Internet Trolling...should it be a criminal offence

[ginnyfizz]

To clarify.

 

Ginny, I'll give you $50,000 to kill my neighbor.

 

^Not illegal.

 

Ginny, I'll give you $50,000 to kill my neighbor.

Ginny: Okay, how we do this?

*begins to make plans in earnest*

 

^Illegal.

 

According to the US Supreme Court, both would be illegal per their judgment in Brandenburg vs Ohio since the moment you open your mouth and utter the words you are inciting an illegal act, and if you did say such things to me I'd be like "Jeez where's the cop shop I'm out of here..." and you would be well nicked. No offence mate, but firstly the USSC know better than you and secondly anyone who did not fancy a long nap on a gurney would do the same as I would (as not reporting what you said could potentially get the other person busted even if you got some other sap to carry out your dirty deed, for complicity).

 

@Marxist, I have no idea who you are directing your remark at, but I graduated in Law from Nottingham, personally.

 

@Marharth, no, just that Syco21 is trying to illustrate an invalid point since incitement to violence is quite clearly illegal in the USA whichever way you look at it. We just extradited five likely lads from the UK to the USA for just that, among other nefarious deeds (to huge cheers of "Sling yer hook Hamza" from most of us, I might add.)

[Marxist ßastard]

@Marxist, I have no idea who you are directing your remark at

Forgot to stubquote; it was for Syco21. You know, if someone doesn't provide any citations for this stuff I just assume they're speaking from their own expertise. And with how Syco21 is speaking, they must be a Supreme Court justice or something.

 

This turned into a debate on if its legal to offer money to kill people?

Somehow, it's turned into a debate on whether there are currently any restrictions whatsoever on FREEZE PEACH. Which, if you're coming from that mindset, I guess it would mean that limiting one's ability to anonymously harass random strangers over the Internet is the first limitation on FREEZE PEACH to ever be considered in all of human history.

[Syco21]

According to the US Supreme Court, both would be illegal per their judgment in Brandenburg vs Ohio since the moment you open your mouth and utter the words you are inciting an illegal act, and if you did say such things to me I'd be like "Jeez where's the cop shop I'm out of here..." and you would be well nicked.

No illegal acts were incited by my offering you money to kill my neighbor. Furthermore, there was no reasonable risk of you attempting to do so either. So no, there was no crime committed.

 

You can make a statement, but until you show intent to see it through or, if through negligence, it incites or risks imminent lawless action, then you have committed no crime. "I was joking, none of the people I was joking with would ever do such a thing and none of them did." The argument wouldn't work if someone did or attempted to do the deed for which you promised compensation.

 

No offence mate, but firstly the USSC know better than you and secondly anyone who did not fancy a long nap on a gurney would do the same as I would (as not reporting what you said could potentially get the other person busted even if you got some other sap to carry out your dirty deed, for complicity).

Also incorrect. There's no duty to report someone offering to pay you to kill another. Not in the US anyway.

[Ghogiel]

Not even "anonymously harass random strangers over the Internet ". harassment laws exist prior to the internet.

 

This thread was at one point and is still about saying something which is offensive on the internet. It has nothing what to do with harassment at all

 

For example this guy posted some crude joke on his farcebook and got 12 weeks in jail.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-19869710

Edited October 14, 2012 by Ghogiel

[ginnyfizz]

Also incorrect. There's no duty to report someone offering to pay you to kill another. Not in the US anyway.

 

That's why I used the word "potentially" which you have of course selectively ignored. It does not alter the fact that not reporting someone soliciting murder could be construed as complicity, should the act be carried out even by another, in almost any jurisdiction I can think of and yah, I did do comparitive and international law as part of my degree. And some of the charges against Abu Hamza involve incitement and hate preaching, as opposed to actual planning and physical acts (which are elsewhere on his rather long charge sheet.)

 

Incitement can be an offence irrespective of whether or not the incitement is acted upon, in rather the same way that putting someone in fear of physical harm without actually laying a finger upon them can be an assault. Which brings us neatly back around to how existing laws can be used against internet trolls and why I don't think we need special ones...

[DeadMansFist849]

Honestly? I just think that current laws need to be enforced regarding credible threats, invasion of privacy, sexual harassment etc. We also need less vagueness regarding antisocial behaviour. Defacing someone's memorial page and defacing a gravestone ought to be treated alike.

[Syco21]

That's why I used the word "potentially" which you have of course selectively ignored.

Nope, using the word "potentially" doesn't make you any more correct. Sorry.

 

It does not alter the fact that not reporting someone soliciting murder could be construed as complicity, should the act be carried out even by another, in almost any jurisdiction I can think of

Just because some random schmuck may construe your desire to remain silent on an issue that could potentially get you killed if you spoke up, does not mean that you could be convicted as an accomplice. Sorry, you're still wrong.

 

I did do comparitive and international law as part of my degree.

This appeal to authority only damages your argument. You do not understand or know various basic tenants of American law, as such you are no authority. Do not take this as an attack, it's simple matter of fact. I am also not an authority on American law. But not being an Authority does not equate you being wrong. All it means is that you should not claim to be an authority.

 

And some of the charges against Abu Hamza involve incitement and hate preaching, as opposed to actual planning and physical acts (which are elsewhere on his rather long charge sheet.)

 

Incitement can be an offence irrespective of whether or not the incitement is acted upon, in rather the same way that putting someone in fear of physical harm without actually laying a finger upon them can be an assault. Which brings us neatly back around to how existing laws can be used against internet trolls and why I don't think we need special ones...

You don't understand what SCOTUS said, the quote you've used to support your argument.

 

Let's look at your SCOTUS quote again.

 

"directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action [and] likely to incite or produce such action."

 

To be convicted, the prosecutor must prove that the statement was intended to cause imminent lawless action and it must be likely to do so. My offering to pay you to kill someone does not meet that test. You definitely would not take up my offer and I knew you were highly unlikely to do so. Therefore my speech was clearly not directed at causing imminent lawless action nor was there any likelihood of it happening.

[JimboUK]

Honestly? I just think that current laws need to be enforced regarding credible threats, invasion of privacy, sexual harassment etc. We also need less vagueness regarding antisocial behaviour. Defacing someone's memorial page and defacing a gravestone ought to be treated alike.

 

When it comes to threats and harassment I think enforcement (or a lack thereof) is the problem, until plod actually starts enforcing the current law then there is little point in having additional laws.

[mizdarby]

Just in reply to the legality of offering money to kill somebody, even though the offerer may be fully aware of the offered to persons' unlikeliness of taking up the offer, and I quote

"A death threat is a statement threatening someone else’s life. The person making the threat can lack the intention of following through on it and still be charged with a variety of crimes. While charges are most serious when the threat is real, people can face serious consequences for even lightly making these statements, and the degree to which a charge is prosecuted may depend on who is threatened and how. "

Which to my mind at least, suggests that the offering of money would be a potential death threat, leaning towards the more extreme ends of death threats, and would then be considered a criminal offense and definitely illegal.

[DeadMansFist849]

Honestly? I just think that current laws need to be enforced regarding credible threats, invasion of privacy, sexual harassment etc. We also need less vagueness regarding antisocial behaviour. Defacing someone's memorial page and defacing a gravestone ought to be treated alike.

 

When it comes to threats and harassment I think enforcement (or a lack thereof) is the problem, until plod actually starts enforcing the current law then there is little point in having additional laws.

 

Exactly. The current law regarding threats and harassment makes no reference to which medium was used to commit the offence, so it should just be applied properly.