the CIA can spy on the entire population of Germany just in case somebody says something about bombs, then policing these threats shouldn't be such a huge problem.
 

CrimsonBlaze

New member
Aug 29, 2011
2,252
0
0
Regardless of the degree of the threat, something has to be done to tone down the incessant death threats across the internet and social media.

Regardless of the intended target (be they a politician, game designer, school, or family residence), these threats should be taken seriously and they are not going to stop unless they scare these idiots by showing them that making threats, regardless of how idle they may seem, are serious offenses and that there will be serious consequences.

No one should have to feel scared or threatened with death threats because of what they do, who they are, or what they believe in, simple as that; and if some people have to go to jail to prove a point, I say 'go for it'.
 

ArnRand

New member
Mar 29, 2012
180
0
0
Ickorus said:
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.
When did I say it's only happening to women? I was just pointing out an indecent that was in the news recently. This reminds me of social justice guys getting mad because people say male and female but not bi-gender or whatever.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
I'm not entirely sure I agree. There should definitely not be a special law just for threats over the internet, but whatever law would have applied had you said the things in person should be applicable.
 

Flaery

Ghetto Trash
Dec 23, 2012
116
0
0
I pretty much agree with you. To me it doesn't matter if they're joking or "trolling", shit like that makes them total scum and they deserve some sort of reprimand. You can talk about "freedom of speech" all you like but no law should be taken with a black-and-white mindset, there should be exceptions and this is one of them.