Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

You can be arrested for being vulgar online

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:03:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.cnn.com...

"...using a computer to send vulgar or indecent language or to threaten illegal or immoral acts could get you slapped with the same charge [i.e. 'harassment by computer', a misdemeanor]".

Discuss.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:25:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:03:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"...using a computer to send vulgar or indecent language or to threaten illegal or immoral acts could get you slapped with the same charge [i.e. 'harassment by computer', a misdemeanor]".

Discuss.

Is there a difference between making a threat on you life in person, or by mail, or by phone, or by email/text, or via Facebook? I don't see one.
If one is illegal, I see no reason the others should not be.

Same goes with vulgarity or other forms of harassment. The medium should not matter.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:28:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:25:32 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:03:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"...using a computer to send vulgar or indecent language or to threaten illegal or immoral acts could get you slapped with the same charge [i.e. 'harassment by computer', a misdemeanor]".

Discuss.

Is there a difference between making a threat on you life in person, or by mail, or by phone, or by email/text, or via Facebook? I don't see one.
If one is illegal, I see no reason the others should not be.

Same goes with vulgarity or other forms of harassment. The medium should not matter.

So here is an interesting question for you - what about anonymous threats? Should account-holders of such threats be subject to discovery? Does this possibly mean the end of anonymous accounts online?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:32:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:28:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:25:32 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:03:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"...using a computer to send vulgar or indecent language or to threaten illegal or immoral acts could get you slapped with the same charge [i.e. 'harassment by computer', a misdemeanor]".

Discuss.

Is there a difference between making a threat on you life in person, or by mail, or by phone, or by email/text, or via Facebook? I don't see one.
If one is illegal, I see no reason the others should not be.

Same goes with vulgarity or other forms of harassment. The medium should not matter.

So here is an interesting question for you - what about anonymous threats? Should account-holders of such threats be subject to discovery? Does this possibly mean the end of anonymous accounts online?

First, they are rarely anonymous, as someone knows who you are.
Second, again, should the process be different because I mail a letter without a return address, or threaten you with a mask on, or block my number when I call you from a throw-away cell? It doesn't mean the threatener should be outed per se, but if the threat/harassment is real enough, police should investigate.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:37:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:32:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:28:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:25:32 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:03:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"...using a computer to send vulgar or indecent language or to threaten illegal or immoral acts could get you slapped with the same charge [i.e. 'harassment by computer', a misdemeanor]".

Discuss.

Is there a difference between making a threat on you life in person, or by mail, or by phone, or by email/text, or via Facebook? I don't see one.
If one is illegal, I see no reason the others should not be.

Same goes with vulgarity or other forms of harassment. The medium should not matter.

So here is an interesting question for you - what about anonymous threats? Should account-holders of such threats be subject to discovery? Does this possibly mean the end of anonymous accounts online?

First, they are rarely anonymous, as someone knows who you are.

That someone knows who you are does not make acts you take without other people's knowledge acts done by an anonymous person. For example, what if the woman in the video didn't use her own facebook account or posted her own picture, but instead created one at a public terminal and/or wifi with unregistered device and posted a picture of someone/something other than herself? The threat would still be there, and the user difficult if not impossible to trace.

I agree with the rest of what you said.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:43:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:09:24 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
"A Virginia woman says she was charged with harassment by computer because of a picture she posted to Facebook."

They should have arrested the computer then for harassment.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:53:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:37:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

So here is an interesting question for you - what about anonymous threats? Should account-holders of such threats be subject to discovery? Does this possibly mean the end of anonymous accounts online?

First, they are rarely anonymous, as someone knows who you are.

That someone knows who you are does not make acts you take without other people's knowledge acts done by an anonymous person. For example, what if the woman in the video didn't use her own facebook account or posted her own picture, but instead created one at a public terminal and/or wifi with unregistered device and posted a picture of someone/something other than herself? The threat would still be there, and the user difficult if not impossible to trace.

I'm not sure your point.
The fact that there may be no suspect does not make the act not illegal.
Are police likely to spend their resources trying to find someone like this? Not likely. They don't for burglaries. If it is an easy case, they'll crack it.

My point is that accounts are rarely anonymous, because someone knows who you are, and you can be found, if enough effort is placed. And, by this, I mean the average person being stupid and posting threats and stupidity online.

Seriously, "thugging" is a thing? Fvck society.
My work here is, finally, done.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:54:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:03:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"...using a computer to send vulgar or indecent language or to threaten illegal or immoral acts could get you slapped with the same charge [i.e. 'harassment by computer', a misdemeanor]".

Discuss.

Tbh it seemed like a threat to me. Not that it should be jail-worthy. Best part was when the black reporter guy's face went in the lil facebook box.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:55:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:53:24 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:37:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

So here is an interesting question for you - what about anonymous threats? Should account-holders of such threats be subject to discovery? Does this possibly mean the end of anonymous accounts online?

First, they are rarely anonymous, as someone knows who you are.

That someone knows who you are does not make acts you take without other people's knowledge acts done by an anonymous person. For example, what if the woman in the video didn't use her own facebook account or posted her own picture, but instead created one at a public terminal and/or wifi with unregistered device and posted a picture of someone/something other than herself? The threat would still be there, and the user difficult if not impossible to trace.

I'm not sure your point.
The fact that there may be no suspect does not make the act not illegal.

It makes the act anonymous, which was the point you were challenging.

My point is that accounts are rarely anonymous, because someone knows who you are, and you can be found, if enough effort is placed. And, by this, I mean the average person being stupid and posting threats and stupidity online.

So what about the case I pointed out, something a lot of people can very easily do, i.e. using a public terminal or a wifi connection with an unregistered device to post threats?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:57:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:54:34 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:03:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"...using a computer to send vulgar or indecent language or to threaten illegal or immoral acts could get you slapped with the same charge [i.e. 'harassment by computer', a misdemeanor]".

Discuss.

Tbh it seemed like a threat to me. Not that it should be jail-worthy. Best part was when the black reporter guy's face went in the lil facebook box.

lolwut
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 9:03:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:55:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:53:24 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:37:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

So here is an interesting question for you - what about anonymous threats? Should account-holders of such threats be subject to discovery? Does this possibly mean the end of anonymous accounts online?

First, they are rarely anonymous, as someone knows who you are.

That someone knows who you are does not make acts you take without other people's knowledge acts done by an anonymous person. For example, what if the woman in the video didn't use her own facebook account or posted her own picture, but instead created one at a public terminal and/or wifi with unregistered device and posted a picture of someone/something other than herself? The threat would still be there, and the user difficult if not impossible to trace.

I'm not sure your point.
The fact that there may be no suspect does not make the act not illegal.

It makes the act anonymous, which was the point you were challenging.
And an illegal anonymous act is still illegal. The question to me is: how much time and resources should be used to close the case.
A murder is anonymous, until a suspect is found.

My point is that accounts are rarely anonymous, because someone knows who you are, and you can be found, if enough effort is placed. And, by this, I mean the average person being stupid and posting threats and stupidity online.

So what about the case I pointed out, something a lot of people can very easily do, i.e. using a public terminal or a wifi connection with an unregistered device to post threats?
If they are found, they can be arrested if they broke the law.
In your case, it could be feasable they are still caught, if they took the effort. IP search gives time and place. Oh, it's a coffee shop. Look at the cameras. Did they use a CC to pay for anything? Canvas the area. See if the site administrator will give you the sign up information (assuming it's correct).
Using wifi? Find the locations, cross reference account activity, and you will find them.

Now, a computer hacker or someone smart like that that you see in movies may well be able to avoid this, but, as I said, the average person is likely to be found pretty easily.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 9:07:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 9:03:00 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:55:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:53:24 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:37:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

So here is an interesting question for you - what about anonymous threats? Should account-holders of such threats be subject to discovery? Does this possibly mean the end of anonymous accounts online?

First, they are rarely anonymous, as someone knows who you are.

That someone knows who you are does not make acts you take without other people's knowledge acts done by an anonymous person. For example, what if the woman in the video didn't use her own facebook account or posted her own picture, but instead created one at a public terminal and/or wifi with unregistered device and posted a picture of someone/something other than herself? The threat would still be there, and the user difficult if not impossible to trace.

I'm not sure your point.
The fact that there may be no suspect does not make the act not illegal.

It makes the act anonymous, which was the point you were challenging.
And an illegal anonymous act is still illegal. The question to me is: how much time and resources should be used to close the case.
A murder is anonymous, until a suspect is found.

Agree, the issue becomes the ease of anonymity on the web.

My point is that accounts are rarely anonymous, because someone knows who you are, and you can be found, if enough effort is placed. And, by this, I mean the average person being stupid and posting threats and stupidity online.

So what about the case I pointed out, something a lot of people can very easily do, i.e. using a public terminal or a wifi connection with an unregistered device to post threats?
If they are found, they can be arrested if they broke the law.
In your case, it could be feasable they are still caught, if they took the effort. IP search gives time and place. Oh, it's a coffee shop. Look at the cameras. Did they use a CC to pay for anything? Canvas the area. See if the site administrator will give you the sign up information (assuming it's correct).
Using wifi? Find the locations, cross reference account activity, and you will find them.

Ok, so you've located it to a place, but not a user. Are you going to subpoena everyone in that coffee shop to find the criminal?

As far as cross referencing account activity, what if the account was created anonymously?

Now, a computer hacker or someone smart like that that you see in movies may well be able to avoid this, but, as I said, the average person is likely to be found pretty easily.

I don't know, I really doubt it. I think it would be very easy to do.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 9:08:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
By the way, it appears that in Virginia, this was indeed a threat, and illegal.
She threatened to shoot the other person if they came over, which is illegal, unless the perceived threat warranted it.
https://medvinlaw.com...

What followed was probably stupid back and forth insults, but it appears the issue was the other user confused her with someone else, and she responded by thugging. Then kept up with insults at the other person, who at that point, would have been reacting to "fighting words" IRL.
My work here is, finally, done.