World News

22057 readers

150 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

For US News, see the US News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Supreme Court guts protections for cyberstalking victims (www.fastcompany.com)

submitted 1 year ago by withersailor@aussie.zone to c/news@beehaw.org

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Jck2905@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like, i get where the majority opinion is coming from. It seems they’re worried about, for example, a kid in minecraft saying “I’m gonna get you” 50 times vs someone on Facebook messaging a person like that.

I’m curious what you think a solution would look like because I’m at a loss. We already don’t do enough for victims of stalking and this ruling won’t help anything. Maybe an overhaul on how we process and accept restraining orders?

[–] azureeight@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But this isn't a kid sending 50 messages.

“I’m currently unsupervised. I know, it freaks me out too, but the possibilities are endless,” read another.

Some of the messages suggested the target, a singer-songwriter who’s referred to as C.W. in court documents, was being watched. Others made vague, confusing references to phone lines being tapped. When C.W. blocked Counterman’s account, more messages would appear from new accounts in a pattern that persisted for two frightening years.

So if i called you or mailed you or did any of this in person i would be punished. The idea that we are able to say absolutely anything online is foolish.

In their dissent, they grapple with the potential consequences of this ruling and the impact it may have on victims of harassment and stalking, as well as efforts to impose restraining orders on other people who make violent threats.

“Imagine someone who threatens to bomb an airport. The speaker might well end up barred from the location in question—for good reason,” Justice Barrett writes. “Yet after today, such orders cannot be obtained without proof—not necessarily easy to secure—that the person who issued the threat anticipated that it would elicit fear.”

I want to know how saying you are going to do something isnt even "half credit" towards it.

What i think? I think if someone sends someone something threatening and they mean it or not, the person has a right to their lives to say stop. After that you should be charged for forcing yourself without consent into someone's lives. I don't know why that's a crazy opinion?

Verbal threats of violence used to be punishable. I don't see a difference in what this man did and harassing someone and we punish that.

There is zero part of me that is worried punishing death threats online is some how a societal ill. In fact i argue that not enough people are held to the social and civil contract we all make with each other online and they need to be reminded they are interacting with humans.

Also, if this man really cannot understand how what he said was harmful, i think he especially needs to be thrown away as a human being. What worth is someone who harasses a stranger for two years to our global community?