Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Curt Schilling Fights Back Against Daughter’s Twitter Trolls

onlyagame.wbur.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 187 posts

Re: Curt Schilling Fights Back Against Daughter’s Twitter Trolls

#61

Post by lizzard »

crazypyro wrote: post #9
junto wrote: post #2

People who get caught doing this need to be prosecuted, and if convicted, labeled as sexual criminals and placed on a register. Employers should be able to see the kinds of people they are employing or about to employ. As a father myself, this kind of behaviour makes me sick and I cannot understand people who feel they need to defend these kinds of sick comments.

Behavior is obviously not right, but is it really harming someone else's rights? I'm having a hard time jumping from sexual innuendos to sexual predators... I think it would be a massive mistake to try to make into a crime. Although many of these tweets clearly cross the line of tastelessness, how many sexual jokes/innuendos are less obvious and more controversial about whether they are tasteless? We don't need to cr…

People making these sorts of statements at work would potentially get into trouble because in some countries we have law against harassment at work and creating a hostile work environment. This situation is more like a bunch of dudes going outside someone's house on the public sidewalk and screaming obscenities. Whether or not it's a direct threat of imminent harm or not, it seems unlikely to end well for the screamers.

Re: Curt Schilling Fights Back Against Daughter’s Twitter Trolls

#62

Post by jschwartzi »

pulmo wrote: post #36
senorprogrammer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many people seem to misunderstand that 'freedom of speech' does not mean 'freedom from repercussions'. Pretty glad to read jobs had been lost as a result of this.

In that case the boundaries of freedom are not defined by the constitution any more, but by private parties. Therefore any constitutional stipulation of 'freedom of speech' is practically worthless. Freedom can not only be measured by the existence of a constitutional construct.

When it's between two private parties, you're damn right that the boundaries of freedom are defined by those two parties. Freedom of Speech only applies to the government and to government use of force.

I'm sure the guys who penned the constitution would agree that it wasn't about giving you the freedom to act like a jackass without repercussions.

Re: Curt Schilling Fights Back Against Daughter’s Twitter Trolls

#63

Post by cpncrunch »

lizzard wrote: post #55
pmorici wrote: post #30

Too bad he doesn't go into how he managed to track the 9 people down who he called out. Was he able to do it because he is a famous baseball player and has the resources and connections to make it happen or is it something any normal person on the street can do to stand up for themselves?

This is someone anyone can do, or at least give it a shot. Have a look at this article on how to investigate identity online. It gives some thought to risk assessment and ethical behavior in responding to situations like this. https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/investigation-online-gat...

Also, if they are actually posting something that is criminal, you can report it to the police and they can very easily track the person down.

Re: Curt Schilling Fights Back Against Daughter’s Twitter Trolls

#64

Post by leereeves »

task_queue wrote: post #58

Hey, remember that saying about ignoring the trolls? Forget it, let's double down until some idiot does something really stupid and we have to move.

We've ignored the trolls and they've grown wild in the land of no consequences.

As in the physical world, behavior on the Internet must be governed.

Re: Curt Schilling Fights Back Against Daughter’s Twitter Trolls

#65

Post by cpncrunch »

task_queue wrote: post #58

Hey, remember that saying about ignoring the trolls? Forget it, let's double down until some idiot does something really stupid and we have to move.

Some of us believe that you should nip this kind of highly obnoxious behaviour in the bud. Curt himself gives some good reasons for doing so in the article.

Re: Curt Schilling Fights Back Against Daughter’s Twitter Trolls

#66

Post by acdha »

reitanqild wrote: post #39
phpnode wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same kind of deluded apologism that the gamer gate crowd uses and it is dangerous. How can anyone judge the credibility of a threat made by a stranger on the internet? A threat is a threat.

Can we stop dragging gamergate into this? (Or might I suggest you read up on KotakuInAction on reddit and tell me how it is anywhere borderline close to this?)

KotakuInAction is one of the major GamerGate organizing sites – that's like telling someone to go to the Scientologist Temple for opinions on Dianetics.

… and, yes, it's rather relevant: GamerGate started with a bunch of people on 4chan attacking a stranger on social media at the behest of her ex-boyfriend but it escalated quickly to coordinated harassment on a bunch of different forms of electronic media and attempts to bring it close to home with real-world stalking at work & conferences, SWATing, etc.

That's the problem here: the people who started it might have had no intention of anything beyond enjoying making someone else unhappy but they repeated things widely and loudly enough that other people fell for the cover story and escalated it further.

Re: Curt Schilling Fights Back Against Daughter’s Twitter Trolls

#67

Post by a3n »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #51

A lot of people feel these threats should be taken seriously, and the law should be involved. I don't know what to think of this situation, but I want to ask you a question. Without irony or snark: How do you feel about the threats of violence made by Curt against those people?

It struck me that he was doing something similar to what he's complaining about.

Re: Curt Schilling Fights Back Against Daughter’s Twitter Trolls

#68

Post by leereeves »

jimworm wrote: post #60

Famous people leach fame into others by interacting with them. The easiest way to force someone to interact with you is to hit them somewhere vulnerable. Mr Schilling either wasn't aware of his vulnerability or hoped that it wouldn't be exploited. When it did get exploited, he didn't try to hide it, leaving a gaping wound for even more famewhores to leech fame from him. It worked, because I saw their tweets and I'm n…

What would happen to someone who made comments like these about Obama's daughters?

Re: Curt Schilling Fights Back Against Daughter’s Twitter Trolls

#69

Post by a3n »

cpncrunch wrote: post #63
lizzard wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is someone anyone can do, or at least give it a shot. Have a look at this article on how to investigate identity online. It gives some thought to risk assessment and ethical behavior in responding to situations like this. https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/investigation-online-gat...

Also, if they are actually posting something that is criminal, you can report it to the police and they can very easily track the person down.

If the police bother with it. It helps if you're famous.

Re: Curt Schilling Fights Back Against Daughter’s Twitter Trolls

#70

Post by remarkEon »

For those debating whether or not these tweets constitute an actual threat there is a related case before the Supreme Court, Elonis v. United States [1]. It was argued back in December but because this will be major precedent I doubt we'll see an opinion until SCOTUS Season in June. The case seems to hinge on "subjective intent to harm" and will be the first major case (that I'm aware of) that will deal with speech like this on social media. Elonis is different (petitioner was convicted for making threats against his ex-wfe) from this thing with Schilling, but the context of the case is the same here - and the justices are quick to acknowledge that conviction standards are pretty strict in defining what constitutes a "true threat" and what a "reasonable person" would construe as a threat. Justice Breyer gets particularly snarky during oral argument.

From the ScotusBlog summary: Issue: (1) Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a “reasonable person” would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort; and (2) whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation, conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten.

[1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-s...

Post reply on HN