Twitter Must ID User Who Threatened Politician

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
To be honest, no one likes to see Twitter turn over someone's identity to the authorities, but it is pretty damn hard to have sympathy for someone this stupid.

Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of Washington’s federal trial court decided last week that prosecutors can request Twitter to unmask a user who threatened Rep. Michele Bachmann with sexual violence.
 
Politicians, police, or any other government employee are not any more special than the average joe, stop treating them as if they are.
 
Politicians, police, or any other government employee are not any more special than the average joe, stop treating them as if they are.

And stop pretending they are not more special and have the same power as you. Should we ignore all threats made to politicians?
 
Politicians, police, or any other government employee are not any more special than the average joe, stop treating them as if they are.

From what I've seen, these sorts of things are handled similarly for people who aren't part of the government provided the victim pursues. It's just not as big of a deal, so there aren't any news articles about it.
 
It's not really about incitement... it's a direct threat. Everyone knows direct threats are not protected speech.

Right, but even speech used to incite violence, even if the person speaking isn't committing the violence, isn't protected.
 
To be honest, no one likes to see Twitter turn over someone's identity to the authorities, but it is pretty damn hard to have sympathy for someone this stupid.

I can name 10 people off the top of my head that said "I would fuck the shit out of Michelle Bachmann" I'm sorry, does that make them criminals too? Do we need to turn them over? :rolleyes: Free Speech, pssshhhh. Get in line for your RFID barcode chip to be placed inside of you at all times.
 
I can name 10 people off the top of my head that said "I would fuck the shit out of Michelle Bachmann" I'm sorry, does that make them criminals too? Do we need to turn them over? :rolleyes: Free Speech, pssshhhh. Get in line for your RFID barcode chip to be placed inside of you at all times.

Why do people believe free speech means they can say anything without getting in trouble? Threats are not covered under free speech. They never have been.
 
lol I was prepared for some kind of insane-O statment, the machete fucking is actually kind of a let down. Does anybody know if this was posted on the guys own page or on Bachman's? The article was a little parse on the details.
 
That's kinda sad. If that person was making threats to any other random person that has no high end status, nothing would ever come of it, but because it's a politician, then it's a big deal. Not that what he did was ok.

Now what if Twitter did not keep logs? Would they shut down the site because they don't like it's content? (like they did with Megaupload). I just find the US government is on a serious power trip lately. Well it always has, but it seems to be getting worse.
 
Did he said "I want to [commit violence]" or "I will/I plan to [commit violence]"?

If it's the latter, throw the book at him. Direct threats should be taken seriously and prosecuted accordingly.
 
I personally don't think there is enough evidence that he made a threat. Some people are into S&M, such as this guy. He didn't say he was going to use the machete, or whether he would use the blade or the hilt, or what he would do with it. He didn't say he would f*** her consensually or against her will. He just said he wanted to do dirty/violent things to her. Dirty is not always = violent.

My $0.02 at least.
 
Why do people believe free speech means they can say anything without getting in trouble? Threats are not covered under free speech. They never have been.

this ^ , you are free to say anything, express anything, of course don't be stupid if you are crossing the boundaries of atleast respecting the person you are talking about for example. generation nowadays tends to go too far about expressing themselves aint it?
 
I personally don't think there is enough evidence that he made a threat. Some people are into S&M, such as this guy. He didn't say he was going to use the machete, or whether he would use the blade or the hilt, or what he would do with it. He didn't say he would f*** her consensually or against her will. He just said he wanted to do dirty/violent things to her. Dirty is not always = violent.

My $0.02 at least.

I'm not a huge fan of the cops, but regardless of the exact terminology the guy used, law enforcement needs to be the one to make the determination of whether the guy was making a serious threat, or just talking smack.

When it comes to threats of violence, better to err on the side of caution, rather than to sit there analyzing every little word and trying to make a wild guess as to the guys motives and intent. It's probably nothing, but I don't think it's unreasonable to allow law enforcement to know who the guy is.

It's not up to Twitter to decide who is serious and who isn't.
 
Freedom of speech does not cover threats.
Presidents and candidates of, are more special, in the minds of the people and the minds of the government. (So are a lot of other people, like celebrities, or else they wouldn't be so rich)
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are invisible. You can still be identified, and as it seems, forced to be identified to see if you are a viable threat when making threatening statements.

I don't see this really going anywhere, since it really just seems like a sick idle threat, if that.
 
How come no one reads the articles on this forum?

Mr. X wrote that he wants to “f*** Michelle Bachmann … with a Vietnam era machete,”

If that warrants "Mr. X" being in any sort of legal trouble then we're all going down the shitter as a society... other than fucking people with a machete.
 
Politicians, police, or any other government employee are not any more special than the average joe, stop treating them as if they are.

Yeah, if the average citizen would have made a complaint they would have been laughed out of the office.
 
Yeah, if the average citizen would have made a complaint they would have been laughed out of the office.

People get reported for making threats online all the time, and they get visits from the police for doing so. It's just not in the news because it's not a high profile person. The claim that threats of violence are not investigated unless the victim is a high profile individual is patently false.
 
Politicians, police, or any other government employee are not any more special than the average joe, stop treating them as if they are.

You're right they aren't any more special than the average "Joe" but they command a much larger audience than the average "Joe" and therefore you have to expect that they could possibly have a greater chance than the average "Joe" to be interacting with someone who is of questionable mental stability and therefore will probably require a more thorough response to threats of this type.

Don't get me wrong here Michelle Bachman doesn't present herself as the most mentally stable person herself and her kind scare the hell out of me but none the less she probably deserves the benefit of doubt when it comes to her safety.

Cheers!
 
He should have just told them Anthony Weiner hacked his account and said those things, and even sent pictures of somebody else's junk to the porn stars he was following.

"... unless you liked said pictures. Then it was me."
 
Is this possibly a threat? Yes.

Does this mean the identity of "Mr. X" should be revealed? Yes.

Is the comment made by "Mr. X" really a threat? No idea and that's why the police go to "Mr. X" and find out if he even owns a machete.

Honestly this is probably just some idiot who wanted attention (and Bachman luvin?) but in the end will be found harmless, however that doesn't change the fact that his statement can definitely be evaluated as a threat.
 
I'd be fucked. I say I wanna fuck Britney Spears. I say I'd tap that ass to Sarah Palin. I've said I WOULDN'T fuck Michelle Obama with TheBuzzer's dick. I guess I'm a hard core gangsta criminal now. See yall in prison cell 6.

Sure, you have to investigate threats, otherwise the "real" threats could turn into actual violent crimes. But, some of these are just so retarded (like mine up above) that are pretty tame.

I would do any raping with a machete, that's not my thing. A couple roofies, some blow and a few underage hookers from Thailand, sure. But a machete.... No way. (That whole thing was complete bullshit, not true. I would never do any of that shit. Don't taze me, bro).

If the guys name is given up, then I'd expect any and all threats on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. to be investigated. And there are a LOT of them: "I'd stab you with a fork.", "Die, fucker, die!", etc.. There are WAY too many of them to just pick and choose who you think is worthy enough to protect against an anonymous internet user tough guy. You can't just pick one because some senator or congresswoman or judge throws a fit over a bad taste post. You have to either go all or none. If it feels like a legitimate threat (or towards the POTUS, of course - those have to be treated differently for national security purposes, they always have), sure. But, a generic Twitter post. No way.
 
Oh, and does this "Mr. X." Happen to be Charles Xavier? Hmmmm......
 
Of course we have to take threats to sitting congressmen (and women) more seriously; because they wield great power. If people could get away with threatening them, even in a veiled manner, it could easily lead to intimidation. Obviously our politicians are already influenced in many ways, but that just points to the importance of reducing those influences as much as possible. The applies to an even greater extent to the president and vice president. But the flip side is, they have less privacy and freedom to come and go as they please. It's a trade off, and one they must accept.
 
I'm not a huge fan of the cops, but regardless of the exact terminology the guy used, law enforcement needs to be the one to make the determination of whether the guy was making a serious threat, or just talking smack.

When it comes to threats of violence, better to err on the side of caution, rather than to sit there analyzing every little word and trying to make a wild guess as to the guys motives and intent. It's probably nothing, but I don't think it's unreasonable to allow law enforcement to know who the guy is.

It's not up to Twitter to decide who is serious and who isn't.

You make a really convincing argument, and in the end you're right. Letting law enforcement do some research is "better safe than sorry", and I suppose if someone said something like that about me, I'd want to err on the side of safety too.

Thanks. :)
 
Back
Top