As a father myself, this kind of behaviour makes me sick and I cannot understand people who feel they need to defend these kinds of sick comments.
Although many of these tweets clearly cross the line of tastelessness, how many sexual jokes/innuendos are less obvious and more controversial about whether they are tasteless? We don't need to criminalize this. Nobody's rights are being violated, in my opinion. We shouldn't be using the criminal system unless there is a clear threat of violence, not just some internet trolls trying to get a reaction out of a celebrity....
However, even if you would not feel differently, I don't think all of the people who said what they did would even have the nerve to say those things in person. The internet creates this imbalance where the effect of actions is felt much more by the recipient than the actor. This, at least, is not a good thing, and a slightly different context than a comedian making a tasteless joke.
How is she to know or understand that they're not next door, or down the street?
"Teach me your knuckleball technique so I can fist your daughter"
You really think this is a creditable threat of violence and not someone trying to make a very, very, very poor taste joke? There are very few tweets I would even consider threats, most were just scumbags trying to get some twitter fame by making terrible baseball sexual innuendos.
There are other ones like "Kurt bleeds more from his sock than gaby does when shes on her period" that in no way could even be construed as a threat, but I feel they are getting lumped into the same category, simply because they are distasteful.
The one thing which I would bet on is that if something bad did happen – and given that her dad is a celebrity hated in some circles, that's less hypothetical than it might seem in your first reaction – there would be people coming out of the woodwork to ask why she didn't report it.
Threats are also illegal under 18 U.S. Code § 875(c). Even if there was no intent to carry out the threat, if the threat can be interpreted by a reasonable person as being intended to cause fear, it counts as a true threat. [1]
[1] https://verdict.justia.com/2014/12/10/supreme-court-consider...
Even a reading of a cursory summary of this case would have told you this. Did you actually read the outcome?
I disagree completely, especially in the eyes of the law. If a comedian says he's going to kill someone, nobody is going to prosecute him. Threats have to be creditable. The tweets posted by Kurt all make some reference to his baseball career and then try to use that to make sexual jokes about his daughter. They are just terrible jokes and should be socially ostracized, but we should not be using the legal system to punish these kinds of tweets. The line is too unclear. None of the posted tweets contain any serious threat that doesn't contain some baseball innuendo, at least the ones Kurt published. There is a difference if someone said e.g. "I'm going to rape your daughter when she gets here" and that tweeter lives in the town of the school. One might be able to consider that creditable. We don't prosecute people who make others scared, we prosecute people that we believe have a creditable chance of harming another human being.
Didn't the gamergate lady have actual threats on her life? I know her information was doxxed and people actually put her house in their threats.
(Or might I suggest you read up on KotakuInAction on reddit and tell me how it is anywhere borderline close to this?)
… and, yes, it's rather relevant: GamerGate started with a bunch of people on 4chan attacking a stranger on social media at the behest of her ex-boyfriend but it escalated quickly to coordinated harassment on a bunch of different forms of electronic media and attempts to bring it close to home with real-world stalking at work & conferences, SWATing, etc.
That's the problem here: the people who started it might have had no intention of anything beyond enjoying making someone else unhappy but they repeated things widely and loudly enough that other people fell for the cover story and escalated it further.
[1] http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2015/01/gamergate-swatting...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditoftheday/comments/2yb80x/m...
That said, you're linking to a post written by Mike Cernovitch, one of the more vociferous people in GamerGate, where he's making the popular argument that he's the real victim here.
Again, let's review the evidence: if you read more than the headline it's immediately obvious that there was no actual SWATing or even threat to do so and, more importantly, none of it was done by Zoe Quinn. The person who actually posted his address used the information which he'd listed on a business directory before removing it and apologizing:
https://medium.com/@ManfredVonKarma/mike-cernovich-based-law...
The key thing, of course, is that he wouldn't have been able to use a stranger’s actions to justify the anti-Zoe hate campaign. If you read it closely, notice how each claim in the article starts with something true but then adds unsupported insinuations that Zoe was masterminding it in an effort to shift the ire to her rather than the person who actually wrote the post.
The Guardian article is probably right in naming baphomet (on 8chan), but then follows it up with some very shady language to link it with KiA. I have visited baphomet a few times, and they seem to be doing their own thing, whatever that may be.
As far as I know, Reddit has very strict policies in place to discourage doxxing (except on r/doxme). KotakuInAction, the one you called gamergate's organizing site, cannot be involved in doxxing. Though I'm not a regular reader, I visit it every few weeks to see what they're up to. Not only have I not seen any doxxing there, I have seen threads discouraging such behavior. Also see their Rule #2: "This is the quickest way to a ban, not just from us, but the Reddit admins. Seriously, don’t do it. Take every effort to ensure that your posts do not include any personal information, especially in screenshots."
If you have reason to believe otherwise, please bring the links. ;-)
(Now, if you don't mind, take a minute to consider what you have just said in your last comments.)
And you still haven't provided evidence of anything else.
As the sign next to the radios used to say: think-push-speak.
I'm trying to point out that you are acting as if you have already made up you mind: whatever the facts, gg-ers are wrong.
In this case it seems you are, among other things, denying that KiA is Subreddit-of-the-day. Which is very easy to prove.
I suggest you read through this very carefully and find out exactly what you commented on instead of jumping to conclusions[1]. Because, you know, -this isn't reddit.
[1]: Protip: This often a good idea elsewhere as well.
Please though, stop making personal attacks.
> Please though, stop making personal attacks.
Sorry. My apologies for that. Will stop.
Now you start reading before making assumptions!
SERIOUSLY: The reddit link is about KiA being subreddit-of-the-day.
The other link is about the Swot[sic] team, and it is NOT on reddit.
Now you wait until you are sober and/or ready to read before you comment : )
The ideaisn't too bad in this particular case when the question is "what do gamergaters write?" : )
> repeated things widely and loudly enough that other people fell for the cover story and escalated it further.
this reminds me of someone else.
To me, the best kind of sanction for this is exactly what's happening: social shaming and exclusion. But it falls quite a bit short of something that requires legal involvement.
A good deterrent to making these kind of public comments is the social pressure of others around you knowing that you in fact act/think this horrible way.
This, or threat of murder or serious injury should be not acceptable in any form.
I'm sure the guys who penned the constitution would agree that it wasn't about giving you the freedom to act like a jackass without repercussions.
On an unrelated note, I think you win the best username award :P
The solution is quite simple: if you're not willing to ignore trolls, don't use this kind of social network.
You should NOT drag your family into the business, not even if PR person will tell you that it increases your brand equity.
I am saddened by the responses I have seen below from HNers.
The story relates to sexual threats of violence and rape of a minor. I stated that the offenders should be prosecuted and IF CONVICTED dealt with strictly under the applicable laws.
Our society is slipping into a nasty place where people feel that it is quite appropriate and acceptable to threaten and harass others online.
I think that it is a practice that needs to be stamped out, regardless of whether the threats are by men against women or vice versa; racial, homophobic or religious.
It shouldn't be tolerated by the mainstream, which when you look on twitter, often appears to be the case.
Ridiculous. Maybe we should prosecute people who talk about overthrowing the government on twitter with treason - they're threats! And safety is important!
These threats on the internet aren't acceptable, but neither is your reaction to them. There is a vast difference between threatening someone and actually doing something, and the way our criminal justice system treats sexual crimes borders on cruel and unusual.
You're saying that someone should have the rest of their life ruined because they made a lewd threat on the internet? We've all heard the story of the kid who went streaking on a dare but happened to be near a playground so now he's labeled a sexual predator for the rest of his life. Do you really think that is a good response to this kind of thing?
>As a father myself, this kind of behaviour makes me sick and I cannot understand people who feel they need to defend these kinds of sick comments.
Punishing someone won't ease the anxiety you feel about the safety of your kids; there will always be something else waiting to ruin their innocence. You probably confuse people saying your reaction to these comments is extreme with people defending the comments. Regardless, you want to label someone a sexual predator so that you can feel better about the fact that you're scared for your kids. That is disgusting and scarier to me than anonymous threats to my family on the internet.
> ...labeled as sexual criminals and placed on a register.
I understand you're pointing out the fact that grandparent said "if convicted," but parent's point is that _even if convicted_, being put on a registry for the rest of your life is extreme.
..and if convicted..
The case in point relates to harassment and threats of rape here.
What part of that isn't illegal exactly?
Since when did this become acceptable?
Schilling took a stand and it seems like he got decent justice as it is. Why the knee jerk reaction that more laws must be needed?
I don't think this crime should go on that special list. I think a reasonable maximum for this crime is a few months in prison, similar to misdemeanor battery.
If that was the point you were making, I apologise as I misunderstood you.
It wouldn't be acceptable if she was 30 or 90.