Supreme Court Hears Arguments That Threats Online Could Be Considered A Criminal Act | Full
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 кві 2023
- On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Counterman v. Colorado, which looks at whether threats on social media are protected by the first amendment.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
Making threats is already illegal. Why would it matter what platform was used to make a threat. I fear that they are going to change the definition of "threat".
They already make free speech hate speech!
Exactly.
A girl online told me to go shoot a school because I’m American. Then she said if I didn’t do it then she would. I didn’t even report her and this was months ago, I wish I did.
The platform doesn't matter. The video title is a very poorly-titled framing of the issue here.
What is the definition of "threat?" Who defined it, and where can I find this definition?
What ever happened to 'sticks and stones can break my bones but WORDS can never hurt me '????????
Strangers don’t tell people they will harm them in public. It shouldn’t happen online either
@arod8220 no kidding... It's becoming ridiculous.
Plaintiff: Are you saying this is about you are about someone else
Government employees have state sanctioned quiet-quitting privileges to never do their job.
A social media threat isn't the problem.....it's sanctioned apathy at expense of taxpayer dollars.
Online has nothing to do with the courts. People discuss stuff in writing
To me any criminal offense should require a reckless or harmful intent. We should not throw people in jail for being stupid, getting into accidents, or telling bad jokes. The guy in this case would probably still be guilty but he should be allowed to provide evidence of his mental state and a jury can choose not to believe it. After all if he had actually killed someone instead of just talking about it, the government would have to prove intent or recklessness.
I was watching a movie in a theater and saw a rather rare car. I spontaneously blurted out Fuego, Feugo. I in fact yelled fiee in a criwded theater and guess whaf, it wasnt actually illegal. Only two people even responded, a soanish speaker who looked around for a fire, and a car enthusiasit who recognized the car after I identified it.
Almost like if isnt the words but the reaxtion of third parties that justified the las. Dodsbt matter what is said it only matters what is heard snd if someine is offended.
Did a judge or politician or government official violate the plaintiff's ,rights or in a criminal court
So the plaintiff is switching up on stuff when it was about online stuff not about a school.
My question is, is he trying to get money by different scenarios when the case was never about a school.
The case should be dropped ASAP.
But if it is deformation the plaintiff is in the wrong level of court especially if it wasn't a politician or government.
Are you saying that the person on line was in Colorado or they could have been living anywhere in or outside of the United States of America
I believe when he says constitution wise he's mentioned a action done against another in a harmful way like stabbings or shootings or hitting someone with a car or robbery , stuff like that.
.
As someone who was subject to a online threat just 2 days ago. I don't think that should be prosecuted.
That person's account and posts should definitely be forwarded to the FBI. But nothing criminal happened.
Prosecuted, sanctioned by the social media. That conduct should be warned against as a condition of using such sites. Your intent not to make an issue of it doesn’t preclude the state from preventing such conduct in the first place
@@joshuamatkin8306 My intent was to make it an issue, which I did, but it's not a crime.
Read more or something.
Are you saying that people might have lawsuits against states when police falsely arrested them for something that happened online?
Are you saying that a crime was committed against another physically .
Is he saying that it's government when he says Colorado?;
This is a good video, but it should be longer.
Is he saying Colorado did something to him or someone online. Because Colorado isn't a person.
I know he didn't bring a emotional distress as evidence from social media when the person can just turn their phone off or computer. There is no emotion distress from social media are you kidding me. Then the plaintiff mentioned stalking, no nope not on social media. Turn your phone off . If you feel that bad about it
As far as the student saying it in school, that's different. That's not being said on line but that's a matter for the police to be like security on campus
But it's not a I'm bringing this to the supreme courts type of thing to present a argument. But on a different note it might be able to be presented in the supreme Court if the person was from another country but just a regular high schooler they can just call the police for that so it depends on the person big time but when the plaintiff switched to emotional distress he really blew it.
What do you mean the state that provides it . Are you speaking a criminal act that happened in person? No , you said that something happened on line it didn't happen in person. So, state is when actually criminal act happened especially when some one drops a case and state picked it up.
So the versus title doesn't appear to be correct.
It is
IKR, making threats has been illegal for a long time. I just hope they aren't looking to change the definition of "threat".
Its about some guy who send 100 messages including death threats to a country singer and was sentenced to prison for 4 years in 2016. No he is out of prison and is suing the government because he thinks that he did nothing wrong. Currently the law states its a crime if the victim of threat feels threatened, but the stalker argued that free speech protects him since he meant no harm (which is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard but whatever). I don’t think the supreme court will vote in favor since this guy is clearly coo coo and if the sentence was overturned than you could argue that kids should be charged with bomb threats since “they were just joking”.
Understand what this is really about, and that is to redefine threat. Objectively and in their highest hopes they wish for anyone having an opinion different from an established worldview to be dangerous and therefore a threat to peoples lives, so they can arrest and jail dissidents of the establishment and power structure in the country. Welcome to Tyranny, it always sounds good at first. Like we are doing the right thing locking these people up, but when the mass graves start, it’s too late to turn back.
It’s not as innocent and innocuous as it appears.
If it’s on Facebook messenger just block and delete the person
When you put your picture of yourself and your spouse out
Everyone in your list can see you
People want attention
Then when they get it they cry Wolf
Someone mentioned deformation. It's hard to prove. Who is really using that computer. Are they using their real name. Was it really that person?
I can't believe this is at the SC. So gay
Don't fall for their bullshit. Their definition of a threat is so loose, so general, that you having an opinion they don't agree with can be seen as a threat.
"It is dangerous to be right on matters in which the established authority is wrong."
Where's the police officers and who got hurt or did they call the police.
I would challenge the claims on countermand claim on two fronts- someone makes a threat not with the intent of following through but the person who was threatened takes it seriously and gets paranoid, on the flip side a person who makes a threat with intent and the person who is threatened laughs it off. Wouldn’t both situations be cases where the threat should be illegal? I think the law should be either or situation, intent and perception should be key
Sounds like a free speech issue. Define threat. Define overt acts versus speech and define intent.
To them, a threat could be an opinion that differs from theirs.
"It is dangerous to be right on matters in which the established authority is wrong."
I HIGHLY recommend you take a vocab class or go to hooked on phonics. Since you are very obviously incapable of looking yourself - here is the definition of a threat.
noun: threat; plural noun: threats
1.
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
"members of her family have received death threats"
Similar:
threatening remark
warning
ultimatum
intimidating remark
commination
menaces
menacing
LAW
a menace of bodily harm, such as may restrain a person's freedom of action.
2.
a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.
"hurricane damage poses a major threat to many coastal communities"
the possibility of trouble, danger, or ruin.
"the company faces the threat of bankruptcy"
@@Handle70770 It is easy to google the definition of "threat" but applying that definition is much more difficult. Are any of the following true threats (taken from the actual case)?
* Was that you in the white Jeep?
* Five years on Facebook. Only a couple physical sightings.
* I've had tapped phone lines before. What do you fear?
* I'm currently unsupervised. I know, it freaks me out too, but the possibilities are endless.
* F-ck off permanently.
* You're not being good for human relations. Die. Don't need you.
* Talking to others about me isn't prolife sustaining for my benefit. Cut me a break already....Are you a solution or a problem?
* Your chase. Bet. You do not talk and you have my phone hacked.
* Staying in cyber life is going to kill you. Come out for coffee. You have my number.
* Your response is nothing attractive. Tell your friend to get lost.
@@Handle70770ah look it says intent.
No way.
I loathe that people use threats and incite violence online. Words are often misunderstood. I have experienced having something I said completely misunderstood. Our justice system is sadly lacking in honor and honesty. Lawyers twist words and gaslight all the time. I have zero trust. When I was young and naïve, I thought the police, courts, and our government were in place to take care of us and provide a safe country to live in. I am thoroughly disavowed of that feeling and am left with disgust, contempt and fear. Shame on all of you that are guilty of dishonesty. Praise to those of you that actually have a true north moral compass.
I feel your not going to be able to rule on this
But this isn't about a lawsuit. Lawsuit aren't done against Google in this court. This court must be heard by real people. Google is a computer program website and the Constitution has nothing to do with it and nobody rights were violated in a court of law .
The insanity defense shouldn’t preclude against all sanctions the state can make, the state has to still protect the welfare of society.
Is this first amendment. No i don't think do did he read words or were they talking on social media.
Isn't thr first amendment about SPEECH .
Praying in front of an abortion clinic will be illegal soon. Even thoughts will be illegal. Time to teach the Bill Of Rights to the next generation. If they don’t agree with the Bill Of Rights, they shouldn’t be judges.
Why would anyone think making a threat online should be protected, people sometimes carried out their threats to others
What about those that haven't ?
Whats does one consider a threat is the question?
Hypothetically if someone types, I’d like to punch you in the face is that a threat ? NO
Or hypothetically if you say they all need to be put in front of a firing squad is that a direct threat?
My answer to both is NO
To your question yes it could be. If a victim under a certain context perceives the threat to be credible they would say they are being threatened
Second/Third generation needs to be taken out of the public domain immediately..
The video title is a terrible characterization of the case. The question before the Court is whether a true threat requires the speaker to subjectively know or intend the threatening nature of the statement or is it judged by a "reasonable person" standard. There is no question that true threats uttered on social media are not protected by the First Amendment.
Watts vs United States (1969)
And they should be
Wow wow good brother and sister and Family All PEACE and Happiness and Democracy in Femily okay and Female All business ok and Democracy and peace
Yeah and then they’re gonna fine-tune the definition of a “threat” and we won’t be able to say anything at all.
Context is essential. Perception or intent are critical.
A message gets colored by context and changes it from a first amendment speech to one that is not protected. That’s how I take this.
Freedom of speech?
A threat is an exemption of freedom of speech and is not protected
@@joshuamatkin8306that's why everything will be a threat.
@@cheryl1851 ?? I would say it will be a case by case basis. Context is important. Let’s not generalize or catastrophize things
@@joshuamatkin8306 the threatening message was... Cyber life will kill you, I'll buy you a cup of coffee. Seriously.
@@cheryl1851 in that situation would you consider his speech protected? If your wife or daughter was experiencing such behavior, would you say the first amendment protects his speech?
threat is only when it is factual. like someone pointing a gun at me or going at me with the intention of hurting me.
If someone makes a statement to a stranger, isn’t it the burden of the sender to ensure that the statement could not be construed as threatening?
@arod8220 I agree. Although as I mentioned earlier, a victims perception shouldn’t preclude whether a threat was made especially if other strangers could construe a statement as threatening, or if evidence is available that shows intent on the sender… all three cases could be grounds of a threat foundation
@arod8220 no. That would be the courts to decide.
I believe when he says constitution wise he's mentioned a action done against another in a harmful way like stabbings or shootings or hitting someone with a car or robbery , stuff like that.
.
What do you mean the state that provides it . Are you speaking a criminal act that happened in person? No , you said that something happened on line it didn't happen in person. So, state is when actually criminal act happened especially when some one drops a case and state picked it up.