Internet Trolling...should it be a criminal offence

[Syco21]

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.

That statement is referring to assault. You don't ever actually have to touch a person to assault them, just make them feel as though you are going to, obviously this is going to apply to death threats as well. In many states, telling someone you are going to kill them can give them legally justification for killing you. So long as they feel the threat is serious and places them in imminent danger.

 

If I am joking with my friends and say something like "just wait, I'm going to kill you while you're sleeping" they're going to know it's a joke and it wont be a crime because no harm was done. But if I said that to a completely random stranger, no matter if I were joking or not, if they felt threatened by it, it would be a crime.

[ginnyfizz]

Sorry, you're still wrong.

 

No I'm not, but you are unwilling to accept that anyone else might have a valid point. I cannot see anyone in any jurisdiction getting away with making the sort of offer you describe in the current climate, whether or not you mean it in jest. Say it to someone who is two bricks short of a load and they just might go and do it, so you would still be inciting an illegal act. The way that you put it when you offer $50,000 you are even offering consideration for the contract, so you are well and truly stuffed. Shows some kind of intent. And therefore falls within the scope of that US Supreme Court Judgment.

 

I did not claim to be an authority on US Law but was merely making the point that my knowledge is not limited to UK Law and that I have had occasion to look at some US Judgments. What you are in effect saying is that your opinion is right and everyone else is wrong, despite not having answered Marxist's question earlier. If you are rubbishing other people's authority, it would be wise to state what your own level of authority is.

[Ghogiel]

If you are rubbishing other people's authority, it would be wise to state what your own level of authority is.

 

In context here, no one actually has any. And just on that alone makes the point moot, especially on an anonymous internet message board no one gives shite what your degree is anyway, but further more it is a fallacy.

 

Regardless of what degree you hold, it does not make your opinion more factual or give your argument more credence> only the argument itself and the information contained with in it will do that.

 

The point is you can never make a better argument on the claim to authority alone. Or else arguments would be won simply by invoking god.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Ghogiel

[marharth]

I think I should bring up the recent Amanda Todd thing here.

 

If you pointed out what actually caused her to kill herself, and then said that people do not act so remorseful in the case of a serious murder where the victim is entirely innocent, should that be illegal?

 

I noticed most of the excuse for this is that people kill themselves over online "trolling." So I thought I would bring that up.

Edited October 15, 2012 by marharth

[ginnyfizz]

If you are rubbishing other people's authority, it would be wise to state what your own level of authority is.

 

In context here, no one actually has any. And just on that alone makes the point moot, especially on an anonymous internet message board no one gives shite what your degree is anyway, but further more it is a fallacy.

 

Regardless of what degree you hold, it does not make your opinion more factual or give your argument more credence> only the argument itself and the information contained with in it will do that.

 

The point is you can never make a better argument on the claim to authority alone. Or else arguments would be won simply by invoking god.

 

I didn't say that I did have authority, as usual you are deliberately misconstruing what I have said. But Syco21 is going around saying I am flat out wrong based on his opinion and therefore definitely claiming his authority. Marxist actually asked a slightly ambiguous question (which he later clarified) about degrees, which was how the subject came up. But you were too keen to jump on me (as usual) to note that I did actually quote a Unites States Supreme Court judgment and give various ways it could be construed. Now THAT is what I claim as the authority. I merely illustrated why I would have had good reason to read US judgements as otherwise you would no doubt have made some remark about why would a British person know anything at all about US Law...

[Ghogiel]

I didn't say that I did have authority, as usual you are deliberately misconstruing what I have said.

As usual you are deliberately misconstruing what I have said. I did not say you are claiming authority.

But Syco21 is going around saying I am flat out wrong based on his opinion and therefore definitely claiming his authority.

While he is disagreeing with you, he isn't claiming authority, he is just asserting you are wrong based on his interpretation of the various aspects of the laws that have popped up over the last couple pages. whether he is right or whether I am convinced by his argument is another matter.

 

Marxist actually asked a slightly ambiguous question (which he later clarified) about degrees, which was how the subject came up. But you were too keen to jump on me (as usual) to note that I did actually quote a Unites States Supreme Court judgment and give various ways it could be construed. Now THAT is what I claim as the authority. I merely illustrated why I would have had good reason to read US judgements as otherwise you would no doubt have made some remark about why would a British person know anything at all about US Law...

I know all this.

 

And I, probably like Marxist, is feeling the over reliance on personal interpretation and conjecture in Syco's argument to back up his claims is a weak position. And even if you are wrong in the end, your actual argument right now is actually more sound, because it isn't only asserting things are just so.

 

The point I actually made, perhaps not clear enough is> no one has authority here, therefore any point made about that is moot. Then I just waffled on about how it's actually meaningless for ones argument to ask for someone to state their own level of authority anyway, and actually damages your own argument. without presenting a counter thesis and simply trying to discredit someone by attacking them, and not the argument ie in this instance their education would be an ad hominem.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Ghogiel

[Syco21]

I unfortunately have to get ready for work, so don't have time for a full response. However, I'd like to point out an observation I have made. Ginny, you do not seem to be fully reading what I post. Rather instead you merely focus on certain points. Observe:

 

 

If you are rubbishing other people's authority, it would be wise to state what your own level of authority is.

This came directly after I stated this...

 

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.

 

Further, your response here:

 

I cannot see anyone in any jurisdiction getting away with making the sort of offer you describe in the current climate, whether or not you mean it in jest. Say it to someone who is two bricks short of a load and they just might go and do it, so you would still be inciting an illegal act. The way that you put it when you offer $50,000 you are even offering consideration for the contract, so you are well and truly stuffed. Shows some kind of intent. And therefore falls within the scope of that US Supreme Court Judgment.

Did not even come close to addressing the point you were responding to. Rather, it completely ignored what was said focused on one key phrase: "Sorry, you're still wrong."

 

This is what that paragraph was responding to:

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.

As you can see, I was responding to your statement about someone being offered a contract kill, turning it down, not going to the police and then being prosecuted as an accomplice.

[marharth]

Oh look now its a debate on if invoking authority anonymously over the internet in a debate is valid or not. Why is that even a discussion? How can people lack that much common sense?

 

I am going to actually be honest now. I have been trying to appeal to people here and its not working. So here is what I actually think.

 

If you get bullied ONLINE and kill yourself over it you are weak and your parents screwed up. You deserve no remorse or respect. If you kill yourself due to something said online it is your own fault, not the fault of people on the internet. Quit going online if you get bullied online. Don't post a ton of pictures of yourself everywhere. Don't let the entire world know who you are. Quit being stupid. Most of them are teens and kids yes, but if you are a parent do not raise your kids to act like idiots on Facebook.

 

And people who make posts saying "oh that is so sad" quit acting like you are helping anyone, you are not. Maybe people post that crap to make it seem like they care when they really don't. The same kids who put sob posts Facebook are the same ones who completely ignored the person getting "bullied." You are making it worse if anything, reinforcing the idea of suicide to people who are already vulnerable. You think making people who kill themselves appear as saints or heroes will make people considering suicide less tempted to?

 

Unless someone has a serious mental disorder at birth, the parents messed up bad in raising their kid if they kill themselves over crap that goes on over the internet.

 

 

Also to cut down most of the replies I will just put the following ahead of time.

 

"You never experienced what its like to want to kill yourself/never had a loved one feel that way"

Incorrect. Don't even try that this time.

 

"My law/doctor/military/superseriousinternetexpert degree means that I know what I am talking about. If you believe me you are a bad person for not trusting me."

No it does not. Never told anyone this before but I am actually the supreme overlord of the universe, and you have to believe me because its the internet, and no one ever tells lies on the internet.

 

"You are just being mean/random insults"

K. Truth hurts.

Edited October 16, 2012 by marharth

[Marxist ßastard]

If you get bullied ONLINE and kill yourself over it you are either weak or your parents screwed up.

"Anyone who is weak deserves to die!" – brought to you by someone arguing on a video game debates forum

[Syco21]

And I, probably like Marxist, is feeling the over reliance on personal interpretation and conjecture in Syco's argument to back up his claims is a weak position. And even if you are wrong in the end, your actual argument right now is actually more sound, because it isn't only asserting things are just so.

Fair point.

 

Failure to report a crime can not be a crime absent active concealment.

 

http://legal-diction....com/misprision

The crime of misprision still exists in England, but it has never been fully embraced in the United States. The first Congress passed a misprision of felony statute in 1789. The statute holds, "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony … conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States" is guilty of misprision of felony and can be punished with up to three years in prison. Under the federal statute, the prosecution must prove the following elements to obtain a misprision of felony conviction: (1) another person actually committed a felony; (2) the defendant knew that the felony was committed; (3) the defendant did not notify any law enforcement or judicial officer; and (4) the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the felony. Precisely what constitutes active concealment is a Question of Fact that depends on the circumstances of the case. Lying to a police officer satisfies the requirement, but beyond that generally accepted rule, little is certain about the definition of active concealment.

 

Almost every state has rejected the crime of misprision of felony. Thus, persons are under no duty to report a crime. One policy reason for rejecting misprision is that the crime is vague and difficult to apply to real situations. Another reason is that the crime is seen as an unacceptable encroachment on civil freedom. In 1822 the U.S. Supreme Court cautioned against misuse of the misprision of felony statute, stating, "It may be the duty of a citizen to … proclaim every offense which comes to his knowledge; but the law which would punish him in every case, for not performing this duty, is too harsh" (Marbury v. Brooks, 20 U.S. [7 Wheat.] 556, 5 L. Ed. 522).

 

My explanation of assault backed by law.

 

http://legal-diction...ary.com/assault

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

 

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

 

Read the rest of the article.

 

 

My statement regarding self defense by deadly force:

 

http://www.statutes....PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

 

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

 

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

 

Conduct here refers to the use of threats, force and deadly force. I have already established that an assault, by law, creates a reasonable fear of imminent harm.

 

Ginny stated:

Say it to someone who is two bricks short of a load and they just might go and do it, so you would still be inciting an illegal act.

This is further evidence that she isn't really paying too much attention to my argument. I had already covered this when I referenced negligence.

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.

Mens rea

http://en.wikipedia....a#United_States

Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant.

• Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware.

• Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.

• Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.

• Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

Solicitation:

 

http://en.wikipedia....om_other_crimes

Solicitation has in the U.S. these unique elements:

1. the encouraging, bribing, requesting, or commanding a person
2. to commit a substantive crime,
3. with the intent that the person solicited actually commit the crime.