Emoji = PRISON!

I've been threatened on line.

I was told that the gentleman in question was going to "cut my throat"... Now, I wasn't really impressed because this gentleman didn't know me.

Now had there been a history between us, and he'd attacked me in the past? I'd consider that, no matter how "cute", to be something of a threat.

Context is all.

a reply to: hefficide

щ(ºДºщ)

There's a saying in AA that I think is very applicable to this..

"Dealing with life on life's terms".

Has the guy that was threatened tried to do anything to fix the situation? Has he confronted the would-be bully? Has he taken self-defense classes?

Obviously he's not at fault for being a victim, but has anything been done by anyone to peacefully, and maturely resolve the situation? The person sending him emoji's in hopes of stirring and emotional response obviously has some issues. Has anyone tried to get with this guy and work those issues out?

Life happens, and we can either choose to deal with it on its terms or behave like infants and hide. Hiding is the easier choice, and the one so many people today seem to be taking.

We're becoming a lazy society -- ill-equipped to deal with life on life's terms. We'd rather placate the bemoaning masses than work to find a solution. It's simply easier. It's the path of least resistance. We'd rather give into people's personal realities than to tell them to snap out of it and get with the shared reality of everyone.

An emoji or a text is a very immature way of threatening someone, designed to make someone uncomfortable and scared. People need be dealing with situations like this like as an adult, and address the reasons behind why this is happening.

a reply to: hefficide

Isn't the main purpose of the police to protect its' citizens?

Your argument that these idiots who decided to continue to menace an individual whom they've already victimized... And who were rightly arrested for communicating an intent to harm again... Will somehow lead to the creation of a police state... Is at best, incredulous. At worst, insulting.

Now, if your argument were based on instances of police brutality or corruption or some insane power coup through martial law, then you would have a leg to stand on.

As it is, this is simply a case of the police doing their job. The idiocy of this case lies with the criminals who created this situation, not with the police who were protecting a citizen.

I personally would like to see more info on this one. I'm particularly interested in why they were threatening the guy to begin with. Such information could drastically affect my opinion.

For instance, if they're just bullying the guy because he's gay or something then I'd agree with the action taken by the police.

But since this is America 2015, its much more likely that the guy beat the living crap out of one of their sisters and she refused to press charges. In that case, I'd be much more sympathetic to the guys who were thrown in jail.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
We're going to clog up the court system with people trying to assert their own personal realities upon everyone else, and not accepting the shared reality we all live in. When this happens, society itself will begin to break down as nothing will ever get done.

Eventually we'll all be living in our own little fantasy lands, ignoring the real-world problems around us. We'll simply refuse to acknowledge other human beings because they "rain on our parade".

I see no correlation between what you are saying in this thread and what the op shows. It seems this thread has nothing to do with how people identify yet that appears to be your main point?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

ETA: Your 3rd post is much more on point, but I would have to disagree with some of what you say. Somebody shouldn't have to take defence classes to protect themselves, if they do then they are clearly under threat, and we are supposed to have a system in place to deal with that (which is exactly what has happened).

I used to feel that my introverted nature and general distaste for socialization - online or off - would mean a lifetime of isolation and loneliness, and that pursuing a greater social capacity would benefit my wellbeing, happiness, and health in life.

Today, increasingly, due to this and countless other similar instances? Today, I instead believe growing old as far away from other human beings as possible is probably for the best. If something this ambiguous can lead to someone being imprisoned, then it has officially become safer to be alone than to be social.

Peace.

P.S. None of the above should be viewed as excusing or endorsing the horrible treatment the individual in question had previously visited upon their victims. I detest such behavior and believe it should rightly be accounted for legally... just not for emojis.

Such a police state, I mean look at what we're choosing to direct our attention on today, LOL!

My how much we have in spades to be getting worked up over such non-issues.

Some people can think it's a serious threat, others can disagree, and I'll continue to observe as mere spectator after this word.

I was about to add another snarky reply when it occured to me.

I've had death threats in the past from ATS members. I always reported them to the mods and the folks were always banned or shut off from contacting me via U2U's again.

So does that make me a whiny hypocrite?

originally posted by: beezzer
I was about to add another snarky reply when it occured to me.

I've had death threats in the past from ATS members. I always reported them to the mods and the folks were always banned or shut off from contacting me via U2U's again.

So does that make me a whiny hypocrite?

The most creative threat I received on the u2u's was a guy said he was going to shove my keyboard so far up my *** that I would **** semicolons. Sounds uncomfortable but creativity is appreciated.

I never turn in any threats to the authorities.

a reply to: maria_stardust

Yes, the main purpose of the police is to protect, at least that's what the cars used to say. But, even though the Supreme Court decided that the police do not have any obligation to protect citizens ( link to that ) - we can, for the sake of debate go ahead and pretend that the police are supposed to protect us.

My entire point is that the police SHOULD have taken measures to prosecute these two men when they were at the victims home when they "attempted to assault him". How one attempts to assault is a whole different argument - as logic dictates that they either did or did not assault. But, whatever. At that point the police should have acted. OR the recipient of the emoji's that are being discussed should have filed a protective order if he felt afraid.

Is it idiocy to send somebody a string of emoji's as a form of harassment? Absolutely. But that is ALL that it is - harassment. What if they'd have FB poked him eight times in a row? Would that constitute a threat to sexually violate him?

It's utterly ridiculous.

I'd like to think my experience as a human being on Earth is fairly typical.

Having that disclaimer out of the way...

Generally speaking, when someone does me physical harm, I get no warning or threat. It just happens. Usually when someone threatens me, they do so because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to try to harm me.

Now, that's just MY personal experience. Obviously this guy has been harmed before, so it's only natural to be wary of the person sending the offending emoji's.

In my mind the guy can simply block the people, change his username (I know A LOT of people that do that to avoid stalkers).

Has a VPO been filed? Does the guy have a restraining order? Is the guy incapable of dialing 9-11 and locking his doors?

The next think you know, people are going to be reporting others to the police for Facebook memes they think are offensive. Just watch, it'll happen...

a reply to: olaru12

I've turned death threats in. I thionk that crosses a line when a poster wants to kill my children and wife because of something I wrote.

If simple threats were reported, half the mods here would have been banned (lolz) remember those fights Heff?

a reply to: beezzer

That was before I realized that there was a good human being inside of that Conservative bunny suit.

To stay on topic - threats of violence are absolutely unacceptable. But somewhere there has to be a line in the sands of ambiguity. As I said earlier - glaring stares are just about the most aggressive and threatening things in the world yet I have to once read about a person sitting in prison over a glaring stare.

Compared to hard eye contact, little pictures on a screen are a very distant runner-up. This is PC gone full-stupid.

Instead of shifting lines in the sand, we're erasing them completely. There are going to be no "lines" in this brave new world we are marching into.

The absurd will become acceptable, and anything goes because no one has the courage to plant their feet and say NO!

What were are seeing is a society-wide problem with personal and emotional boundaries. We basically don't have them any anymore. We're allowing everyone to come into our metaphorical yards, trample our grass and run off. We say nothing. We don't enforce our own boundaries with people and say, "NO! That's not cool with me, and I don't care if you have a problem with it!"

We're being told that our boundaries aren't important, that they should be supplanted by other people's feelings/needs and wants.

Lines? Where we're going we won't need lines...

ETA: We're becoming a nation of codependents...enabling, emotional immature codependents.

a reply to: hefficide

Then it all comes down to a matter of context and interpretation. The message could be construed as harrassment or menacing or, perhaps more accurately, both.

The bottom line is that these men communicated a threat. It just happened to be a delivered in a stupid format. But it is, and remains, a threat.

I know a guy who was arrested for sending a threatening text message over the phone. So it does happen. It is covered by existing laws. So I ask again. What is the difference between threatening with emoji's or with words. When the threat has the same meaning in both.

This is a language issue. Is txt speak and emoji's a language. That is what this is really about. If the guys sending the message through Facebook. Were to send the message in English, We are going to beat you up again and put you in the hospital. They would get arrested. So why shouldn't they get arrested by sending the message in Emoji.

The only argument anyone is making is that they should not be arrested because emoji's are cute. Who cares if they are cute. If you get a threatening message in beautiful flowing cursive. With pictures of flowers and rainbows around it. Should you dismiss it because it is pretty.

If you want to argue against the laws that are already on the books. That is fine. But those laws are on the books. And just because emoji's are cute. Does not mean that there is not a threatening message behind the cuteness and those laws should be ignored.

Like I said above, this is a generational language issue. Its not the beginning of a police state. That is already here and has been for a long time. It also is not the beginning of everyone living inside their own reality bubble. That is happening. But is a separate issue entirely. This is a, I don't like how the youngins talk, issue. Because it is different and I do not understand it.

It is worth repeating. Using pictures instead of words is a growing form of communication. A language born of the internet. You might think it is silly. Other may not. Others may use it in a malicious way.

Its like telling an Egyptian Pharaoh that he should ignore the threat of an assassination because it was written in hieroglyphics. Like it or not. A large and growing segment of our population is using this form of new age internet hieroglyphics to communicate.

I think a threat that lacks details is less of a threat.

Using emoji's you can't give a very detailed threat.

Me+Fist+Hospital.

Okay. That's not quite the same as calling up someone and saying, "I'm going to drive over there with a knife and skin you alive!" (I'd use a more realistic example but I don't want to be to graphic).

If context and perceived threat levels matter, the emoji threat is much lower on whatever scale exists. There used to kind of be a scale, it was called "common sense". It was called that because it was "common" to everyone that had any sense.

a reply to: maria_stardust

Now you're assuming that you know the mind and intent of the people involved, which are some pretty big and unfounded assumptions. Did they mean it as a threat? Or were they drunk and being stupid? Or was it meant to say "I could hit you so hard you'd end up in the hospital" - which is not a threat, but a statement. If you were a juror in this case you would either be already biased or, if possessed of any integrity at all, would be forced to recuse yourself as you've already decided motive and intent.

The fact that so many people seem to see it as a threat and are supportive of an arrest based upon it is actually telling me far more about where America is at, as a nation, than the article that is sourced in the OP, "Emojigate" itself, or the arrest of the two men.

By this logic, Red Foreman ( from That 1970's Show ) and his famous foot are weapons of mass destruction that need to be stopped at any cost.

This is about as inane as a person saying that they feel as though a gun is being pointed at them every single time another human being points in their direction - and then making pointing illegal. It's all just too open to interpretation and butthurt to be valid.

originally posted by: AceWombat04 growing old as far away from other human beings as possible is probably for the best.

outside of family and good friends, i agree