Should "retweeting" be a crime?

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2019, 12:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They intended to damage the victim.

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

Now you're getting into intention, not action. If the intent to harm is criminal I'd imagine every night time talk show host on TV would be behind bars.

[GMDino]

This is getting turned into a defense of Trump?

Who could have guessed?

Next we'll be told that whistleblowers are really the criminals.

[Au165]

(10-09-2019, 01:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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. 

In the way you have phrased it, it's not a false equivalency. You have gone on to say it's possible that me posting you were fired could possibly be grounds for harassment because of some vague idea of intent to do harm, or another word you could sub in...being mean. 

Interesting you bring that up because it has met a couple SCOTUS cases because of the freedom of speech implications and that has established a two pronged test to determine it. These prongs help establish how far the speech can go before being illegal where as this very arbitrary and vague interpretation of harassment has not.

In 2016 North Carolina's Supreme Court struck down a cyber bullying law for being overly broad in limiting what those kids can say. New York's was struck down in 2014. Minnesota's Supreme Court just overturned a cyber bullying case because of the same thing. Trying to define Cyberbullying has continually been met with court challenges because it is essentially taking kids freedom of speech when terms encouraging harm or illegal acts aren't present in the speech.

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2019, 10:10 AM)Au165 Wrote: 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. 

I will say it's refreshing to be on the same side of a discussion with someone, with whom, I seldom am. We may be on the "wrong" side but it's good to see different ideologies can agree on certain issues. I'm with you and that's why I keep asking what else the the kids have done. Instead of those already convicting then I think we'd need to know was this parted of repeated acts of harassment or was it just a couple kids that did it one time because they're immature and found it funny.

[Au165]

(10-09-2019, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How many times does a person have to punch you in the face before it becomes a crime?

I can do this too, is it illegal to punch a public figure in the face? More in line with your question though, aren't there other crimes that require multiple events to occur in order to be considered a crime? Stalking for instance, right? Which usually is included in the same statute as harassment.

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2019, 01:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now you're getting into intention, not action.

And that is what makes something a crime.

You can destroy someone's car in an accident, but there is no crime because there was no mens rea.

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2019, 01:57 PM)Au165 Wrote: In 2016 North Carolina's Supreme Court struck down a cyber bullying law for being overly broad in limiting what those kids can say. New York's was struck down in 2014. Minnesota's Supreme Court just overturned a cyber bullying case because of the same thing. Trying to define Cyberbullying has continually been met with court challenges because it is essentially taking kids freedom of speech when terms encouraging harm or illegal acts aren't present in the speech.

But in this case the facts are clear that this action would be likely to cause severe psychological and possibly physical harm.  So I don't see any issue with it being "over broad".

For example I see you refused to say that inciting violence should not be against the law.  So it seems that you agree that harassment and/or cyber bullying should be against the law just not in this case where it would protect a member of the LGBTQ community.

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2019, 02:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And that is what makes something a crime.

You can destroy someone's car in an accident, but there is no crime because there was no mens rea.

Unless of course you were drinking.

WTS, Nowhere have a disagreed.

I'm just disagreeing on how we're defining a crime. As I said, if we use your simple definition of "to cause harm" then why are comedians and political pundits in jail

[Au165]

(10-09-2019, 02:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But in this case the facts are clear that this action would be likely to cause severe psychological and possibly physical harm.  So I don't see any issue with it being "over broad".

For example I see you refused to say that inciting violence should not be against the law.  So it seems that you agree that harassment and/or cyber bullying should be against the law just not in this case where it would protect a member of the LGBTQ community.

You sure? How many times have people been outed they didn't kill themselves? "Likely to" when it comes to psychological harm is where you lose me and most likely the court and jury. Again, what one person will kill themselves over another person will get over quickly. My uncle was outed by an ex lover (Was introduced as a buddy) at a family function, he didn't kill himself and he appeared to handle it well enough as he came to Thanksgiving with his new boyfriend a few months later. By your definition of "Likely to" cause psychological harm he should have been arrested, but again that stuff happens every day and no jury is going to convict someone for doing so.

That aside, in most of those cases the judges commented that the language was hateful and possibly caused emotional harm (being called a slut on twitter, exposing DMs related to sexual experiences, etc) but the person doing the speech still held that right because it didn't meet the imminent lawless action prong they were looking for similar to the inciting violence test.

No, I am saying cyberbulling should not be against the law unless it has a call to action or statement of violence, or if the messaging becomes repetitive to the point of being a general nuisance. Saying you should do something against this person, threatening to do something against this person, tell this person to do something to themselves or a pattern of repetitive hateful messaging all would fall under Cyberbullying/Harassment.

I told you why I was okay with it, because there is a litmus test to define where free speech ends. This has nothing to do with LGBTQ as much as you want to make it that. I have contended from the start that in multiple scenarios I throw out, it isn't Harassment/Cyberbullying. You are the one that keep bringing that piece up, I am stating that has no barring on if it is or isn't.

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2019, 03:19 PM)Au165 Wrote: You sure? How many times have people been outed they didn't kill themselves? "Likely to" when it comes to psychological harm is where you lose me and most likely the court and jury. Again, what one person will kill themselves over another person will get over quickly. My uncle was outed by an ex lover (Was introduced as a buddy) at a family function, he didn't kill himself and he appeared to handle it well enough as he came to Thanksgiving with his new boyfriend a few months later. By your definition of "Likely to" cause psychological harm he should have been arrested, but again that stuff happens every day and no jury is going to convict someone for doing so.

Yeah, I am sure.

First of all I don't have to prove suicide in order to prove psychological harm.  But not only are teen suicide rates higher than any other age group, but LTBTQ teens are three times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexuals.  

Second of all this occurred in a county where the population elected a District Attorney that has said the LGBTQ community is not entitled to equal protection under the law.

The only person that would "lose the jury" would be the one who argued "Well one time an adult was outted to his family so that means nothing will happen if you out a teenager to the entire community."

[Au165]

(10-11-2019, 01:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah, I am sure.

First of all I don't have to prove suicide in order to prove psychological harm.  But not only are teen suicide rates higher than any other age group, but LTBTQ teens are three times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexuals.  

Second of all this occurred in a county where the population elected a District Attorney that has said the LGBTQ community is not entitled to equal protection under the law.

The only person that would "lose the jury" would be the one who argued "Well one time an adult was outted to his family so that means nothing will happen if you out a teenager to the entire community."

I mean I sent you rulings of people being called nasty things online and it being considered protected speech by federal courts, so proving psychological harm seems to be more difficult than you are asserting. 

It doesn't really matter as it seems you aren't changing my mind and I'm not changing yours. Rather than getting you riled up and heading towards "timeouts" I'll just say I disagree with your view on this subject. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 01:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah, I am sure.

First of all I don't have to prove suicide in order to prove psychological harm.  But not only are teen suicide rates higher than any other age group, but LTBTQ teens are three times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexuals.  

Second of all this occurred in a county where the population elected a District Attorney that has said the LGBTQ community is not entitled to equal protection under the law.

The only person that would "lose the jury" would be the one who argued "Well one time an adult was outted to his family so that means nothing will happen if you out a teenager to the entire community."

What if a member of this board made public a PM shared with him by another member of this board and the intent was clearly to try to belittle, embarrass, and humiliate; would that be a crime? To add to our example what if occurred in a community moderated and the majority of its citizens differed in that person's stance on political and social issues; would that be a factor. 

I mean he failed miserably but that didn't change the intent.  

[fredtoast]

(10-11-2019, 03:43 PM)Au165 Wrote: I mean I sent you rulings of people being called nasty things online and it being considered protected speech by federal courts, so proving psychological harm seems to be more difficult than you are asserting. 

You sent me a few exceptions to a rule.  44 states have criminal sanctions for cyber bullying.

So prosecuting for these actions seem MUCH easier than you are asserting.

[fredtoast]

(10-11-2019, 03:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What if a member of this board made public a PM shared with him by another member of this board and the intent was clearly to try to belittle, embarrass, and humiliate; would that be a crime? To add to our example what if occurred in a community moderated and the majority of its citizens differed in that person's stance on political and social issues; would that be a factor. 

I mean he failed miserably but that didn't change the intent.  

I don't know how bad the information was, but you can't claim harm because no one here knows who you are.

It would have to be posted in connection with your real name in order for you to have any claim for damages.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 04:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know how bad the information was, but you can't claim harm because no one here knows who you are.

It would have to be posted in connection with your real name in order for you to have any claim for damages.

Ahhhh...So folks have to know my real name for it to be a "claim of harm". So we go with what I originally classified it "A Richard Move."

BTW, lots of folks know me as bfine and I'd wager no one can guess where the nickname came from. 

[fredtoast]

(10-11-2019, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  So we go with what I originally classified it "A Richard Move."

"We" aren't going with anything because "we" have no idea what you are talking about.

But when discussing it with yourself you can call it whatever you want.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 05:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "We" aren't going with anything because "we" have no idea what you are talking about.

But when discussing it with yourself you can call it whatever you want.

You don't? I thought I explained my example.

Social Media Poster A shares a PM with Social Media Poster B

Social Media Poster B makes those comments public in efforts to belittle, humiliate, and slur Poster A

What you you call this example:

A. Possible Criminal Activity

B. An immature move worthy of a child

C. A stand up thing to do

D. Simply a Richard Move.

[fredtoast]

(10-11-2019, 05:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't? I thought I explained my example.

Social Media Poster A shares a PM with Social Media Poster B

Social Media Poster B makes those comments public in efforts to belittle, humiliate, and slur Poster A

What you you call this example:

A. Possible Criminal Activity

B. An immature move worthy of a child

C. A stand up thing to do

D. Simply a Richard Move.

I don't know how to define it because I don't know what material was released.

It may very well have been nothing more than the same type of snide snarky remarks that you make around here all the time.  In that case I would have no problem with it.

I don't consider message board back-and-forth to be criminal harassment.  But I am able to see a difference between that and outing a teenage boy.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 06:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know how to define it because I don't know what material was released.

It may very well have been nothing more than the same type of snide snarky remarks that you make around here all the time.  In that case I would have no problem with it.

I don't consider message board back-and-forth to be criminal harassment.  But I am able to see a difference between that and outing a teenage boy.

OK, let's pretend it occurred when folks got into a heated debate about, uuuhhmmm...IDK, maybe the ethics of adults having their children dress up like adults and use vulgar language to support the parent's ideology.  After reading this heated back and forth Poster A realizes he may of overstepped during the discussion so he sends personal apologies to Poster B. Poster B gets upset in another thread with Poster A so he decides to make public the comments made in the PM public with the intent to humiliate, belittle, and slur Poster A. Let's say he said things such as whineing, crying, begging...

If you really cannot see the difference between comments freely made in a public forum and "outing" those shared in a private message, then IDK what to tell you.

I really don't know why you are so hesitant to answer the question asked in the example, my example was not about back and forth in a message board. It was about someone making public comments made in a PM in the intent to harm.

[fredtoast]

(10-11-2019, 06:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, let's pretend it occurred when folks got into a heated debate about, uuuhhmmm...IDK, maybe the ethics of adults having their children dress up like adults and use vulgar language to support the parent's ideology.  After reading this heated back and forth Poster A realizes he may of overstepped during the discussion so he sends personal apologies to Poster B. Poster B gets upset in another thread with Poster A so he decides to make public the comments made in the PM public with the intent to humiliate, belittle, and slur Poster A. Let's say he said things such as whineing, crying, begging...

If you really cannot see the difference between comments freely made in a public forum and "outing" those shared in a private message, then IDK what to tell you.

I really don't know why you are so hesitant to answer the question asked in the example, my example was not about back and forth in a message board. It was about someone making public comments made in a PM in the intent to harm.

I still don't know how to answer your question because I don't know what was said.  I can't imagine what type of deep secret you would have shared with another member here that would have caused you emotional distress if it got out.

Sounds like the information was shared as part of a back and forth on a message board.  If it was just released to show some hypocrisy on your part then I just consider that part of what goes on here.