|
|
Post by LennonPierce on Jan 30, 2018 18:20:15 GMT
@antal I believe is if Anglin wasn't bringing religion into the picture, he would not face consequences. The main problem of this case is using the religious comments to be offensive. If he just said "You suck." No more that that, it would be perceived as just a joke, and no true problem would arrise. But with the use of the offensive pictures related to her religion, it brings a entire new meaning. That was why Anglin would probably not face as much consequences if he didn't use any offensive gestures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malinski on Jan 30, 2018 20:29:37 GMT
@davis I agree with you on the point that imminent could be considered anything that makes someone feel in immediate danger, enough that it makes a person take extra precautions for their safety in their own home. There needs to be another term used to decide how statements are considered illegal, because the word “imminent” is so subjective that it could mean in 1 hour to some people and to others it could mean within the week. So, there needs to be some other way to tell if statements are illegal or not because obviously using the word “imminent” is way too subjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malinski on Jan 30, 2018 20:46:02 GMT
@max I agree with you that the media blew this specific case out of proportion because there is probably other cases where the group has threatened a person and have done some of the same things that they have done to Gersh, and that person just didn’t take it seriously. And I also agree that the group’s threats did cross the line of being protected by the first amendment, because once someone feels as if they are in any kind of danger because of threats being made to them, then that is intentional harassment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulneix on Jan 30, 2018 21:57:04 GMT
@cole Helzlsouer
So far in this case no crime has been persecuted so no crime has been determined to have been committed therefore there is no need for a punishment, but if there is a punishment needed for the people leaving the messages then what they have done would have to be made a crime and there actions are not severe enough to be a crime. so in short no there should be no defined punishment for the people who think its okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulneix on Jan 30, 2018 22:06:18 GMT
@lennon Pierce
There is no effective and easy solution to stop people who feel less empathy due to the barrier that is the internet and physical distance between them and there target. The only effective solution is not a good one and it is one where people are more restricted on what they can say before the police can show at there door.
|
|
|
|
Post by burnett on Jan 30, 2018 23:36:56 GMT
@alex
I agree what you’re saying. Having free speech can difficult to where you draw the line. If someone is getting these threats and having their kids get threatened then you need to stop it. There needs to be a set punishment for people online threatening and “cyber bullying.” No one should have to come to the point where they have to change their phone number or even delete social media where the threats were started. Align did not tell his followers to threaten her, he only said express your feelings, so should he get in trouble or the followers?
|
|
|
|
Post by burnett on Jan 30, 2018 23:37:40 GMT
@lindey
I totally agree with what you’re saying. No one should have to go through that. To ge to the point where you have to change what you normally do to feel somewhat protected. The trolls on the internet needs to be stopped and have a great punishment so they know not to do this stuff again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dorrier on Jan 31, 2018 0:22:20 GMT
@micheal Dudich
I agree with what you're saying, when private information is leaked then your first amendment rights should no longer be protected. I do think that online threats are dealt with differently than public threats because there isn't a direct threat that is happening at that time. Also most people think they can hide behind a screen and say whatever they want online so many of the threats that are made online aren't taken as seriously. Threats that are made online should be taken more seriously, however it isn't possible to take every single threat very seriously so unfortunately not much is going to change simply because not much is able to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dorrier on Jan 31, 2018 0:54:00 GMT
@lennon Pierce
I agree with you and something definitely needs to change, however I don't think anything will be able to change. It is impossible to take every single threat that is online seriously and if only a few people had consequences for online treats, then that's not equal either. So unfortunately nothing is going to change because it is impossible to change and still make it equal for everyone.
|
|
Michael James Dudich XXVI
Guest
|
Post by Michael James Dudich XXVI on Jan 31, 2018 2:03:48 GMT
@lindey
You pose the question, "Why are people wanting to hurt the lives of an individual in order to protect what they think is right?". The reason so many people are hurting the lives of other individuals is that they don't agree with them and they don't share the same opinion. Secondly it is online, I can bet you almost half of these people would never say these things to her or her family face. People need to learn to set aside opinions and learn to live with each other, otherwise we cant progress as a society.
|
|
Michael James Dudich XXVI
Guest
|
Post by Michael James Dudich XXVI on Jan 31, 2018 2:08:01 GMT
@everyone
Should internet threats and harassment be treated differently than real life ones? If so how should we treat the internet compared to the real world?
|
|
Michael James Dudich XXVI
Guest
|
Post by Michael James Dudich XXVI on Jan 31, 2018 2:14:51 GMT
@hinchberger
You ask the question, "Do you think Mr. Anglins should be held accountable for life threatening terroristic threats?". I would have to say no, unfortunately people look for someone to blame for all of this and even though he may have started it he explicitly asks not to harass and intimate these people. Also because he himself is not actually making these threats I don't think you can hold him accountable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Pierce on Jan 31, 2018 2:58:18 GMT
@mulneix
If a judge ruled against the popular opinion then I think it might escalate to a higher court, and possibly have a nation wide ruling if it goes through multiple smaller courts. In regards to preventing harassment I don't think that a large state such as the USA can without restricting freedom simply because there are so many beliefs inside this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Pierce on Jan 31, 2018 3:09:29 GMT
@t. Donaldson
I believe that a death threat is an imminent threat so it should not be protected be the first amendment. If Anglin were to lose then I think that people that don't already know not to make threats would soon find out that they cant just go around like a twelve year old on Xbox live- as in threating everyone that opposes their views.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fowler on Jan 31, 2018 3:43:01 GMT
@micheal Dudich,
I really like your question, "Should internet threats and harassment be treated differently than real life ones? If so how should we treat the internet compared to the real world?", and it is a very hard one to answer. Threats on the internet, despite it becoming more and more of a public forum, just seem less offensive than those in person. It feels meaningless on both sides, the antagonizer and the victim both don't feel the harshness that there is face to face. Despite being easier to prove, with textual evidence, threats on the internet are harder to deem credible and are very rarely taken to a legal dispute. I think that with the sheer number of threats on the internet, they should be treated differently, and should not be punished as harshly as real life threats. They typically cause less emotional harm, and are harder to deem "imminent" unless specifically stated.
|
|
