

Case of 8,000 Menacing Posts Tests Limits of Twitter Speech - grellas
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/27/technology/man-accused-of-stalking-via-twitter-claims-free-speech.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=8,000&st=cse

======
morsch
A recent article on Ars Technica covers a similar story of a guy publishing
threatening tweets, but also emails, to science writers and other people
(including, finally and by accident, his local police officials).

[http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/08/crank-who-
target...](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/08/crank-who-targeted-
science-writers-lured-into-threatening-police.ars)

What I find annoying is the conflation of free speech as a concept and the
protected speech rights many nations have to various degrees. Prohibiting
threatening emails and tweets clearly is a violation of free speech. That is
not the question. The question is: is it an acceptable violation of free
speech? Apparently some people feel that _any_ violation of free speech is
unacceptable. I'm not sure that they have thought hard enough about other
cases of limiting free speech which they take for granted.

~~~
geuis
I think there is a relatively well-defined, if somewhat broad, line that
borders between free speech and harassment.

For example, suppose that I were to write a couple of articles saying what a
bad, unreliable programmer you were. Any time someone asked me what I thought
of your programming skills, I would tell them that they're lousy and no one
should hire you. Further, I go on to Twitter, Google+, HN, and Facebook and
make a few comments about what a bad experience I had working with you. Maybe
some of the people I know also know you.

In my understanding, that scenario isn't harassment but it is free speech. I'm
not making direct personal attacks against you and I'm not threatening you,
although I'm not saying great things about you. There might be a case for
civil libel there, but it would be a tough argument and would most likely need
to be solved in court via lawsuit.

Now lets take that scenario further. I think you're a shitty, horrible human
being. Not only do I write a couple of articles about what a bad programmer
you are, I go on to talk about how anyone that knows you should kick you in
the ass or push you in front of a car. I start finding out background info
like where you live, who your family is, what your phone number is. I start
giving out all of your personal information. I start calling your house at odd
hours, breathing heavy, and hanging up. I do that 20x a night for weeks on
end. You change your number. I find out what your new one is. On Twitter, I
create hundreds of fake accounts and send you DM's and @'s with some really
awful messages. I start dropping indirect hints that I think you deserve to
die. I do the same thing anywhere I can find you online.

Now in that 2nd, really fucked up scenario, that's harassment. I get arrested
and my lawyer claims that was my free speech. Total bullshit.

So when I say I believe there's a well-defined but broad line it encompasses
those two extremes.

I believe the big defining difference is that if I say or do something _to_
you, that's personal. If I say something _about_ you, it leans towards public.
There's of course all kinds of ways I can say stuff about you and have it be
very personal though.

So I think that issues like this are going to often be on a case-by-case basis
because it can cover a range of scenarios. I might say something about you
that you feel is harassment while to any 3rd party observer its obviously free
speech, and vice-versa.

~~~
sliverstorm
_that scenario isn't harassment but it is free speech. I'm not making direct
personal attacks against you and I'm not threatening you, although I'm not
saying great things about you_

Your understanding is not correct. You are discussing territory involving
slander/defamation laws. Slander and defamation are crimes. The important
thing to know about slander/defamation is that, at least in the US it is not
considered slander or defamation if it is provably true.

 _Now in that 2nd, really fucked up scenario, that's harassment_

It's a whole host of things, many of which are wholly unrelated to free
speech.

~~~
chc
It's also not slander or libel if it can't be proven factually (e.g. "He's a
jackass" isn't slander because thete's no concrete fact being communicated) or
if it seemed likely enough to be true.

(Note: Not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice, but I've spent many
years in the newspaper industry, where this stuff comes up regularly.)

This is also radically different in the UK, where someone was successfully
sued for slander because he pointed out that medical studies indicated certain
techniques were ineffective.

~~~
dagw
_where someone was successfully sued for slander because he pointed out that
medical studies indicated certain techniques were ineffective._

Who? When? Where? If you're talking about the Simon Singh case then a) Mr
Singh won the cases and b) he wasn't sued for claiming the techniques where
ineffective, but for claiming the that BCA was promoting techniques they
themselves knew where bogus.

UK libel and slander laws may be fucked, but they're not THAT fucked.

~~~
chc
Yes, I meant Singh. Unless my memory is badly failing me, the initial trial
judge found him obviously guilty — but then he won the appeal. So you're
right, I might have given a slightly false impression, but it's not too far
off.

~~~
dagw
The thing is though that the case never hinged on the effectiveness of the
treatment, but basically one whether Mr Singh called the chiropractors who
performed the treatment naive and delusional (which would be fine) or cynical
con men (which would be slander).

------
mkross
> The relationship soured after they came to doubt his reincarnation
> credentials and found that his claims of cancer were false.

As someone who knows very little of Buddhism, what sorts of "reincarnation
credentials" is an executive-level reincarnate supposed to have? Is this like
claiming to have an MBA but leaving out the University of Phoenix part?

~~~
michael_dorfman
Short version: most branches of Buddhism don't have this kind of notion at
all-- it is pretty unique to Tibetan Buddhism, where there are a relatively
small number of _tulku_ lineages, where a person can be recognized as an
incarnation of the prior holder of the lineage. (The Dalai Lama is the most
famous example-- the current Dalai Lama is the 14th in the series.)
Incarnations are officially recognized by other _tulkus_ , according to
tradition; for example, the Dalai Lama is usually recognized by the Panchen
Lama.

Without knowing the details in this case, I am assuming that the person in
question falsely claimed to have been recognized as a _tulku_. I can't imagine
that this was part of the job requirements.

So, an analog would be falsely claiming on your CV to have won a prestigious
award (say, the Turing Award).

It's a pretty outrageous lie; but then again, so is claiming to have cancer.

------
cperciva
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what the law is in the US, but in Canada one
of the relevant bars for the charge of criminal harassment is "would these
actions cause a reasonable person to fear for his/her safety?"

It sounds like the conduct described absolutely meets that test; so I'd say
that it's well outside of legitimate "free speech".

------
JoshTriplett
This seems ridiculous and offensive, but since it almost certainly violates
Twitter's ToS, that seems like the easy way to resolve this problem. You're
free to shout from your own soapbox, but someone else can set limits on the
use of their own soapbox.

------
joelthelion
This may not be the best occasion to discuss that, but I've always thought
that a decentralized (maybe P2P) version of twitter in which free speech could
not be denied by a central entity would be awesome.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with something convincing until
now. If someone smarter than me wants to take the challenge...

~~~
sliverstorm
This is your "something convincing"? Let's all stick up for your right to
terrorize Buddhist monks?

~~~
joelthelion
No, I mean a convincing idea to code it. I think everyone can understand the
value of free speech, even if this story is not the best example of course!

------
artursapek
_Is posting a public message on Twitter akin to speaking from an old-fashioned
soapbox, or can it also be regarded as a means of direct personal
communication, like a letter or phone call?_

That is an interesting legal question. How much more direct is a call sent to
someone's cell phone, or a letter to their mailbox, than a tweet sent to their
Twitter home page?

A letter shows up tangibly in your mailbox no matter what you do, and the same
with a phone call. You can choose to ignore those, but they will show up and
can still disturb you. A Tweet is a little more intangible, it's quiet until
one to chooses to look at it. I wouldn't say it's as direct as the other two.
But I guess it's the thought that counts.

------
ohashi
This one bothers me for a variety of reasons. I am not sure where I fall on
the issue because I support free speech but this calls into question of how
far is allowed? Is it free speech if it is hurting another person? At 8000
messages and creating many personas, simply to harass a single person, this
seems like a violation of the harassed person. Somewhere within the multiple
personas used to attack, I've crossed a threshold in my belief to a right to
free speech but I am not sure exactly where that line was.

------
nvictor
one or two or even three is ok, but 8000 is disturbing...

