I think Q1 (serious threats) should be grounds for investigation, but I think it would be almost impossible to separate it definitively and legally from Q2 (humorous threats) and you are never going to get people to stop making those, nasty and unfunny though they are.
I don't think it's acceptable to rejoice at anyone's death, no matter how nasty.
Rejoice, by all means, at the election result, deposing of a tyrant, arrest of a criminal, sacking of a terrible boss. But death is not political, it is personal and human, and how often are people only stopped from doing bad things by death? Very rarely, I think : bad rulers, legislators and managers have usually become just vulnerable weak people, long before they die. I feel very strongly about this!
But are you a celebrity / sportsman getting a death threat from someone who doesn't know you other than the reason for your public fame?
Saying " I hate that footballer, I'm going to cut his feet off" is pretty unpleasant, but I'm not sure it merits the cost of a police process. It seems more a case for some more extra-legal enforcement, such as the deletion of the account that made the threat.
I think it is inappropriate for the person getting the death threats to be tasked with evaluating the mental health and credibility of the anonymous person who posted the threat.
Just as you don't joke about bombs in airports, you should not joke about murdering people.
I didn't say that the person receiving the threat should evaluate the state of the sender.
I'm just not convinced it's possible or reasonable for the police to be expected to arrest all nasty but ultimately not very dangerous idiots and take all of them to court to be fined or imprisoned: I think that could divert resources from other areas that are more important.
Would you agree, though, that if the person giving the threat is known to the person being threatened and also known to be mentally unstable that the police should take the threat seriously?
Yes, of course. I think I would consider that to be one of the more important things that the police could usefully spend time on, instead of trying to enforce laws on people who say stupid things that they don't really mean, about people they don't know and will never meet.
So who is in charge of evaluating whether the person making the threat is not a credible threat? Who evaluates whether they are personally known (even though the comment is anonymous) or whether they are in good mental health so *of course* they don't mean it?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-08-01 12:05 pm (UTC)I don't think it's acceptable to rejoice at anyone's death, no matter how nasty.
Rejoice, by all means, at the election result, deposing of a tyrant, arrest of a criminal, sacking of a terrible boss. But death is not political, it is personal and human, and how often are people only stopped from doing bad things by death? Very rarely, I think : bad rulers, legislators and managers have usually become just vulnerable weak people, long before they die. I feel very strongly about this!
no subject
Date: 2012-08-01 12:14 pm (UTC)A threat against your life is no laughing matter. In my opinion is should be as illegal as identity theft or malicious slander.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-01 12:27 pm (UTC)Saying " I hate that footballer, I'm going to cut his feet off" is pretty unpleasant, but I'm not sure it merits the cost of a police process. It seems more a case for some more extra-legal enforcement, such as the deletion of the account that made the threat.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-01 12:52 pm (UTC)Just as you don't joke about bombs in airports, you should not joke about murdering people.
Yes, I think it should be against the law.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-01 01:07 pm (UTC)I'm just not convinced it's possible or reasonable for the police to be expected to arrest all nasty but ultimately not very dangerous idiots and take all of them to court to be fined or imprisoned: I think that could divert resources from other areas that are more important.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-01 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-01 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-01 04:58 pm (UTC)