Should Making A Threat On Facebook Be A Crime?
from the determining-real-vs.-fake dept
There have been a few instances lately of various mass killings around the world (though certainly not all of them) where those responsible have either left strong hints via their online presence, or have even been pretty direct about their intentions. Of course, at the same time, you have stories like Paul Chambers', where a joke was over-inflated by some law enforcement officials to pretend that it was a threat. Ditto the story of Joe Lipari, who quoted a line from Fight Club on Facebook, and got arrested for his trouble.So, I find it somewhat troubling that police in Canada seem to think that any threat online or off is a criminal offense. There's been an increase in people charged in Canada for merely making a threat, and some are reasonably concerned that many of those threats are idle chatter on social networks. The article seems to think that there's no good way of dealing with this other than to change the law so that online threats are treated differently than offline threats:
Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code says a person who knowingly utters, conveys or causes another person to receive a threat of death or bodily harm can receive a prison term of up to five years. A person who threatens to damage property, or kill or injure an animal, can receive a prison sentence of up to two years.Of course, rather than separating out online and in-person speech, what's wrong with just looking at the details of the situation, and making a reasonable assessment as to whether the threat is legitimate or just someone saying something stupid? In the cases of Chambers and Lipari above, law enforcement should have quickly realized that neither individual was likely to do anything violent. But if someone is legitimately planning to shoot at a group of people and talking about it online, it seems that, at the very least, that could be worth investigating. The problem is criminalizing the statement, rather than using it as evidence to see if there's actually any real intent to follow through.
Cpl. De Jong said under the Criminal Code “a threat is a threat is a threat,” regardless of how it’s made.
But Bentley Doyle, of the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C., said some sort of distinction should be drawn between online threats and those made in person.
“The more specific you get, the easier it is to actually follow through and charge somebody specifically,” he said.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: social media, threats
Reader Comments
The First Word
“/imminentphysicalthreat
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Officer!!!
...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brandon Raub
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1EvM6XksM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPONJasCsYs
ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSZkwFv0n1E
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yeah. That's what we need. A statute that says explicitly that it's ok to harass people online in ways that we wouldn't tolerate in person. That'll fix the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Um...
Well, what's wrong is that this would actually force the authorities to, you know, work. That's way too hard for them, but if they just criminalize this, they can arrest more people to make sure they're making their quotas...
I'm starting to think that living with penguins on Antarctica might be the way to go...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yours is broken? Try turning it off and back on again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A threat by any means...
Isn't it a crime here in the US to send a threatening letter through the postal service?
Pardon my ignorance but I thought it was always a crime, by any means, to threaten to harm someone or something.
Why would being on the internet make you immune to prosecution?
I think that if anyone makes a serious threat to harm someone, they should be hauled before a judge to explain themselves.
Maybe it's someone venting or maybe it's real.
How would we know?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A threat by any means...
How would you set what constitutes a threat? Who would have the power to change or determine what consititutes a threat? Could we use a color system like we have for terror?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
/imminentphysicalthreat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A threat is only a threat when a it threatens imminent harm that any reasonable person would consider as such.
Or for a specific definition: a threat is something that must be on its face and in the circumstances which it is made, so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened as to convey a reasonable gravity of purpose, and reasonable imminent prospect of execution.
This is whether it is online, offline or whatever. The method of distribution is irrelevant. In fact online is more than likely to result in the element of imminent prospect of execution not being met, similar to threats made via phone services etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
are u threatening me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jokes (no matter how sick or offensive) should be protected under free speech because free speech is there to protect unpopular speech.
There is a world of difference between genuine threats and trolls who just want attention but sadly the media and the politicians and authorities are incapable of making that distinction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: are u threatening me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Proportionality, anyone?
Just a question... how long is the maximum prison term for, let's say, breaking someone's arm?
Because if I'm gonna get 5 years for both breaking your arm, and just SAYING I [could|would like to|am going to] break your arm - well, my friend, I'm gonna break your arm right now without a single word.
- Don't worry, I don't really mean I'm gonna break your arm ;-) But I wonder, if it really gets to the point of no difference between saying you would like to do something and actually doing something, how many people will actually bother opening their mouths anymore?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I wouldn't limit it just to Canadians, though.
Or to XBL.
Or to playing games....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A threat by any means...
If I make a threat that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their immediate safety, that's assault.
But if I make a more generalized threat, or a vague one, or just behave in a threatening manner, that isn't necessarily in violating of the law. It depends on the circumstance.
If I followed you around, or sent repeated threatening messages to you, I may be guilty of harassment or stalking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It shouldn't be less of a crime than doing it in person, in front of a large group of people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A threat by any means...
Yep. Specifically, they have the right to a trial. This involves being hauled before a judge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Better question:
Should unlawful actions be excused because it is done on-line?
As a Canadian, this is the worst headline I have seen on this site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A threat by any means...
You said "serious"...what defines a serious threat from ...venting? And if someone made a questionable threat...is it reasonable to arrest them 15 months later...after NO threat was even remotely carried out?
Police...get a complaint...and charge first. Theres seldom anything more than a cursory investigation.
So how do we know if its SERIOUS?
[ link to this | view in thread ]