Support NeoGAF

[orochi91]

Most people simply aren't well versed in terminology associated with online crime.

Online bullying, for instance, usually results in people asking: "why can't you just close the computer?"

Or something to that effect.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I dunno, my job is completely reliant on the internet but I don't spend all my free time online. I don't understand how people feel that facebook and twitter is some constitutionally protected right or that they can't survive without it. It might be healthy for those who can't go an hour without checking Facebook to take a nice long break and discover life without telling everyone on social media how they feel or what they're doing. It can't be healthy mentally to be so dependent on likes and retweets for happiness and fulfillment. If your livelihood is causing you so much grief it may be time to think about changing things up. life is to short to be miserable.

If you're a software engineer, your dependency on the Internet is completely different than an alone working indie dev's dependency on it.

And you really might wanna think about labeling it as "dependency on likes and retweets for happiness and fulfillment" too. Like seriously no offense, but what the fuck is that shit? Maybe I misunderstand you in some way, but it seems that's what you're labeling it here.

 

[23qwerty]

I wasn't aware I had to pay a fine everytime I forget my bag or something. Huh.

yeah totes the same thing as threatening to rape someone

I'm out, I'm glad we could talk about this without resorting to strawman arguments you guys...

You don't say....

 

[GamerJM]

Aside from all of the bullshit with law enforcement failing Quinn, I will say that I think Quinn's perspective on Gjoni is super admirable. She says that part of the reason she dropped the charge is because even if it did go through, the American legal/jail system emphasizes revenge over rehabilitation (dunno if it said this in that particular article but she said that when she talked about this on her blog IIRC). She doesn't want revenge on Gjoni, she wants him to have rehabilitation. I just think that's really incredible, that someone could see someone in the light like that even after she's gone through immeasurable amounts of harassment he's responsible for.

 

[jokebreath]

Maybe because none of that matters?

It's not "twitter" and it's not "online mobs". Both those things are virtual names that serve no practical purpose and that people won't understand because they make NO sense.

This is a problem of individuals sending various forms of threats through anonymous channels online.

What's hard to understand about that? Why the law cannot do something about that?

There's absolutely nothing that makes these matters "special" because they are "on the internet". You can send anonymous threats even without the internet. The law is supposed to do something about that.

I think this is a great point. This issue shouldn't need contextualization. It's harassment, plain and simple. A death threat is a death threat is a death threat. Focusing on jargon like "doxing" and relegating the offense to a relatively new form of communication like Twitter and a small online community is obscuring the problem.

 

[duckroll]

Claiming you are just "doing something stupid" is not a defence nor does it make it true. People have a personal responsibility to operate within a social construct. If the part of society they are in deems that such an act is unacceptable, and they continue partaking in it, there should be consequences. That's how the world works. This isn't some abstract argument about freedom of expression.

Anyone who is proud to express that they want to "rape that bitch" or whatever, anywhere, is not an acceptable member of society unless they are reformed.

 

[Gormenghast]

I don't understand how people feel that facebook and twitter is some constitutionally protected right or that they can't survive without it.

What the hell:

1- A threat is a threat and the law has to deal with it regardless if it's done in person, a phone call in the night, a mail, an e-mail or a twitter message. There's no damn difference about how that threat is delivered.

2- Even if using Facebook isn't a fundamental right, I don't see why other people have to comment and share their opinion on what someone else decides to use. Why is your problem if she decides to use twitter? And why shouldn't she be able to?

This whole thing went downhill because everyone enjoys to make it into some special INTERNET CASE.

It's not.

It's about personal threats. Regardless how these threats are delivered. There should be very clear laws that regulate this thing about threats. And these laws should simply COMPLETELY IGNORE if the threats are online, on twitter or whatever else. That's out of discussion. The law is about real people and real world.

 

[dity]

That whole "I'll hunt her down and rape her" part is scary, because even though those people act like shit like that is a "joke" there's still some real sickos out there on the internet that really would do that and you just got to hope that the person making that kind of "joke" isn't said sicko. And then the police don't care unless you do get raped...

 

[Zepp Twofist]

It's absolutely the worst that they do not understand this concept though we're living in the 21st century where everything is connected to the internet. Where people are spending most of their lives every day from their phones to computers.

I don't think I know a single person in real life that knows what "doxing" is.

 

[Joey Ravn]

Wait. People are defending, or at least excusing, this behavior? I don't know what to say. I'm honestly speechless.

 

[Sephiroth_VII]

yeah totes the same thing as threatening to rape someone



You don't say....

I used a strawman argument? Where? I'm not the one who argued you should be fined for doing something stupid. I just took that argument to its logical conclusion.

 

[Yoshi]

Dude is a douchebag and his "allegation" has been debunked several times over and to hell and back.

What were his allgeations? I didn't read all of his original posting when it was posted here, but what I remember was him basically saying she was cheating on him multiple times with several people in the industry. I did not take away much from it other than "in his experience she, on a purley personal basis, is a scumbag and a dishonest girlfriend". Did he claim additional things that were debunked or was the sleeping around itself debunked?

 

[Nanashrew]

I'm not sure if this is remotely true for the average person.

In fact, this reads like you're projecting your own Internet habits on to the populace, lol

I probably am. I just get so upset at this stuff tbh.

I don't think I know a single person in real life that knows what "doxing" is.

I don't know many that do either, however many do know what bullying and harassment is.

 

[23qwerty]

I used a strawman argument? Where? I'm not the one who argued you should be fined for doing something stupid. I just took that argument to its logical conclusion.

I suppose you could call it the logical conclusion if you deliberately misinterpret what was said.

 

[dity]

What were his allgeations? I didn't read all of his original posting when it was posted here, but what I remember was him basically saying she was cheating on him multiple times with several people in the industry. I did not take away much from it other than "in his experience she, on a purley personal basis, is a scumbag and a dishonest girlfriend". Did he claim additional things that were debunked or was the sleeping around itself debunked?

I'm pretty sure she didn't actually sleep with all of the 5 men she was accused of sleeping with, and the ones she did have a relationship with she wasn't even that dude's girlfriend at the time.

 

[Tapejara]

I used a strawman argument? Where? I'm not the one who argued you should be fined for doing something stupid. I just took that argument to its logical conclusion.

It should have been obvious Gormenghast wasn't being literal when they said "if you do something stuipd." It clearly meant toxic behaviour like rape/death threats.

 

[Pau]

I make a living off of the internet as a software engineer but I live my life away from the internet. the outdoors is fucking beautiful. it's really not that hard to make friends without Facebook and Twitter. These issuea seem leas like a gaming culture problem and more like a I cant live without social media problem. I'm not making excuses for harassing someone online much less threatening rape so don't misunderstand. I'm sick of this being tied to gamer culture as a whole instead of just losers who can't get off of Facebook and Twitter. I'm guessing those who live outside of the internet aren't involved with this crap.

You can have a healthy life outside of the internet and still be constantly harassed and threatened on it.

The problem isn't that the victims can't stop using social media. The problem is that there are (unfortunately large amounts of) people who think this kind of behavior is okay. Forcing people outside of (even virtual) spaces like this is shitty and we shouldn't accept it.

 

[Nexus Zero]

What in the holy fuck.

I actually agree. it's not that there shouldn't be repercussions for shitbags like this, and I have no idea what they should be. But it's still a matter of free speech and it should be protected, in its entirety, at all costs. We actually prosecute for stuff like this in the UK , "hate speech" isn't protected and that power leads to people doing hard time in prison or being fined for all kinds of stupid shit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Don't be like us.

 

[Dr.Acula]

I just skimmed her blog post, I'm going to read it soon, but just off the top, does anyone know if Quinn's pursuing this in a civil matter now that the criminal complaint has been withdrawn?

I know the burden of proof for a civil case is lower, and from reading that horrible "Five Guys" post -and given how widely is was disseminated- I think she has a real good shot at proving defamation and Libel.

The fact that the guy isn't really repentant is insane. Even if I had been jilted, and posted something online about an ex, if it resulted in years-long criminal harassment by others I would absolutely feel bad.

 

[Gormenghast]

however many do know what bullying and harassment is.

And both have existed for a very long time in the history of humanity.

Why the hell now we have to make a special case about the internet as if we are helpless in front of something we've never seen?

The law should be able to do something about harassment, bullying and threats. The fact they happen on the internet shouldn't change anything and is not the part we should waste time discussing.

 

[23qwerty]

What were his allgeations? I didn't read all of his original posting when it was posted here, but what I remember was him basically saying she was cheating on him multiple times with several people in the industry. I did not take away much from it other than "in his experience she, on a purley personal basis, is a scumbag and a dishonest girlfriend". Did he claim additional things that were debunked or was the sleeping around itself debunked?

he posted a seven-part chronicle of their relationship, complete with annotated chat logs and lurid sexual details, and promoted the links in a series of forums known for their antipathy toward female and progressive game developers. He would later tweet that he suspected “The Zoepost” would provoke harassment but that he chose to publish anyway.

As predicted, the forums quickly latched onto the post — particularly Gjoni’s allegation that Quinn had slept with a writer at a prominent gaming website, presumably to score a good review. Within days, the uproar over “ethics in gaming journalism” had grown from forum chatter to full-blown abuse. Gjoni publicly condemned it, while simultaneously blogging and tweeting that he believed the hell visited on Quinn was deserved. Reached by phone, Gjoni told The Washington Post that, looking back on everything that has happened since, he would still choose to publish “The Zoepost,” minus a joke about Five Guys that morphed into a slut-shaming meme.

The main allegation being she slept with a reviewer for a positive review for her free game, and in actual fact the reviewer did not actually review the game.

 

[dity]

I actually agree. it's not that there shouldn't be repercussions for shitbags like this, and I have no idea what they should be. But it's still a matter of free speech and it should be protected, in its entirety, at all costs. We actually prosecute for stuff like this in the UK , "hate speech" isn't protected and that power leads to people doing hard time in prison or being fined for all kinds of stupid shit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Don't be like us.

"All kinds of stupid shit" like spreading racial, religious, and sexual orientation hatred.

Yeah "stupid shit."

 

[ApharmdX]

Isn't this the expected result? I don't understand how she had a legitimate case for criminal harassment. If Gjoni had been sending her threats, or stalking her online, like the GG mob of trash, absolutely. But posting a tell-all about a failed relationship is grounds for a harassment charge? I've seen plenty of people go to the Internet to blow up their ex's spot. It's immature but common enough, and not illegal unless it's accompanied by revenge porn or threats.

Seems like a really hard case to make in court, that Gjoni posted this stuff with the intent of mobilizing the Internet to make her life hell, or even get her hurt?

It'd be best if this chapter in the saga closed so that we can focus on eliminating or marginalizing misogyny in the gaming community, I think. Some of the allegations against Quinn, particularly the gaslighting, were serious enough that it's hard for me to come down on either side of what was clearly a troubled relationship.

 

[GillianSeed79]

What were his allgeations? I didn't read all of his original posting when it was posted here, but what I remember was him basically saying she was cheating on him multiple times with several people in the industry. I did not take away much from it other than "in his experience she, on a purley personal basis, is a scumbag and a dishonest girlfriend". Did he claim additional things that were debunked or was the sleeping around itself debunked?

The whole "ethics in journalism," thing that Gamer Gate is based on (and which is a smoke screen for misogyny) is based on Gjoni's claim that Quinn slept with a Kotaku writer in exchange for a favorable review of Depression Quest ( a game that is 100 percent free by the way).

This is straight from Kotaku:

On March 31, Nathan published the only Kotaku article he's written involving Zoe Quinn. It was about Game Jam, a failed reality show that Zoe and other developers were upset about being on. At the time, Nathan and Zoe were professional acquaintances. He quoted blog posts written by Zoe and others involved in the show. Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship. He has not written about her since. Nathan never reviewed Zoe Quinn's game Depression Quest, let alone gave it a favorable review.

 

[Nuclear Detergent]

I love how all the arguments for free speach, is made to justify the Gamer Gaters. Quinn has the right to her opponion, and to say it out loud in a public forum. Those who use threats are trying to rob her of that right, to silence her through verbal violence - limit her right to free speach. Thats why making threats of violence is illegal in all but every state on the planet."I will kill you and rape you" is not about free speach. It dosent hold any value in any way, but only helps limit free speach. It is a threat of violence pure and simple and deconstructs everything about civil society.

 

[Gormenghast]

"do something stupid, pay fines", really? I always though it was "deliberately(or through willfully neglect) cause someone harm, pay fines". I wasn't aware I had to pay a fine everytime I forget my bag or something. Huh.

Threatening someone is both deliberate AND harmful.

"Doing something stupid" meant threatening someone on the internet thinking it has no consequences on you. It's stupid but it should be fined because threatening someone can't be part of free speech.

The distinction between free speech and threats IS very obvious. Opinions and intentions to act are very easily distinguishable.

 

[Surface of Me]

I love how all the arguments for free speach, is made to justify the Gamer Gaters. I do not agree with Sarkesian in the least, but she has the right to her opponion, and to say it out loud in a public forum. Those who use threats are trying to rob her of that right, to silence her through verbal violence - limit her right to free speach. Thats why making threats of violence is illegal in all but every state on the planet."I will kill you and rape you" is not about free speach. It dosent hold any value in any way, but only helps limit free speach. It is a threat of violence pure and simple and deconstructs everything about civil society.

The problem is once you allow the government to decide what you can and cannot say, then you will never get it back and you do not know what in the future will be deemed alright.

 

[Zeouterlimits]

Her blog about it is a really painful and upsetting read.
This absolutely sucks.
This fucker, those fuckers, they deserve comeuppance and to be shamed / ashamed.

I ferl really sorry for Quinn, and just about everyone negatively effected by this misogynistic & twisted group.

 

[theangrypirate]

And you really might wanna think about labeling it as "dependency on likes and retweets for happiness and fulfillment" too. Like seriously no offense, but what the fuck is that shit? Maybe I misunderstand you in some way, but it seems that's what you're labeling it here.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I was referring to the comment about people who spend their lives online and all of their social interactions. I do label that as depending on likes and retweets for happiness and fulfillment. Seriously, computers are dope but humans didn't evolve to depend on Facebook for social interactions and being completely reliant on the internet for relationships is sad and unhealthy. Lonely devs working on indie titles, I don't know what to say. Working alone and being reliant on social media as a way to make a living seems depressing to me but I wish them luck. if it's not working out (like if they become depressed due to lack of real social life) it may be worth trying something elae, life is too short to be miserable with career.

What the hell:

1- A threat is a threat and the law has to deal with it regardless if it's done in person, a phone call in the night, a mail, an e-mail or a twitter message. There's no damn difference about how that threat is delivered.

2- Even if using Facebook isn't a fundamental right, I don't see why other people have to comment and share their opinion on what someone else decides to use. Why is your problem if she decides to use twitter? And why shouldn't she be able to?

This whole thing went downhill because everyone enjoys to make it into some special INTERNET CASE.

It's not.

It's about personal threats. Regardless how these threats are delivered. There should be very clear laws that regulate this thing about threats. And these laws should simply COMPLETELY IGNORE if the threats are online, on twitter or whatever else. That's out of discussion. The law is about real people and real world.

it's hard to disagree with you. Asshole trolls should be fined if it causes an investigation and takes police work. I can also see how difficult it would be for law enforcement to investigate every single Twitter/Reddit/4chan threat. It's shitty but its reality. I think it sucks this women feels threatened constantly but how can you distinguish internet trolling from viable threats especially when their are so many? Hopefully legislators will figure something out. I'm glad my livelihood is not dependent on social media. I hope Quinn can find some peace.

 

[Panajev2001a]

What in the holy fuck.

Although that concept portrayed is very disgusting, not everything that upsets people should be illegal. If you want to live in a society where freedom is routinely eroded because it seems to make other things more convenient/it protects the right to be offended and the potential bad things you or other people might do with their freedom then you imagine a society less worth defending than you think. Just IMHO.

 

[justsomeguy]

Please don't try to make it look like I said things I didn't. All I said was that it shouldn't be punishable to make rape threats in a thread on reddit,unless maybe if you did it KNOWING the person you directed then at would at some point read it.

Bolded part certainly wasn't clear in your post. Regardless of whether you known they'll read it or not it's utterly abhorrent, hate speech, encourages / validates others to think that way, and should very much be prosecuted as a crime imo.

 

[Jarate]

The whole "ethics in journalism," thing that Gamer Gate is based on (and which is a smoke screen for misogyny) is based on Gjoni's claim that Quinn slept with a Kotaku writer in exchange for a favorable review of Depression Quest ( a game that is 100 percent free by the way).

This is straight from Kotaku:

iirc I dont think he ever claimed any of that, in fact all of the posts had been, here's stuff showing that Zoe Quinn is kind of a dick. It was mostly other people who connected the dots together and led the forces. He was just mostly a spiteful ex, which in reality, he really didnt do anything that badly other then just air out some dirty laundry.

I dont think this case was dropped because of the reasons she stated, im pretty sure it was lost because she has absolutely no legal precedent and absolutely no chance of ainning a legal battle over anything that the dude did. Im sure she experienced general tech ineptitude from people in the court, but then she's hiring horrible lawyers who arent able to convey whats going on properly.

IDK why she was even going after him tbh.

 

[justsomeguy]

Although that concept portrayed is very disgusting, not everything that upsets people should be illegal. If you want to live in a society where freedom is routinely eroded because it seems to make other things more convenient/it protects the right to be offended and the potential bad things you or other people might do with their freedom then you imagine a society less worth defending than you think. Just IMHO.

Agreed.

But there's a huge difference between offensive and threatening.

Eg I find sephiroph's post offensive and have no wish to read it. However I don't think he should be prosecuted for it.

 

[Gormenghast]

I can also see how difficult it would be for law enforcement to investigate every single Twitter/Reddit/4chan threat. It's shitty but its reality.

When there are cases that go on, and on, and on. Then pragmatism makes it possible.

We aren't talking about every single threat on the internet. We are talking about laws and cases that are brought up when someone really cannot tolerate further.

The moment people see these threats HAVE consequence is the moment they learn to not do them. So the number of cases will go down.

 

[Corronchilejano]

I love how all the arguments for free speach, is made to justify the Gamer Gaters. Quinn has the right to her opponion, and to say it out loud in a public forum. Those who use threats are trying to rob her of that right, to silence her through verbal violence - limit her right to free speach. Thats why making threats of violence is illegal in all but every state on the planet."I will kill you and rape you" is not about free speach. It dosent hold any value in any way, but only helps limit free speach. It is a threat of violence pure and simple and deconstructs everything about civil society.

There's something disturbing about people choosing to fight for their right to harass someone over their right for their lives to remain private.

 

[Messofanego]

"Documents show that law enforcement officials visited the homes of several of Wu’s tormentors, only to conclude that they were underage and leave them with a warning."

Not even surprised.

What's sadder is grown (probably unemployed) men wasting so much of their lifetime into this harassment campaign than something more productive.

 

[Fat4all]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I was referring to the comment about people who spend their lives online and all of their social interactions. I do label that as depending on likes and retweets for happiness and fulfillment. Seriously, computers are dope but humans didn't evolve to depend on Facebook for social interactions and being completely reliant on the internet for relationships is sad and unhealthy. Lonely devs working on indie titles, I don't know what to say. Working alone and being reliant on social media as a way to make a living seems depressing to me but I wish them luck. if it's not working out (like if they become depressed due to lack of real social life) it may be worth trying something elae, life is too short to be miserable with career.

I dunno if you meant it to sound this way, but this seems super pretentious.

I work on a computer all day.
I talk with friends and family over computers all day.
I go home and play games on computers.
I don't feel unfulfilled, or that I'm wasting my life.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The problem is once you allow the government to decide what you can and cannot say, then you will never get it back and you do not know what in the future will be deemed alright.

The problem with giving it all up in the name of nothing to hide means nothing to fear is that inevitably you also lose control of what bad and criminal are. There are very very good intentions behind some of the people here and no I am not defending those people harassing individuals online or offline or condoning their actions.
Even though seeing everything as a binary choice makes life simple and allows you to be busy with so much more important "stuff", life is not a whole "you are either with us or with the enemy" kind of deal and people should be able to separate the two concepts and allow for the wide spectrum of thoughts in between.
You can appreciate freedom of speech as a concept and one of the founding stones of the U.S. of America without being pro GG.

 

[Nanashrew]

And both have existed for a very long time in the history of humanity.

Why the hell now we have to make a special case about the internet as if we are helpless in front of something we've never seen?

The law should be able to do something about harassment, bullying and threats. The fact they happen on the internet shouldn't change anything and is not the part we should waste time discussing.

Because online, we are helpless because no consequence is ever dealt. You ever see someone close to you just start breaking because they're being harassed and stalked online, even making physical threats and saying they'll visit them? Or trying to use that your friends by being under a different name and twist them so that they're against you? I have seen all this. It happened to my cousin, who at the time was a minor being stalked by a 30 year old man and the law didn't help then, and it looks like they still can't or won't now.

 

[Tapejara]

Although that concept portrayed is very disgusting, not everything that upsets people should be illegal. If you want to live in a society where freedom is routinely eroded because it seems to make other things more convenient/it protects the right to be offended and the potential bad things you or other people might do with their freedom then you imagine a society less worth defending than you think. Just IMHO.

The problem here is that you're conflating speech that "upsets people" with threats. We're talking about people who either directly or indirectly told Zoe Quinn that they were going to rape her. We're talking about people who called her house, her family, friends and employers and threatened them. We're talking about people that sent her father photos of her with their ejaculate on them. Surely you see the difference between protecting speech that upsets people and tangible threats?

And this is of course ignoring the countries that have various hate speech laws in place and still manage to be functioning democracies.

 

[hodgy100]

I'm not talking literally about gamers gate or the wording of the constitution. Just the concept of free expression.

Look at effects of censorship in other media; you can't get an unedited Blu-Ray of the original Fantasia because it had scenes that are now seen as racially offensive. Should they sell an edited version? Sure. But original works shouldn't be censored and people should stand up for our rights to expression.

Directly harassing a person is something different altogether.

That isn't censorship though. That's Disney deciding to edit their works to put it in line with today's social standards. It wouldn't be illegal for Disney to republish the original. Though they might get a load of bad PR for it.

Censorship requires the laws involvement, when it doesn't that's the free market ( that so many people that like to cry censorship like to tout) at work.

 

[dity]

Although that concept portrayed is very disgusting, not everything that upsets people should be illegal. If you want to live in a society where freedom is routinely eroded because it seems to make other things more convenient/it protects the right to be offended and the potential bad things you or other people might do with their freedom then you imagine a society less worth defending than you think. Just IMHO.

When your freedom of speech impedes my freedom to exist as a person, we have a problem.

 

[GillianSeed79]

The problem is once you allow the government to decide what you can and cannot say, then you will never get it back and you do not know what in the future will be deemed alright.

The issue is that people think freedom of speech is this sacrosanct right that means you can say whatever the fuck you want. The truth of the matter is just like you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, use words to incite a riot, or threaten harm to the president, you can't threaten physical violence on another person. Don't believe me? Next time you are in public and see a police officer, threaten to kill or rape the person next to you. You will be arrested for assault. The only difference here is that the threats are being made online. Hell they are calling her family on the phone and sending them threatening shit too.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

I love how all the arguments for free speach, is made to justify the Gamer Gaters. Quinn has the right to her opponion, and to say it out loud in a public forum. Those who use threats are trying to rob her of that right, to silence her through verbal violence - limit her right to free speach. Thats why making threats of violence is illegal in all but every state on the planet."I will kill you and rape you" is not about free speach. It dosent hold any value in any way, but only helps limit free speach. It is a threat of violence pure and simple and deconstructs everything about civil society.

Not all the arguments for free speech justify gamergaters. That is also an incredibly broad statement to make, "..justify the gamergaters". Of course threatening someone with murder and rape is illegal. No one is saying it isn't. No one is saying free speech protects that speech. But freedom of speech does protect some speech concerned.

 

[Rembrandt]

I don't know a ton about this case but honestly it's kind of ridiculous that on twitter you can get away with death threats and other threats of violence with no repercussions. If it was on facebook they'd be locked up.

See Justin Carter - http://kotaku.com/jailed-league-of-legends-player-it-s-been-blown-out-o-754179072

^Made a facebook threat, went to jail (prison?) for several months, was harassed and assaulted and had to be put in a cell away from other prisoners. I'm not saying he got the treatment he deserves but I bet he'll never make another comment like that again on the internet. He finally got bail when an anonymous person bailed him out for $500k. He's still fighting the case right now.

Why do these other people that make constant threats against others on the net have immunity?

I wouldn't use that case to support your point.

 

[Panajev2001a]

There's something disturbing about people choosing to fight for their right to harass someone over their right for their lives to remain private.

i believe in the concept of freedom stopping where someone else's starts, but I also believe that something good thoughts can lead to impractical, unwieldy, and ultimately morph in systems which are unjust and uncontrollable.

This is what I have issues with sometimes in the U.S., people love thinking about the land of the free (and compared to many countries it is, it really is), but then again being so afraid of how that freedom could be used and secretly wishing it could be curtailed... There is almost this thought of "if only the good proper people had rights" sometimes... but then who defines who the good and proper citizens are?

 

[Zeouterlimits]

I dont think this case was dropped because of the reasons she stated, im pretty sure it was lost because she has absolutely no legal precedent and absolutely no chance of ainning a legal battle over anything that the dude did. Im sure she experienced general tech ineptitude from people in the court, but then she's hiring horrible lawyers who arent able to convey whats going on properly.

IDK why she was even going after him tbh.

Ah, so she's a liar and at fault?

 

[theangrypirate]

You can have a healthy life outside of the internet and still be constantly harassed and threatened on it.

The problem isn't that the victims can't stop using social media. The problem is that there are (unfortunately large amounts of) people who think this kind of behavior is okay. Forcing people outside of (even virtual) spaces like this is shitty and we shouldn't accept it.

I agree excluding people is shitty. The threats are not okay and people should shouldn't accept it. the reality is that it takes time and resources to investigate online harassmentjust as it takes time and resources to stop criminals from selling heroin or burglaring homes. Threats have to be prioritized in order to deal with them and unfortunately for victims of online harrasment, tumblr and 4chan threats aren't seen as a priority because a negligable amount of them are actual real threats. I'm not saying it's just, but there aren't enough resources to track down every internet threat when there are actual violent crimes being committed on the streets. Inner city cops often ignore DUIs and weed crimes because they are too busy dealing with gang violence. I imagine the courts are looking at this through the same lense. I'm not saying it's just and I don't think anyone deserves to be harrased in the manner Quinn has been but I understand why there isn't a lot that can be done about it.

 

[Gormenghast]

Because online, we are helpless because no consequence is ever dealt. You ever see someone close to you just start breaking because they're being harassed and stalked online, even making physical threats and saying they'll visit them? Or trying to use that your friends by being under a different name and twist them so that they're against you? I have seen all this. It happened to my cousin, who at the time was a minor being stalked by a 30 year old man and the law didn't help then, and it looks like they still can't or won't now.

No, I don't understand why "online" makes a special case.

People could send anonymous threats even without the internet. Once again, there's nothing about these problems that needs some kind of special treatment because it's online.

If we can do something about anonymous threats in the real world, then we should be able to do just the same about anonymous threats on the internet.

 

[thesonovabeach]

No it isn't what the fuck

You do not understand that when people are sad they do dumb things ? Because it happens all the time.