Should "retweeting" be a crime?

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2019, 12:21 PM)Au165 Wrote:  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.

Words are not protected if they are intended to harass a person

Harassment is illegal even if the content is true.  Here is the definition from the Tennessee Code

T.C.A. 39-17-308 (4)

Communicates with another person by any method described in subdivision (a)(1), without legitimate purpose:
          (A)  With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and
         (B)  As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed. 


Now tell me how these kids did not think releasing this information would "cause emotional distress".

[Au165]

(10-08-2019, 12:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Words are not protected if they are intended to harass a person

Harassment is illegal even if the content is true.  Here is the definition from the Tennessee Code

T.C.A. 39-17-308 (4)

     [b](4)  [/b]Communicates with another person by any method described in subdivision (a)(1), without legitimate purpose:
          [b](A)  (i)  [/b]With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or
                [b](ii)  [/b]In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and  
[b]           (B)  [/b]As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed. 


Now tell me how these kids did not think releasing this information would "cause emotional distress".

Harassment charges require the person to communicate the harassing nature to the victim specifically. Unless he was tagged in the tweet where the information then harassment would not hold up. People vs Barber proved this out as a shunned ex posted nudes of his girlfriend to his twitter then sent the link to her family and employer. In this case the judge through out the aggravated harassment charges because the girlfriend herself was never sent the link to the nude photos. Maybe there is more up to date precedent around this but I just checked federal law and it is the same, it requires the person to receive such message directly.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2019, 01:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: Harassment charges require the person to communicate the harassing nature to the victim specifically. Unless he was tagged in the tweet where the information then harassment would not hold up. People vs Barber proved this out as a shunned ex posted nudes of his girlfriend to his twitter then sent the link to her family and employer. In this case the judge through out the aggravated harassment charges because the girlfriend herself was never sent the link to the nude photos. Maybe there is more up to date precedent around this but I just checked federal law and it is the same, it requires the person to receive such message directly.

Barber just deals with New York statute.

Here is pertinent portion of Tenn statute.  

[b](e)[/b] As used in this section:

[b](1)[/b] "Communicate" means contacting a person in writing or print or by telephone, wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, photooptical, or electronic means, and includes text messages, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail, instant messages, and messages, images, video, sound recordings, or intelligence of any nature sent through or posted on social networks, social media, or web sites;

[b](5)[/b] "Social network" means any online community of people who share interests and activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others, and which provides ways for users to interact.




Still don't know why so many people are fighting to defend this type of behavior.  A young man killed himself because of this and the people responsible knew it would cause him severe psychological and possibly even physical harm. 

[Au165]

(10-08-2019, 01:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Barber just deals with New York statute.

Here is pertinent portion of Tenn statute.  

[b](e)[/b] As used in this section:

[b](1)[/b] "Communicate" means contacting a person in writing or print or by telephone, wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, photooptical, or electronic means, and includes text messages, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail, instant messages, and messages, images, video, sound recordings, or intelligence of any nature sent through or posted on social networks, social media, or web sites;

[b](5)[/b] "Social network" means any online community of people who share interests and activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others, and which provides ways for users to interact.




Still don't know why so many people are fighting to defend this type of behavior.  A young man killed himself because of this and the people responsible knew it would cause him severe psychological and possibly even physical harm. 

Where did you pull this communication definition because I am looking at the statute you referenced on harassment and don't see this anywhere? I saw where the social media definition made it in, but can only find the amendment to redefine communication. The wording to me still leaves open the defense of it needing to be directed towards the person somehow i.e. tagging sending links etc. Harassment that is put somewhere and never seen by a victim isn't harassment as it's written. The fact the attention of the victim wasn't captured but left to chance is the defense I'd be using. Otherwise simply saying I can't say a bad thing about someone on a website, even if they never see it, is harassment would clearly be a freedom of speech violation that would be struck down.

As to you not understanding why, that is probably best answered by you looking back at the questions I keep asking about the reach of such an interpretation that you continue not to address. Does your definition of harassment make outing someone as gay illegal? If true, how far does that go? Does outing someone as cheating on their spouse equate to harassment? Is simply stating either thing to a single person, not the person being outed, make it illegal? Is gossip now illegal? You keep wanting to crusade for the kid nobly but don't want to define where that reach ends.

[Benton]

These are two different issues.

If you tell someone... Anyone... It's no longer private. If you put it on your social media (public like Facebook) or send a private message to someone, it's not a private message. In the case of the private message, it's up to the recipient as to what they do with it.

But if you share something with the intent of harming someone, then yes, it could be a crime.

It all boils down to intent. So is retweeting a crime? No. Is sharing communications with the intent to harm someone? Yes.

[Au165]

(10-08-2019, 02:39 PM)Benton Wrote: These are two different issues.

If you tell someone... Anyone... It's no longer private. If you put it on your social media (public like Facebook) or send a private message to someone, it's not a private message. In the case of the private message, it's up to the recipient as to what they do with it.

But if you share something with the intent of harming someone, then yes, it could be a crime.

It all boils down to intent. So is retweeting a crime? No. Is sharing communications with the intent to harm someone? Yes.

So is political reporting were emails and texts are leaked illegal?

[Benton]

(10-08-2019, 02:42 PM)Au165 Wrote: So is political reporting were emails and texts are leaked illegal?

Generally, no.

Generally, correspondence by Public employees is public record 

If you're referring to classified info, generally, yes. 

The murky issue is when something gets flagged as classified that really shouldn't have been, it just casts officials in a bad light.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2019, 02:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: As to you not understanding why, that is probably best answered by you looking back at the questions I keep asking about the reach of such an interpretation that you continue not to address. Does your definition of harassment make outing someone as gay illegal? If true, how far does that go? Does outing someone as cheating on their spouse equate to harassment? Is simply stating either thing to a single person, not the person being outed, make it illegal? Is gossip now illegal? You keep wanting to crusade for the kid nobly but don't want to define where that reach ends.

It is addressed right there in the law.

If it is done with "malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress" it is harassment.

And simply "stating something to a single person" does not fit the definition either.

Just read the law.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2019, 12:21 PM)Au165 Wrote: To start, you should act civilly or not respond.

I edited my reply to make it more civil.

I am just a little surprised at how so many of you are saying something this serious should go unpunished.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2019, 02:39 PM)Benton Wrote: These are two different issues.

If you tell someone... Anyone... It's no longer private. If you put it on your social media (public like Facebook) or send a private message to someone, it's not a private message. In the case of the private message, it's up to the recipient as to what they do with it.

But if you share something with the intent of harming someone, then yes, it could be a crime.

It all boils down to intent. So is retweeting a crime? No. Is sharing communications with the intent to harm someone? Yes

I've seen folks Resharing messages all the time with the intention to harm. Whether it be a misspelled word, incorrect assumption, wrong prediction....But does doing nothing other than sharing make it harassment  and/or criminal

[BmorePat87]

(10-08-2019, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is addressed right there in the law.

If it is done with "malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress" it is harassment.

And simply "stating something to a single person" does not fit the definition either.

Just read the law.

Maryland passed a law after a girl killed herself after being bullied online. Previously the law only covered the bully directly contacting the victim. Now it includes them bullying the victim to a mass audience, as is seen in this case. 

Maybe it's my profession, but seeing kids targeted through social media as a way to hurt them really gets under my skin. 

[Au165]

(10-08-2019, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is addressed right there in the law.

If it is done with "malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress" it is harassment.

And simply "stating something to a single person" does not fit the definition either.

Just read the law.

So if CNN says President Trump paid hush money to a porn star before the campaign and shared conversations with said porn star that would be harassment. The intent was to cause political damage, I’m sure no one would deny that, and that information probably cause him emotional distress so it was harassment correct?

Let’s get it less political before people say that’s different. If a celeb cheats on their wife and the mistress sends pictures of the two together (nothing nude just kissing) to a tabloid and the tabloid chooses to print them because they don’t like that particular celeb that is harassment right? What if a tabloid outs a celeb as gay, that’s harassment right?

Let’s go a step further, if I post to Facebook that you got fired Fred and you didn’t want anyone to know and now you’re depressed is that harassment?

[BmorePat87]

(10-08-2019, 07:18 PM)Au165 Wrote: So if CNN says President Trump paid hush money to a porn star before the campaign and shared conversations with said porn star that would be harassment. The intent was to cause political damage, I’m sure no one would deny that, and that information probably cause him emotional distress so it was harassment correct?

The problem with you trying to use an elected official to make a comparison is that in your example, the media is reporting news about a potentially illegal activity committed by a public official, making it of the public's interest. 

Similarly, a reporter can follow a politician around and take photos of them but I can get arrested for stalking a girl if I followed them around and took photos. 

[TheUberHuber]

(10-08-2019, 07:18 PM)Au165 Wrote: So if CNN says President Trump paid hush money to a porn star before the campaign and shared conversations with said porn star that would be harassment. The intent was to cause political damage, I’m sure no one would deny that, and that information probably cause him emotional distress so it was harassment correct?

Let’s get it less political before people say that’s different. If a celeb cheats on their wife and the mistress sends pictures of the two together (nothing nude just kissing) to a tabloid and the tabloid chooses to print them because they don’t like that particular celeb that is harassment right? What if a tabloid outs a celeb as gay, that’s harassment right?

Let’s go a step further, if I post to Facebook that you got fired Fred and you didn’t want anyone to know and now you’re depressed is that harassment?

Is this a joke?

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2019, 07:18 PM)Au165 Wrote: So if CNN says President Trump paid hush money to a porn star before the campaign and shared conversations with said porn star that would be harassment. The intent was to cause political damage, I’m sure no one would deny that, and that information probably cause him emotional distress so it was harassment correct?

Let’s get it less political before people say that’s different. If a celeb cheats on their wife and the mistress sends pictures of the two together (nothing nude just kissing) to a tabloid and the tabloid chooses to print them because they don’t like that particular celeb that is harassment right? What if a tabloid outs a celeb as gay, that’s harassment right?

Let’s go a step further, if I post to Facebook that you got fired Fred and you didn’t want anyone to know and now you’re depressed is that harassment?

(10-08-2019, 07:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The problem with you trying to use an elected official to make a comparison is that in your example, the media reporting news about a potentially illegal activity committed by a public official, making it of the public's interest. 

Similarly, a reporter can follow a politician around and take photos of them but I can get arrested for stalking a girl if I followed them around and took photos. 

Well nobody can say you didn't try. Personally I think the issue comes down to how we define harassment. Benton tried to equate it to intent earlier, but all retweets (I know) of this nature are intended to harm. We have to ask ourselves is simply sharing information provided to you harassment. I can guarantee that everyone in this thread finds this suicide to be tragic, but are the kids that did nothing more than share it criminally liable? 

Once we go down that rabbit hole we may not stop.

Is the host of the media site responsible?
Is the object of the affection responsible?
Is the school for creating such an environment responsible?
Is culture responsible?

[BmorePat87]

(10-08-2019, 10:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well nobody can say you didn't try. Personally I think the issue comes down to how we define harassment. Benton tried to equate it to intent earlier, but all retweets (I know) of this nature are intended to harm. We have to ask ourselves is simply sharing information provided to you harassment. I can guarantee that everyone in this thread finds this suicide to be tragic, but are the kids that did nothing more than share it criminally liable? 

Once we go down that rabbit hole we may not stop.

Is the host of the media site responsible?
Is the object of the affection responsible?
Is the school for creating such an environment responsible?
Is culture responsible?

Maliciously outing someone to hundreds of people in a sexually explicit manner with personal information you were not an original party to all because you are mad at them and then refusing to act when they said they were going to kill themselves over it fits the definition of harassment. 

That's a little more than "just 'retweeted' information", as if it was a prank or something, and no amount of slippery slope fallacy can change that.  

Unfortunately this did not happen in Maryland, because Grace's Law would have held the perpetrator accountable. 

[TheUberHuber]

(10-08-2019, 10:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well nobody can say you didn't try. Personally I think the issue comes down to how we define harassment. Benton tried to equate it to intent earlier, but all retweets (I know) of this nature are intended to harm. We have to ask ourselves is simply sharing information provided to you harassment. I can guarantee that everyone in this thread finds this suicide to be tragic, but are the kids that did nothing more than share it criminally liable? 

Once we go down that rabbit hole we may not stop.

Is the host of the media site responsible?
Is the object of the affection responsible?
Is the school for creating such an environment responsible?
Is culture responsible?

It is completely rational to think the kids posting those messages on social media were acting in a criminally  abusive manner.  It is completely irrational to think a journalist doing their job is harrassment.  The only slippery slope that exists here is the one in your head. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2019, 10:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Maliciously outing someone to hundreds of people in a sexually explicit manner with personal information you were not an original party to all because you are mad at them and then refusing to act when they said they were going to kill themselves over it fits the definition of harassment. 

That's a little more than "just 'retweeted' information", as if it was a prank or something, and no amount of slippery slope fallacy can change that.  

Unfortunately this did not happen in Maryland, because Grace's Law would have held the perpetrator accountable. 

We'll just disagree on the definition of harassment as you just suggested that not acting is a facet. No amount of emotion should change that.

(10-08-2019, 11:07 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: It is completely rational to think the kids posting those messages on social media were acting in a criminally  abusive manner.  It is completely irrational to think a journalist doing their job is harrassment.  The only slippery slope that exists here is the one in your head. 

My head aside. So you're saying if someone employed these kids to post those tweets then it would be OK?

[BmorePat87]

(10-08-2019, 11:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We'll just disagree on the definition of harassment as you just suggested that not acting is a facet. No amount of emotion should change that.
My head aside. So you're saying if someone employed these kids to post those tweets then it would be OK?

Not acting would be covered under Maryland law, but remove that and everything else described is still harassment. It's just adds another level to the disingenuous suggestion that this was simply "retweeting" information. 

[TheUberHuber]

(10-08-2019, 11:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We'll just disagree on the definition of harassment as you just suggested that not acting is a facet. No amount of emotion should change that.
My head aside. So you're saying if someone employed these kids to post those tweets then it would be OK?

Nope, not at all.