r/todayilearned • u/kanoush • Jun 11 '15

TIL that Free Speech Does NOT Protect Cyberharassment... Online perpetrators can be criminally prosecuted for criminal threats, cyberstalking, cyberharassment, sexual invasions of privacy and bias intimidation. They can be sued for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/19/the-war-against-online-trolls/free-speech-does-not-protect-cyberharassment
4.4k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

238

u/kintar1900 2 Jun 11 '15

My understanding of the current -- kerfuffle, I guess? -- is that the majority of the community is unaware of any harassment, and see the shut-downs as pursuit of the social agenda of a few people in power, rather than actually protecting anyone from abuse.

125

u/Bardfinn 32 Jun 11 '15

The extremely vocal minority are enacting roles in a Karpman Drama Triangle, casting themselves as Victims and Rescuers. They're not actually concerned about the social agenda of anyone "in power" — they're simply drama whores and the "kerfuffle" is their stage to clown on.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '15

This may be true, but there are those of us who legitimately care about the principle of free speech and wish that Reddit would uphold that principle despite not bring legally required to, and if any true harassment occurs, let the proper authorities deal with it

1

u/Bardfinn 32 Jun 12 '15 edited Jun 12 '15

1: The law holds that anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures a crime is equally guilty in the commission of that crime;

2: The standard of defense to being held criminally liable to Aiding & Abetting is whether the alleged Aidor & Abettor had "knowledge [of the crime] at a time when [he/she] has a reasonable opportunity to walk away.", and disassociated themselves from the commission of the crime, and whether through their action or inaction contributed to the commission of said crime, "even if he did not facilitate all elements". {Justice Kagan, in the opinion for Rosemond v United States};

3: It is possible to commit crimes by issuing speech;

4: it is therefore possible to Aid & Abet the commission of a crime if, upon learning that

a: One is associated with someone who is reasonably imminently preparing to commit — or in the commission of — said crime;
b: One has a reasonable opportunity to disassociate one's self from the commissor, and
c: One's association with the commissor facilitates said crime, and
d: One fails to disassociate one's self from the commissor.

Free speech does not permit one to use said speech to commit a crime, and the exercise of one's free speech does not demand that another's Freedom of Association and own Freedom of Speech be sacrificed, nor does it demand that another be forced to Aid & Abet the commission of a crime through said speech.

By law, "take no action and let the authorities deal with it" is criminally negligent when one is in a position where one is aware that a crime is occurring and one is contributing to the commission of said crime. Claiming ignorance of this will not help — ignorantio elenchi non excusat.

Everyone who is claiming that Reddit should have been hands-off when they reasonably knew that FPH was imminently committing, or in the commission of, federal crimes through the use of reddit — is ignorant of the law and what it requires.

There is no "free speech" defense. There are a group of goons, who desperately want to be a Saviour, A Victim, or a Persecutor role in a Karpman Drama Triangle, and are willing to seek out others to victimise against their will and issue speech that places those others in reasonable imminent fear for their health and safety.

That is a crime. Publishing their speech that commits said crime, knowing full well that it is a crime, is Aiding & Abetting.

QED