Justices weigh limits of free speech over Internet

[A Perez]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

Can you give us a link to that legal standard?

Criminal Harassment Definition

http://www.ncsl.org/research/teleco...y/cyberstalking-and-cyberharassment-laws.aspx

Two problems with your link: First, Elonis was not convicted of cyberharassment or cyberstalking. He was convicted of threats to injure.
Secondly, even the irrelevant crimes in your link don't say the legal standard is whether the victim feels this or that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

Can you give us a link to that legal standard?

Criminal Harassment Definition

http://www.ncsl.org/research/teleco...y/cyberstalking-and-cyberharassment-laws.aspx

Two problems with your link: First, Elonis was not convicted of cyberharassment or cyberstalking. He was convicted of threats to injure.
Secondly, even the irrelevant crimes in your link don't say the legal standard is whether the victim feels this or that.

which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress,

 

[A Perez]

You

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

Can you give us a link to that legal standard?

Criminal Harassment Definition

http://www.ncsl.org/research/teleco...y/cyberstalking-and-cyberharassment-laws.aspx

Two problems with your link: First, Elonis was not convicted of cyberharassment or cyberstalking. He was convicted of threats to injure.
Secondly, even the irrelevant crimes in your link don't say the legal standard is whether the victim feels this or that.

which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress,

You simply said that if a victim said she feels threatened, that was it. You didn't mention the "reasonable person" condition.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

I would think you'd have to have the ability to actually find the person before you'd ever get convicted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

I would think you'd have to have the ability to actually find the person before you'd ever get convicted.

That is what subpoena's and IP addresses will do. All it takes is a subpoena to the site hosting the threat to obtain the IP address and then another to the internet provider of that IP address and the culprit will be identified.

It is an illusion to believe that you are anonymous on the internet. And don't believe that you can just some free WiFi source either. The FBI has the means to locate and identify someone trying to hide their IP address in that manner too.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

I would think you'd have to have the ability to actually find the person before you'd ever get convicted.

That is what subpoena's and IP addresses will do. All it takes is a subpoena to the site hosting the threat to obtain the IP address and then another to the internet provider of that IP address and the culprit will be identified.

It is an illusion to believe that you are anonymous on the internet. And don't believe that you can just some free WiFi source either. The FBI has the means to locate and identify someone trying to hide their IP address in that manner too.

You missed my point. I would have to think that they would take into account YOUR ability to find the person you threatened.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

I would think you'd have to have the ability to actually find the person before you'd ever get convicted.

That is what subpoena's and IP addresses will do. All it takes is a subpoena to the site hosting the threat to obtain the IP address and then another to the internet provider of that IP address and the culprit will be identified.

It is an illusion to believe that you are anonymous on the internet. And don't believe that you can just some free WiFi source either. The FBI has the means to locate and identify someone trying to hide their IP address in that manner too.

You missed my point. I would have to think that they would take into account YOUR ability to find the person you threatened.

Nothing stopping you from hiring a lawyer to file those subpoenas on your behalf and locate the culprit if that it what you want to do. You don't need to be in law enforcement to make that happen.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

I would think you'd have to have the ability to actually find the person before you'd ever get convicted.

That is what subpoena's and IP addresses will do. All it takes is a subpoena to the site hosting the threat to obtain the IP address and then another to the internet provider of that IP address and the culprit will be identified.

It is an illusion to believe that you are anonymous on the internet. And don't believe that you can just some free WiFi source either. The FBI has the means to locate and identify someone trying to hide their IP address in that manner too.

You missed my point. I would have to think that they would take into account YOUR ability to find the person you threatened.

Nothing stopping you from hiring a lawyer to file those subpoenas on your behalf and locate the culprit if that it what you want to do. You don't need to be in law enforcement to make that happen.

Okay once more.
I would think the cops would take into account the ability of the person who made the threats ability to actually carry it out.
In other words are they capable of actually finding that person to carry out the threat?
I mean I dont know how difficult that would be but I know I'm not capable of it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

I would think you'd have to have the ability to actually find the person before you'd ever get convicted.

That is what subpoena's and IP addresses will do. All it takes is a subpoena to the site hosting the threat to obtain the IP address and then another to the internet provider of that IP address and the culprit will be identified.

It is an illusion to believe that you are anonymous on the internet. And don't believe that you can just some free WiFi source either. The FBI has the means to locate and identify someone trying to hide their IP address in that manner too.

You missed my point. I would have to think that they would take into account YOUR ability to find the person you threatened.

Nothing stopping you from hiring a lawyer to file those subpoenas on your behalf and locate the culprit if that it what you want to do. You don't need to be in law enforcement to make that happen.

Okay once more.
I would think the cops would take into account the ability of the person who made the threats ability to actually carry it out.
In other words are they capable of actually finding that person to carry out the threat?
I mean I dont know how difficult that would be but I know I'm not capable of it.

The ability to carry out a threat is irrelevant. Making the threat is the crime that can be prosecuted. It is up to the investigating officer to decide how to proceed once they find the culprit. If they believe that only a warning is warranted that is what they will do and it will be documented that they issued a warning. Should the threats continue charges will be filed. If they believe that the person does pose an actual risk they will bring charges.

That is how the system works.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I would think you'd have to have the ability to actually find the person before you'd ever get convicted.

That is what subpoena's and IP addresses will do. All it takes is a subpoena to the site hosting the threat to obtain the IP address and then another to the internet provider of that IP address and the culprit will be identified.

It is an illusion to believe that you are anonymous on the internet. And don't believe that you can just some free WiFi source either. The FBI has the means to locate and identify someone trying to hide their IP address in that manner too.

You missed my point. I would have to think that they would take into account YOUR ability to find the person you threatened.

Nothing stopping you from hiring a lawyer to file those subpoenas on your behalf and locate the culprit if that it what you want to do. You don't need to be in law enforcement to make that happen.

Okay once more.
I would think the cops would take into account the ability of the person who made the threats ability to actually carry it out.
In other words are they capable of actually finding that person to carry out the threat?
I mean I dont know how difficult that would be but I know I'm not capable of it.

The ability to carry out a threat is irrelevant. Making the threat is the crime that can be prosecuted. It is up to the investigating officer to decide how to proceed once they find the culprit. If they believe that only a warning is warranted that is what they will do and it will be documented that they issued a warning. Should the threats continue charges will be filed. If they believe that the person does pose an actual risk they will bring charges.

That is how the system works.

So if a paraplegic threatens to beat me to death it's off to the pokey for him?

 

[Derideo_Te]

That is what subpoena's and IP addresses will do. All it takes is a subpoena to the site hosting the threat to obtain the IP address and then another to the internet provider of that IP address and the culprit will be identified.

It is an illusion to believe that you are anonymous on the internet. And don't believe that you can just some free WiFi source either. The FBI has the means to locate and identify someone trying to hide their IP address in that manner too.

You missed my point. I would have to think that they would take into account YOUR ability to find the person you threatened.

Nothing stopping you from hiring a lawyer to file those subpoenas on your behalf and locate the culprit if that it what you want to do. You don't need to be in law enforcement to make that happen.

Okay once more.
I would think the cops would take into account the ability of the person who made the threats ability to actually carry it out.
In other words are they capable of actually finding that person to carry out the threat?
I mean I dont know how difficult that would be but I know I'm not capable of it.

The ability to carry out a threat is irrelevant. Making the threat is the crime that can be prosecuted. It is up to the investigating officer to decide how to proceed once they find the culprit. If they believe that only a warning is warranted that is what they will do and it will be documented that they issued a warning. Should the threats continue charges will be filed. If they believe that the person does pose an actual risk they will bring charges.

That is how the system works.

So if a paraplegic threatens to beat me to death it's off to the pokey for him?

If the authorities believe he has the means to carry out that threat (e.g. hire someone) then they would take it seriously. Otherwise they would give him a warning and tell him that he could face charges if he persisted. If he did persist then it would be up to a judge to determine what would be the appropriate level of punishment assuming that he was found guilty.

Make no mistake that there are people who do make threats via the internet and they are caught and prosecuted.

Criminal Liability in Cyberspace

 

[whitehall]

Of course it's against the law to threaten to kill someone over the phone, in the newspaper, on a freaking wall or over the internet if the intended victim can prove that the threat has been made. Why do people think the internet doesn't have the same free speech restraints as the phone or the newspaper or a inter office memo or a freaking hand written letter?