161–170 of 187 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for this link. I just found out about the Theta Xi Member who was doing this. I'm a member and I'll be seeking his full removal from the fraternity. It's not much but it is what I can do.
Good on you. What your member did was beyond vile. I have a young daughter, and I'm appalled there are people out there who would event think these things!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't accept the premise that she cost Hank his job. Conveniently, my argument is that the incident itself didn't deserve all the negative attention it got (it should have mostly been ignored), and in the absence of all that negative attention, Hank probably would not have lost his job. Also, my point was to respond to the comparison you made: And here folks I guess we have a real case of harassment. I think there…
> I don't accept the premise that she cost Hank his job. If someone start a fire in a building then they would be stupid to argue that the reason people got hurt was because firemen didn't react quickly enough. There is no doubt she started it, she could have prevented all this from happening in the first place. * She took offence over a private conversation between two others. * She publicly shamed them by including…
Anyway, again, my point was that there was internet hate machine harassment following the incident at Pycon, following from some minor thing that should not really even catch the interest of strangers, just like in this story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You read his statement different then I did. He's not saying that people who makes these statements be labelled as sex offenders. He's saying that people who make these statements be brought to task. If a law has been violated, then charged, and if the court determines there is reason to label them as a sex offender, then so be it.
From grandparent: > ...labeled as sexual criminals and placed on a register. I understand you're pointing out the fact that grandparent said "if convicted," but parent's point is that _even if convicted_, being put on a registry for the rest of your life is extreme.
..and if convicted..
The case in point relates to harassment and threats of rape here.
What part of that isn't illegal exactly?
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.
> People who get caught doing this need to be prosecuted, and if convicted, labeled as sexual criminals and placed on a register. Ridiculous. Maybe we should prosecute people who talk about overthrowing the government on twitter with treason - they're threats! And safety is important! These threats on the internet aren't acceptable, but neither is your reaction to them. There is a vast difference between threatening…
It wouldn't be acceptable if she was 30 or 90.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. If KiA isn't Subreddit of the day that should be easy to prove.
What? He's providing the link to reddit to prove that Zoe Quinn called in a Swot team. The source is reliable for matters on Reddit, but that's not what we are discussing.
Now you start reading before making assumptions!
SERIOUSLY: The reddit link is about KiA being subreddit-of-the-day.
The other link is about the Swot[sic] team, and it is NOT on reddit.
Now you wait until you are sober and/or ready to read before you comment : )
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.
I am saddened by the responses I have seen below from HNers.
The story relates to sexual threats of violence and rape of a minor. I stated that the offenders should be prosecuted and IF CONVICTED dealt with strictly under the applicable laws.
Our society is slipping into a nasty place where people feel that it is quite appropriate and acceptable to threaten and harass others online.
I think that it is a practice that needs to be stamped out, regardless of whether the threats are by men against women or vice versa; racial, homophobic or religious.
It shouldn't be tolerated by the mainstream, which when you look on twitter, often appears to be the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes something a threat or not is not the conclusions the recipient of the message jumps to.
Wrong. You might want to look at ''Elonis v. United States'' [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 attempt…
Quite the opposite, Zoe Quinn herself has been discovered to have played a role in SWATing her critics [1]. Incidentally, KotakuInAction has been featured elsewhere today [2]. I agree with your last sentence. [1] http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2015/01/gamergate-swatting... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditoftheday/comments/2yb80x/m...
That said, you're linking to a post written by Mike Cernovitch, one of the more vociferous people in GamerGate, where he's making the popular argument that he's the real victim here.
Again, let's review the evidence: if you read more than the headline it's immediately obvious that there was no actual SWATing or even threat to do so and, more importantly, none of it was done by Zoe Quinn. The person who actually posted his address used the information which he'd listed on a business directory before removing it and apologizing:
https://medium.com/@ManfredVonKarma/mike-cernovich-based-law...
The key thing, of course, is that he wouldn't have been able to use a stranger’s actions to justify the anti-Zoe hate campaign. If you read it closely, notice how each claim in the article starts with something true but then adds unsupported insinuations that Zoe was masterminding it in an effort to shift the ire to her rather than the person who actually wrote the post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong. You might want to look at ''Elonis v. United States'' [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States
Not wrong, because the case you linked does not conclude that what constitutes a threat (even in this legal sense) is what the recipient of the message believes.
Even a reading of a cursory summary of this case would have told you this. Did you actually read the outcome?