Should "retweeting" be a crime?

[*bfine32*]

(10-02-2019, 09:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think you understand what happened.

The people who made the comments public were not the ones that received them.

There should definitely be a punishment for this.

Can't read the link right know but wording by the deceased something along the lines of "broken trust" led me to believe these messages were shared with those that posted them. Now the object of his desire may have shared with these posters, I'm just not sure these kids hacked anyone to get these messages.

[*bfine32*]

(10-02-2019, 09:09 AM)Au165 Wrote: You using the term retweet incorrectly...



As to the topic, it does raise a serious free speech question. Is simply sharing information criminal? It doesn't appear they did anything negative towards him with regards to said information (Teasing, intimidation, etc.). In reality, it doesn't appear anyone did anything derogatory to him based on the information but rather his fear of such a thing happening led to him committing suicide. I think for this to meet any sort of standard for bullying it would need to require some sort of malice, in most cases I'd think it would need to be repeated, towards the victim. Now maybe there is a more not mentioned here that shows a history of malice towards this individual, and in that case I could see this being the final piece of a larger case but for this to be the whole case I just can't get on board with a criminal charge here.

This heads down a slippery slope of what can and can't be shared. If someone DM's me they cheated on their spouse and I reshare that information without further commentary and they commit suicide does that make it criminal? What about if someone tells me they got fired I tell others and they kill themselves because they can't handle the shame or embarrassment of being fired? Do I think the kids are assholes? Yes. Are they criminals? No. 

And you used the term you incorrectly it's you're. OK that was a joke. Pat has already been kind enough to tell me I was wrong. I thought putting quotes around it would suffice.

As to you're point (did that on purpose) it's pretty much how I sea it (that two)

[*bfine32*]

(10-02-2019, 10:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You literally said "It doesn't appear they did anything negative towards him with regards to said information (Teasing, intimidation, etc.)". The act of outing him as retribution was a negative action. 

Explain exactly how it was done innocently. 

But is a negative act toward someone a crime? As I said in the OP: I'm sure we can all agree they are turds. I think a better case could be made that the girl committed a crime than those who (insert whatever phase we what to use for retweeting). if your explanation of the facts is correct.

[BmorePat87]

(10-02-2019, 05:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But is a negative act toward someone a crime? As I said in the OP: I'm sure we can all agree they are turds. I think a better case could be made that the girl committed a crime than those who (insert whatever phase we what to use for retweeting). if your explanation of the facts is correct.

If local law criminalize harassment or bullying then yes.

[Au165]

(10-02-2019, 05:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And you used the term you incorrectly it's you're. OK that was a joke. Pat has already been kind enough to tell me I was wrong. I thought putting quotes around it would suffice.

As to you're point (did that on purpose) it's pretty much how I sea it (that two)

Your age is showing. The "You" was referencing you being Steve Buscemi in the meme below it trying to be young. So translation for the older generation "here is a live look at you not knowing what retweet means like this guy in this picture". A meme is a humorous image that gets shared across the internet. The internet is a place where information is exchanged, and where you can communicate with other people. 

Did I cover it all grandpa? 

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2019, 11:37 AM)Au165 Wrote: Does it? Is the release of FACTUAL information harassing? Again, if that is the case then the news is harassing people by releasing information they don't want in public. 

Maybe in a larger picture with previous things that occurred it could fly, but if all we were going off of is this single incident then this is a freedom of speech issue and speech that should be protected no matter how terrible it is.

Interesting.

A person who would never even post the most basic information about himself here i.e. name and street address, feels there should be no legal protection against invasion of privacy.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-03-2019, 04:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Interesting.

A person who would never even post the most basic information about himself here i.e. name and street address, feels there should be no legal protection against invasion of privacy.

We've said it once, we'll say it a million times. We don't want you to send us any handknit Christmas sweaters, Fred. Please stop trying already.



- - - - - - - - -

I do have to admit that I unless they added on some kind of insult, slur, or something of that order, I don't know if I can see this as a punishable cyber bullying case. It's a Grade A dick move, but not something that should be legally punishable. At least in my opinion. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2019, 04:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Interesting.

A person who would never even post the most basic information about himself here i.e. name and street address, feels there should be no legal protection against invasion of privacy.

Whose privacy was invaded in this situation? I do see someone's trust was broken.


Seems I remember quite a while back in this forum things got kind of heated about little kids' parents making them use curse words. I took ownership of my actions and sought to PM an apology to everyone in that thread I "disagreed" with. One of those posters (you may even know who it was) shared the content of that PM on this open forum. Was a law broken?

[fredtoast]

(10-03-2019, 05:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Whose privacy was invaded in this situation? I do see someone's trust was broken.

You still don't get the point that the message was made public by a third party not the one that received the message.

(10-03-2019, 05:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems I remember quite a while back in this forum things got kind of heated about little kids' parents making them use curse words. I took ownership of my actions and sought to PM an apology to everyone in that thread I "disagreed" with. One of those posters (you may even know who it was) shared the content of that PM on this open forum. Was a law broken?

Was the content made public by a third party or by the person you sent it to?

[fredtoast]

(10-03-2019, 05:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I do have to admit that I unless they added on some kind of insult, slur, or something of that order, I don't know if I can see this as a punishable cyber bullying case. It's a Grade A dick move, but not something that should be legally punishable. At least in my opinion. 

This is getting a bit ridiculous.  It was highly secretive information that could lead to ridicule.  In fact being outed as gay can low a family apart.

It seems a lot of you think it is okay just because it dealt with a gay person being outed.  What if it had to do with a persons financial situation or a medical issue?  Or what if it was a straight guy who had a big crush on his best friends girl?

Why is everyone suddenly fine with an invasion of privacy when their heads explode if someone claims that Siri is listening to everything they say.

[ballsofsteel]

Trump might be over weight but at 72 he still has all his blonde hair. Biden looks old and tired. Trump has a lot energy.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2019, 05:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. You still don't get the point that the message was made public by a third party not the one that received the message.




2. Was the content made public by a third party or by the person you sent it to?

1. What did the original receiver of the message do when she sent the private message to parties outside the consent of the sender?

2. Pretty sure you already know the answer to this but: The content was made public by the person I sent it to. 

So did the person that made the PM public commit a crime? 

Your logic follows the logic of the following ridiculous statement:
"I can keep a secret, it's just those that I tell cannot".

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2019, 05:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is getting a bit ridiculous.  It was highly secretive information that could lead to ridicule.  In fact being outed as gay can low a family apart.

It seems a lot of you think it is okay just because it dealt with a gay person being outed.  What if it had to do with a persons financial situation or a medical issue?  Or what if it was a straight guy who had a big crush on his best friends girl?

Why is everyone suddenly fine with an invasion of privacy when their heads explode if someone claims that Siri is listening to everything they say.

Not one person has said it was OK as far as I've seen in this thread. IMO it was a "dick move" as Leap called it. Just like the dude that shared the content of my private message. But in the kids defense; they're just kids. 

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2019, 06:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. What did the original receiver of the message do when she sent the private message to parties outside the consent of the sender?

You must have more info than me.


Who said the person who originally received this message was the one who leaked it?

And who said it was a "she"?  Everything I read said he sent the messages to another boy.  

Link to your sources, please.

[BmorePat87]

(10-07-2019, 06:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You must have more info than me.


Who said the person who originally received this message was the one who leaked it?

And who said it was a "she"?  Everything I read says it was another boy.  Was it the same person who said these messages had been "re-tweeted"?

Link to your sources, please.

I read that it was a girl who posted it after getting into a fight with the victim because of them. I believe she was upset because she is now dating the boy who the victim exchanged the texts with (prior to them dating).

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2019, 06:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I read that it was a girl who posted it after getting into a fight with the victim because of them. I believe she was upset because she is now dating the boy who the victim exchanged the texts with (prior to them dating).

Did it say how the girl first got access to the messages?

**EDIT** Looks like the girl and the guy who originally received the messages were both involved in making them public.

When you do something so mean and cruel to a person that you know it could lead to suicide then you should be criminally prosecuted.

Unfortunately for this family they live in a county where the DA is famous for his contempt for the LGBTQ community.  IN fact has has admitted that he will not enforce the law the same against LGBTQ members as he will against heterosexuals/cis gender. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2019, 06:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You must have more info than me.


Who said the person who originally received this message was the one who leaked it?

And who said it was a "she"?  Everything I read said he sent the messages to another boy.  

Link to your sources, please.

Info is from this thread.

And again: No one has said it was OK. To share information given to you in a PM with the public is a bytch move; I'm just not sure it's criminal. Don't you agree?

[Au165]

(10-07-2019, 06:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When you do something so mean and cruel to a person that you know it could lead to suicide then you should be criminally prosecuted.

You are saying a condition of criminal prosecution is the expectation someone should know something can lead to suicide? Who defines that? "Should know" is a very broad and tough legal position, especially in the case of minors. You are literally asking people to apply logic to a decision (suicide) that lacks logic. There are so many nuances to this that you just head down a slippery slope...

• How many people are outed that don't kill themselves? Do we prosecute everyone who outs someone and they don't kill themselves with attempted murder? 
• What if you say someone was fired from work for masturbating, mortifying right? If that person kills themselves are we charging them now? Does this only apply to outing someone or are we going to go after every possible reason someone may kill them self?
• How do you have to share such information to be criminal? Is it criminal to tell one person? Does it require social media? How many followers do you need to have for it to be cruel and not just gossiping? 
  

If this was a female who had sex with a  male and the male told his friends they had sex and she killed herself in fear that her parents would disown her, are we still having this discussion? I feel like the "outing" piece is getting priority over the freedom of speech aspect here. While I can sympathies with the plight of the LGBTQ community, as I have seen family members deal with many of the issues that come with it, I refuse to start asking people to predict the mental state of others when sharing factual information. If the information was false this would be completely different, but it wasn't so while it was a "dick move" it wasn't criminal.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2019, 09:17 AM)Au165 Wrote:  I feel like the "outing" piece is getting priority over the freedom of speech aspect here. While I can sympathies with the plight of the LGBTQ community, as I have seen family members deal with many of the issues that come with it, I refuse to start asking people to predict the mental state of others when sharing factual information. If the information was false this would be completely different, but it wasn't so while it was a "dick move" it wasn't criminal.

Prett easy to "predict mental state" in this case.  These people live in a county where the popular elected District Attorney has announced that the LGBTQ community is not entitled to equal protection under the law.  It may not rise to the level of causing suicide, but it is clear that making this information public would lead to severe psychological and/or physical harm for this boy.

Why should that action not be punished?

[Au165]

(10-08-2019, 12:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Cut the "predicting mental state" bullshit.  These people live in a county where the popular elected District Attorney has announced that the LGBTQ community is not entitled to equal protection under the law.  It may not rise to the level of causing suicide, but it is clear that making this information public would lead to severe psychological and/or physical harm for this boy.

Why should that action not be punished?

To start, you should act civilly or not respond.

The mental state is the most relevant piece of this whether you like it or not. You are judging the act based on the outcome but if the act doesn't stand on it's own merit separate of this specific outcome then we end up in the legal quagmire I keep trying to bring up. If the kid never killed himself this wouldn't be news because it is not illegal to out someone or to share factual information shared with you.

If simply sharing the information isn't illegal without this specific outcome, which it isn't by the way, you are saying their actions directly created the outcome and that they should have been able to reasonably predict the outcome. That means you are asking that people be able to predict someone's mental state and how they will react to something otherwise legal unless that particular person would kill themself because of it. If you simply are going with the idea that the outcome dictates whether words are criminal or not then you are weaponizing suicide as a revenge tool. Suicide letters are now a criminal charge because simply saying something mean and then killing yourself can send your enemies to prison. 

Talking about the county has nothing to do with this as I am talking about this at a national level. Words are protected even words you don't want to hear. Information that is true is not illegal. While it can be weaponized, we have allowed that throughout our country's existence and deciding to waver on this now, but apparently only for this specific case as no one every wants to answer my questions on other scenarios, is not the way to move forward.