Should "retweeting" be a crime?

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2019, 11:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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. 

What else did these kids do other than share messages?

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2019, 11:28 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: Nope, not at all. 

Welp then you'll have to explain it to me. Seems you're saying it's OK to do it as long as you are employed to do so, but not OK if you do it on your own

[BmorePat87]

(10-08-2019, 11:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What else did these kids do other than share messages?

Commit a crime.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2019, 11:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Commit a crime.

Well I guess we can skip the trial phase, but I was talking more about their actions when I asked what did they do instead of what some classify it as.

[BmorePat87]

(10-08-2019, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Welp then you'll have to explain it to me. Seems you're saying it's OK to do it as long as you are employed to do so, but not OK if you do it on your own

He doesn't because you know what he said. Stop playing games. You're an adult. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2019, 11:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He doesn't because you know what he said. Stop playing games. You're an adult. 

Let him explain what he does/doesn't need to do. I am an adult, but unsure of the game I'm playing.

[BmorePat87]

(10-08-2019, 11:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I guess we can skip the trail phase, but I was talking more about their actions when I asked what did they do instead of what some classify it as.

Committing a crime is an action. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-08-2019, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let him explain what he does/doesn't need to do. I am an adult, but unsure of the game I'm playing.

The only thing worse than you playing your games is you feigning ignorance about playing your games.

Good night. Try better tomorrow. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2019, 11:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The only thing worse than you playing your games is you feigning ignorance about playing your games.

Good night. Try better tomorrow. 

Did you just commit a message board "crime"?

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2019, 11:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Committing a crime is an action. 

It's actually classifying an action. The committed is the action.

[Benton]

(10-08-2019, 06:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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

I would say there's a difference between a typo and trying to belittle someone's sexual preference. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2019, 12:06 AM)Benton Wrote: I would say there's a difference between a typo and trying to belittle someone's sexual preference. 

and I'd say you're right. Although I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.

[TheUberHuber]

(10-08-2019, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Welp then you'll have to explain it to me. Seems you're saying it's OK to do it as long as you are employed to do so, but not OK if you do it on your own

I dont have to explain squat to someone trolling about a story of a kid committing suicide to try and make some asinine argument about who knows what. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2019, 12:21 AM)TheUberHuber Wrote: I dont have to explain squat to someone trolling about a story of a kid committing suicide to try and make some asinine argument about who knows what. 

Sure you don't have to explain, nor do you have to explain why having a point counter to yours is trolling. This kid's death is absolutely tragic, but I'm not sure it was a crime. I get your desire for a pound of flesh, but as I said; we got to stop the appeal for emotion,

[Au165]

(10-09-2019, 09:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure you don't have to explain, nor do you have to explain why having a point counter to yours is trolling. This kid's death is absolutely tragic, but I'm not sure it was a crime. I get your desire for a pound of flesh, but as I said; we got to stop the appeal for emotion,

I just keep asking if this would be treated the same way with similar circumstances and a different outcome, but that is a straw-man to some people for whatever reason. I've thrown up multiple examples of different but similar circumstances as well that people quickly reject as being "different" but they still focus on the same fundamental pieces of this harassment charge that people have now zeroed in on the law that was broken. These laws aren't being applied across the board universally so it seems the emotional aspects of this case have riled people up to start enforcing it. My issue is if you want to enforce it here then you are going to create a lot of criminals going down this road as it is an overly broad law that could be applied to almost anyone. 

I have contended from the start thought that I am simply going off the question in the OP and information presented in THIS article. Others appear to have found other information that shows there was more to this then this one instance. IF that is the case then sure harassment, bullying, etc are all fair game, but my premise in this whole thread has been on the information as it is laid out and the question in the OP. 

[fredtoast]

(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?

In the first two cases the law treats "public figures" differently from private citizens when it comes to making statements about them.  Public figures, ESPECIALLY CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, give up some protection due to their choice to be a public figure.  This is more commonly dealt with in libel and slander cases, but it should also apply to harassment.  Certainly anything pertaining to a candidate for office is fair game because of the public interest.

In the final case it seems the information would be public knowledge so it is complicated.  But, for example, If you knew my children would never speak to me again if they knew I had gotten fired and I was somehow able to keep them from knowing then it could possibly be harassment.

Different cases will be treated differently based on all the facts.  In this threads case the people who posted the information knew it was a complete secret and that making it public would cause the victim considerable psychological and possibly even physical damage, so I still don't know why people don't think they should be punished. 

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2019, 11:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What else did these kids do other than share messages?

They intended to damage the victim.

It is called "mens rea", and it is a key element of criminal behavior.

[Au165]

(10-09-2019, 12:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In the first two cases the law treats "public figures" differently from private citizens when it comes to making statements about them.  Public figures, ESPECIALLY CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, give up some protection due to their choice to be a public figure.  This is more commonly dealt with in libel and slander cases, but it should also apply to harassment.  Certainly anything pertaining to a candidate for office is fair game because of the public interest.

In the final case it seems the information would be public knowledge so it is complicated.  But, for example, If you knew my children would never speak to me again if they knew I had gotten fired and I was somehow able to keep them from knowing then it could possibly be harassment.

Different cases will be treated differently based on all the facts.  In this threads case the people who posted the information knew it was a complete secret and that making it public would cause the victim considerable psychological and possibly even physical damage, so I still don't know why people don't think they should be punished. 

I know this to be true with libel and defamation, I am yet to see where this has been established for other laws. Can you show me where harassment falls under the same standard? You can say it should apply, but I can't find a place that says it does apply outside of defamation and libel. Cheating on your wife with a porn star doesn't seem like politically relevant information, but rather information who's main intent was to cause harm.

If this is true then you have a couple million people on Facebook/Twitter who are about to be charged with harassment. This amounts to, "you can't say mean things about people" which is 100% a freedom of speech issue.

Because as I have contended I am only using the information in this one article because of the context of the OP question. Even for harassment I refuse to throw away free speech for a single event (which this article only mentions one event). If a repeated barrage of negative and harassing behavior takes place (which it sounds like occurred here but wasn't in this article), then sure, but a single negative comment or act when it comes to free speech isn't enough for me to pull that right. The information was given up willfully and was factual, in those cases even beyond this one unless there is a history of behavior preceding it then to answer OP question, no.

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2019, 12:53 PM)Au165 Wrote: Because as I have contended I am only using the information in this one article because of the context of the OP question. Even for harassment I refuse to throw away free speech for a single event (which this article only mentions one event). If a repeated barrage of negative and harassing behavior takes place (which it sounds like occurred here but wasn't in this article), then sure, but a single negative comment or act when it comes to free speech isn't enough for me to pull that right. The information was given up willfully and was factual, in those cases even beyond this one unless there is a history of behavior preceding it then to answer OP question, no.

How many times does a person have to punch you in the face before it becomes a crime?

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2019, 12:53 PM)Au165 Wrote: This amounts to, "you can't say mean things about people" which is 100% a freedom of speech issue.

Freedom of speech is limited based on the damage it does.  You know that this issue involves much more than just "you can't say mean things about people".  You have read the statute and you know that is a false equivalency.  


Do you also oppose laws against inciting violence?  That is another area where "freedom of speech" is limited based on the damage it could cause.