Emoji = PRISON!

It's kind of ironic... first, we complain when obvious threats are ignored. If someone had a history of any kind in violent or psychotic behavior, and then they go out and commit violence or kill someone (or many people), people stand baffled that we knew in advance, and did nothing.

And then.. we get a case where basically the same thing.. couple of guys try to commit violence against someone, stalk him.. send him the obvious threatening message of "we are going to beat the crap out of you so bad, you are gonna be in the hospital," and then.. we complain that they are arrested prior to this happening.

The government and law authorities really can never win, no matter what they do.

a reply to: fleabit

I have to disagree. When we discuss "obvious threats" there are usually GIANT red flags that leave no room for interpretation or ambiguity. People who post things like "OK. Today I'm shooting everyone at school" - and then, after the fact, it's analyzed and gone over.

This is FAR from being that sort of thing.

It hasn't even been established that violence occurred at all, beyond that we know a vague threat was published to FB after an incident that did not merit an arrest.

a reply to: hefficide

wow - just wow

so - do i take it - that as you offer no rebutal to my assertion that the message was a threat - then you do accept that it WAS a threat ?

my post only adressed weather it [ the emoji message ] was a threat - your reply is to ask me if i think the proposed punishment is approriate - WTF ?? that was a swift goalpost move

my answer - and please read it properly

5 years in jail is not an appropriate sentence for a STAND ALONE emoji message threat - but this is not a stand alone incindent is it ? stalking is a serial crime

further - you really do need to read your own souces - not just headlines

the 5 year MAXIMUM sentence is for stalking - which requires multiple offences

hint - they are not facing jail time JUST for emojis

originally posted by: hefficide

And there is the slippery slope. What constitutes a threat? Given the way society is beginning to look at anyone who is even remotely uncomfortable as a "victim" ( Which is dangerous because if there is a "victim" - then it follows that there is a person doing the victimizing ), where does the line get drawn?

We do know that today if a cop (fully trained and fully armed) "feels" threaten he can empty his gun into you, and even after they find that you did zero threatening moves or had a single weapon on your dead body it is justified, so what makes this different?

What if I wrote on a napkin... "I'm going to put you in the hospital", after I already beat you up, what does that mean also legally wise?

I'm like you, nobody is going to beat me up anytime soon or even try, but there are a lot of people who are not physically able to defend themselves, I would put myself in their shoes.

a reply to: hefficide

I'm not sure if it will clear it up for you heff, my last post was pretty useless but as far as I can tell in American law a true threat requires:

1. A victim; someone who claims the threat was malicious
2. Intent; the person making the threat has to do so knowingly i.e they have to make this threat with the intent of making the victim concerned about their personal safety

None of your examples such as xbox threats or things you've said on this web board fulfill this criteria. Most of them actually fall down on point 2 which is I guess the part which prevents the nanny state thing happening.

a reply to: hefficide

Fascism going from Creeping in to shoving.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: hefficide

Eliminate 80% of MC's and VC's. Eliminate 80% of LEOs. This requires a commitment to liberty. Abandon authoritarianism.

Who are the lucky 20% of motorcycle clubs and venture capitalists who don't get eliminated?

a reply to: Gully

I hate to break it to you mate but living off the grid is illegal now as well !!

countercurrentnews.com...

a reply to: hefficide

Heff, love ya man but you are wrong on this. I can't and won't get into details of what I'm going through but I can say this.

You are not getting it. Most likely because it has not happened to you. It has happened to me and it's very real. I have no legal recourse and even illegal measures would just make it worse. There is nothing I can do except hope that something never happens.

WILL something happen? I don't know but I have to be aware every time I leave my house that this person is still free and could be anywhere. I don't live my life in fear but nowadays, since this has happened, I DO have to be very aware of everyone around me in hopes that this person doesn't see me and attempt something.

You are entitled to your opinion but I have to vehemently disagree this time. I see that as a implicit threat of violence against the person in the story.

I do wish I could go into more details but it's wiser to not say many things, especially on the net. One or two wrong words and I could possibly make things much worse.

I do appreciate all of the input and concede that I am apparently the minority opinion in this matter. For those who feel that I appear calloused or unconcerned, that is not the case at all. My posting history ( and many long term members ) will show that I almost always tend to stand up for underdogs.

It's just how I was raised. But that was a different world. When I was a kid if a bully got the best of me, my parents did not see me as a victim, they saw me as a failure - and sent me back out to confront the bully. So, I'd be facing an ass whipping either way - and the bully was always less threatening than my Dad. So I learned, early, how to take care of bullies.

If a parent used that approach today? Matt Lauer would be discussing it on national TV. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know. As a kid I hated it. But as an older person I was grateful that my father had forced me to confront that which not only scared me, but had already hurt me. The experience left me stronger.

In short, I do have sympathy for the person being harassed in this case. My hesitance is not based upon whether or not that person has been put in a bad position - it is more based in a concern that, with each passing year it seems that the definition of "aggression" becomes increasingly thin. For example, "terroristic threats". I do believe that there are very legitimate cases where terroristic threats occur, particularly ( from what I've seen ) during divorces. Laws to protect people from abusive or obsessive soon to be ex's or stalkers make perfect sense to me. But, over the years, those laws have stretched to the point where now kids talking smack to look tough to the crowd qualify as criminals.

This is the type of end result that frightens me. Humans err, and many, especially the young, are prone to venting their anger in the form of threats ( I'm sssooo going to kick your ass man... ) when, in all reality, they have no intention of following through. And what a sad world it will be when kids are considered criminals simply because their hormones are overactive.

And, yes, I am aware of yesterday's shooting. Another troubled kid who acted out in an extreme way. When this happens I honestly wonder if the restrictions placed upon "healthy venting" are not causing some of these mentally ill kids to bottle up too much.

That all kind of ties my feelings together.

I was also taught to confront bullies, not run away. It also made me stronger as an individual. It forced me to be come less anti-social and build a better sense of self-worth. Kids today are being encouraged to become door mats to all forms of authority, whether it's legally justified or a school yard bully.

I think a restraining order or some kind of VPO would have been appropriate in this situation, not a jail sentence over a few ICONS through social media.

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
Look, I agree with most of what you have said in principal, but let's face it, if two guys had come round your house and attacked you in the past, then sent you a not so cryptic message implying they were going to beat you up so bad you'd need an ambulance, well I think I'd probably want to get the police involved myself.

Do you think he has the option to take things into his own hands? Would retaliating physically get him anywhere other than a jail cell himself?

You make it sound as if the Facebook police are watching your every emoji, waiting to pounce. I think it's probably just some poor guy worried about his health deciding to do the responsible thing and tell the cops.

^^THIS

Past history of assault and battery towards the guy, and then post threatening "messages" using electronic medium...nope, you can't do that. I am glad they're getting locked up. Violent people should start learning that you just can't be violent and abusive towards others without consequences.

"Sissification of the west..." is what one user on this thread wrote. That is just ignorant. Being peaceful and not wanting to have others be violent or abusive towards you is NOT "sissified" it's mature, and enlightened.

a reply to: AutOmatIc

I probably would have changed my FB name after being threatened the first time, and made it impossible for them to locate me on Facebook.

EDIT:

OR, just remove myself from Facebook. People don't need FB to survive. I can think of many other ways to be social with the world. Then, this entire incident wouldn't have happened.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Heh, I agree, you don't need FB to survive. But you also shouldn't HAVE to change your name or run away because somebody else is breaking the law by using an electronic medium to act out their abusive violent fantasies. In fact, it is against the law.

And, the incident happened before FB, the person was attacked physically by the perpetrators, so even a name change or FB deletion would not stop these abusive criminals.

a reply to: hefficide

I can understand this one. There's a history of violence and attempted violence between the parties and a written threat is a written threat whether it's with words or symbols. The difference between this case and some others is that there was a personal association here and it could be taken as credible.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I think a restraining order or some kind of VPO would have been appropriate in this situation, not a jail sentence over a few ICONS through social media.

No one has been sentenced to prison time over this. They were both charged and release.
I would guess a restraining order, if not already in place, is forthcoming.

I was taught to confront bullies as well, but also to have situational awareness. If they bullies have weapons and criminal records... probably not a good idea to try and reason with them.

I was not raised to confront bullies. I was raised to be a bully. My father was a gang chief on the south side of Chicago. One of my earliest memories as a toddler, is holding a gun. But..... I rejected that whole world as a teen. I taught myself to confront bullies. Even when those bullies are supposed "family". I became anti gang and began confronting the bullies and helping the bullied. I have had guns to my head because of it. I have been stabbed because of it.

I am not someone who would of gone to the police like the person in the OP, over a threatening message. I would of taken care of it myself. For no other reason than pride and my opinion that the police are just a more well funded gang. As a result of being prideful and my views, I would be in jail for doing so. So although not what I would of done. I do not blame the person for getting the police involved. It was the right call. This situation was not a school yard situation. This was not losing your lunch money and having your dad teach you some boxing moves in your garage so you can confront the bully and have your class cheer for you.

What if this guy did not get the police involved. What if he died as a result. I know that is a big leap. But it could of happened. Not everyone is a bully fighting Rambo. Or what if he did fight back and then it was him going to jail. Not everyone will risk prison just to be tough. Not everyone can survive prison. This was not an isolated incident with no prior context. It was an ongoing campaign of fear and intimidation. That is why the people arrested are facing stalking charges. Not emoji charges. Stalking charges. Because there was a pattern of threatening behavior.

So no, people will not be getting arrested for mean mugging or for sending mean emoji's or talking smack on Xbox Live. But if you add emoji's to your malicious stalking repertoire. You will be arrested for it. Because there are current laws on the books that make it illegal to threaten people. Emoji's are just another form of human to human communication.

I personally think people are just freaking out because there are so many new things and ideas invading the cultural landscape. So they see headlines saying people are getting arrested for emoji's, which they think of as just cutesie pictures, and jump to the farthest conclusion that now any time you look at someone while scowling you will get arrested.

When all this is, is existing laws being applied to a new form of communication. I mean stalking, and verbal/written threats, have been illegal for a long time now. This is really a non story. If it was about some other guy who called the cops on someone threatening him over the phone or through text message, sans emoji's, and the cops arrested those sending the messages. This thread would not of been created. The story probably would not of even made it out of local news.

Those are my final feelings on the matter.

a reply to: karmicecstasy

When all this is, is existing laws being applied to a new form of communication.

Couldn't have said it any better.

I'll bet people had the same discussion 20 yrs ago when email was becoming popular.

When all is said and done, electronic communications, unlike personal encounters, are traceable. Smart bullies should stay away from this form of communication.

But this isn't just a new form of communication.

Going from letters to email was just ditching the paper. Words were still exchanged, complete with adjectives, nouns and verbs. This is more like sharing a cave painting with someone else. The ambiguity of an icon cannot determine between want/will. I can write the words "want" or "will" -- but a simple emjoi cannot convey the difference in intent.

Words can convey intent, emojis are supposed to convey an emotion (hence their name emoji). Emoji's were never meant to replace specifically worded sentences. Can you imagine trying to conduct business using emojis?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Symbols replace words all the time. When I play interface designer one of the main things I look for actually is to replace words that take up a lot of space and time reading with symbolic representations. You can see this concept at work all the time. In your browser on ATS for example you see the ATS logo next to the thread title so you know it's an ATS tab without reading the words "Above Top Secret". On your Windows taskbar since Vista or 7 (I don't remember when they switched) all of your programs are represented only by their icon rather than program name. On ATS along the ribbon at the top you have an icon on each button.

Like the saying goes, a picture says 1000 words. From my perspective that strong of emoji's taken in context with the relationship of the people in question says "I'm going to hurt you".