Alexander Hamilton wasn't a US President, and he's on the $10 bill.
Neither was Benjamin Franklin
All right...so I am thinking too fast and not being thorough...which is a horrible habit. My apologies.
Alexander Hamilton wasn't a US President, and he's on the $10 bill.
Neither was Benjamin Franklin
Crack down on what, exactly? Private forums do what private forums do. That's one thing.
But should government intervene when someone's being an ass? I understand that in this case, the guy made an actual, physical threat. But that's already actionable.
Recall the recent case out of Texas where a 19-year-old was charged with making terrorist threats?
<LINK>
So I'm not disagreeing with you. Just not sure what crackdown you're advocating.
Along with the anonymity factor, drugs and alcohol play a part in loosening inhibitions about what people put online. Just a couple of weeks ago, my DH who moderates a Facebook forum decided to put a stop to someone who was drunk posting on his forum and intimidating the female members. A polite request to stop quickly escalated to insults, threats, and mild cyberstalking that evening.
%#$@. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from speech.When caught in the act, the perpetrators inevitably begin whining about their "right to free speech" being violated
Don't want to put words in Alpha's mouth, but personally, I'd just like to see a crackdown on vile, misogynistic threats aimed at women, revenge porn, and the like. Not jokes in poor taste.
i'd say all threats that meet the legal definition, against either sex, should be prosecuted.
i'd say all threats that meet the legal definition, against either sex, should be prosecuted.
Law of large numbers. In an open access system with millions of folk signed up to it, you will always get the nasty attention seeking numpty. The proportion of dullards is vanishingly small in percentage terms. I prefer to try and think of the millions who say nothing or comment positively. But that doesn't get the headlines and never will.
Each person is a trial, a certain proportion of the people will be nasty attention seeking numpties... continue performing the trial, millions of persons, then the probability of reaching the expected value of attention seeking numpties increases.
While it should not have made the slightest bit of difference, I can't help feeling a little glow of satisfaction that the case came up before a female judge.
"If you can't threaten to rape a celebrity, what is the point in having them?"
Finally, definitive proof that I am not a fuckwit.It is a truth universally acknowledged among fuckwits, that a famous woman in possession of an opinion, must be in want of an assault.
Wasn't this guy the lead singer for Herman's Hermits?