Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2015-06-01 06:42 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2015-06-01 06:42 pm
[ SECRET POST #3071 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3071 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
[Colin Mochrie and Ryan Stiles from Whose Line is it Anyway?]
__________________________________________________
03.
[Ansatsu Kyoshitsu]
__________________________________________________
04.
[Boardwalk Empire]
__________________________________________________
05.
[Ore Monogatari]
__________________________________________________
06.
[Kid Icarus]
__________________________________________________
07.
[Eurovision]
__________________________________________________
08.
[Elden Henson, Daredevil]
__________________________________________________
09.
[His Dark Materials]
__________________________________________________
10.
(Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)
__________________________________________________
11.
[Elfquest]
__________________________________________________
12.
[Psych]
__________________________________________________
13.
(Marvel's Agents of SHIELD)
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 060 secrets from Secret Submission Post #439.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: The Cyberbullies have won.
Re: The Cyberbullies have won.
(Anonymous) 2015-06-02 01:17 am (UTC)(link)The court did say that it's not enough that a reasonable person would find something threatening. So that much is true. There has to be some consideration of the intent of the person posting it. However, it's still unclear what that actually means and there's a number of different ways in which that intent could be taken into account. The standard could be that it's illegal to do if you knew that there was a risk of the person feeling threatened; it could be that it's illegal if you knew that they would be threatened (or that a reasonable person would find the message threatening), whether or not you intended to threaten them; it could be that only if the intent was to threaten that it'd be illegal.
And this is what Alito was bitching about - that the standard isn't clear, and he has a point, but w/e. In any case - it's unclear what exactly the standard is for finding threats illegal, but there's a good chance it's still not that awfully stringent.
It's also important to note that the court did not say the man in question was not guilty. They threw out the result of a jury trial because of an improper instruction to the jurors. But I think there's a pretty easy case to make that the man in question would be guilty under just about any interpretation of the law. If you look at what he wrote, it's absolutely the case that he knew that a reasonable person would find it threatening.
So, I think, to me, it's absolutely still possible to prosecute people for online threats. It's not like they just have to say IT WAS A JOKE and everything goes away.
Re: The Cyberbullies have won.
It is a somewhat complicated matter and I can see how in certain cases (not this one) the intent of the comments could be hard to determine. In others where it's more plain then maybe prosecuting would work, but I suppose given the nature of the net and free speech it would be difficult to have a standard about such things; a case by case basis is necessary.
Maybe given time there will be better guidelines, but you're right, I doubt 'this was a joke' would work in most cases; there would still be some consideration.
Re: The Cyberbullies have won.
(Anonymous) 2015-06-02 08:14 pm (UTC)(link)I imagine they'll probably have to clarify the point sometime down the road.