I agree. I am all for “the law is an ass” kind of stuff but in this case the court is setting a good precedent.
There’s room to agree twitter is not above the law, but push for more nuance to the law because twitter is not exactly like sending someone a letter in the mail. In some ways it is, and in some ways the standards should be the same, but in other ways it isn’t.
I don’t believe any and all @ replies should be treated with the same intent as a letter mailed to someone. A twitter DM would be a better direct comparison. An @ reply isn’t as easy to determine intent with; it’s easy to accidentally get caught up in a reply chain and not realize who’s involved, it’s easy to have different ideas of twitter etiquette and understanding the difference between talking to someone and talking about someone.
And even though the result of an indirect @ reply and a direct @ reply might be the same for the victim, it’s still important to make distinctions about the intent, and I don’t think a law designed around US mail is going to be effective for that.
I can safely say i have never threatened someone via Twitter, not directly nor implied abuse would be done, nor did I try to disturb them in some weird personal way.
I don’t know why people assume that is normal behavior.
You realize that telling a Trump supporter (or anyone) that they’re stupid qualifies under that wording.
So if TrumpLover69 says something racist and you call him out on it, he responds, you respond, oh you broke the law because he felt persecuted for being called a racist.
I could be arrested for responses to people like James Woods as long as he felt “persecuted.” Consideing Mr Woods feels persecuted by literally everything, I guess I’d be fucked since I’m sure I’ve sent more than 2 of them over the course of the last couple of years.
I agree that it is easier to determine intent with a DM, and it’s plausible that someone using @ reply could claim that they were not actually intending to distress the eventual recipient.
But that’s not an issue here, because the defendants admitted that they intended to cause distress.
Yes, I should’ve clarified, I’m worried about the precedent being bad, not the specifics of this case, where the intent does seem clear.
Harassment is unwanted communication. “Unwanted” as in “unsolicited”, not as in “unpleasant”.
If TrumpLover posts in a forum like this, it is natural to expect a reply. That is the purpose of posting in a forum.
If TrumpLover asked me to stop replying and I continued, then yes that might constitute harassment. If I followed TrumpLover to a different forum to continue my abuse, then yes they might also constitute harassment. But why would any reasonable person do such things?
And I’ve never sent anything to James Woods. Why would I?
It looks like intent was a critical part of the decision:
Here, the evidence showed that by tagging M.B.'s Twitter account, the user posting the tweets intended that the tweets would be seen by the tagged individual as well as being viewable by the Twitter community at large. … Therefore, A.J.B.'s comparison to posting information on a bulletin board is misplaced and his actions are not entitled to greater protection merely because they were visible to the public.
That was a good read, thanks. Not sure why it’s in the Liberal Stupidity thread. Maybe I’m the joke?
It’s in the liberal stupidity thread because the WHCA is the primary idiot in this piece.
Ahh, that makes sense. Except that they’re not liberals, but okay.
Nope, as much as the right wing tries to claim, they’re not liberals.
They’re bootlickers.
LOL. I laughed.
Come on man, everyone knows that all news media* is liberal.
- Except for Fox, Brietbart, et al
He said “news media”
“Due to the blackout, Puerto Ricans have now been tragically unable to to see tweets that compare Donald Trump’s skin to a Cheeto for over 24 hours, so we knew we had to help,” read a post that quickly went viral on the charity’s Facebook page. “It will be weeks or even months before Puerto Rico will recover from this humanitarian crisis of not having the latest photoshops of Trump with a Hitler mustache, but Aid The Way will not stop dropping printed-out Drumpf clapbacks until the last Puerto Rican has power.”
So inspiring! According to Aid The Way, a plane full of sick internet burns is already on its way to the island that will have beleaguered Puerto Ricans saying things like “got him!” and “totally owned” in no time. Thanks to dedicated relief organizations like this one, it seems like Puerto Rico will be on its way to recovery in no time. Incredible work, Aid The Way!
You realize that’s from The Onion, right? Just like this:
A research team at MIT has just conclusively proved that Trump = Voldemort.
“The big breakthrough came last fall when we discovered that Stephen Miller = Peter Pettigrew2 and Freedom Caucus = Death Eaters,” research lead Anwar Yadav said in a statement about the groundbreaking study that will have Drumpf fans screaming. “But we got stuck when the proofs suggested that Jared Kushner = Ron Weasley + Hagrid. Luckily a graduate student noticed that there had been a rounding error on Paul Ryan / Luna Lovegood = Snape, and everything snapped into place after that.”
Yes.
Thought it was a fun jab at what many of us do on the forum.
tragically unable to to see tweets that compare Donald Trump’s skin to a Cheeto for over 24 hours
They keep saying removed from Spotify, but my understanding it’s their playlists, the content they put together. You can still buy the content. Is that correct?