I’ve been slacking off today (err this morning? It’s 3:20am EST), but there’s a couple stories I have to cover from yesterday. One of them is especially noteworthy, because it deals with supposed threats on the Internet. If you’ll recall, I had a ton of people in my ear recently telling me that RogueStar was in legal jeopardy for his bad joke. I told them this was laughable, but they wouldn’t listen. Well, the Supreme Court listened. They ruled that a victim viewing an online message as a threat is not enough to actually make it a threat. Let me excerpt a piece from this article (from Gawker’s Gizmodo…it’s archived) and explain further:

This means no matter how abusive, misogynistic, violent, or otherwise reprehensible a Facebook rant is, the Supreme Court says it’s not criminal speech unless the author intended it as a threat and understood that others would take it as such. Elonis’ case is a bellwether for how courts treat internet speech….

I only show Gawker’s bullshit so you can see how the SJWs are taking this. In short: not very well. Here’s more reaction from some other sources, starting with CNN:

The Supreme Court on Monday made it harder for prosecutors to convict those who make violent statements on Facebook and other social media, saying it is not enough that an ordinary person would find the rants threatening.

In its first examination of the murky rules regarding conduct on the Internet, the court moved cautiously while throwing out the conviction of a Pennsylvania man whose postings, delivered in rap-lyric style, suggested killing his estranged wife, federal law enforcement officials and even a kindergarten class.

The Wall Street Journal:

[J]urors must focus on the intentions of the speaker, the court ruled. A defendant can be convicted if he meant to threaten someone or knew the communications would be viewed as a threat, Chief Justice Roberts said…

And here’s our good friends at The Huffington Post trying to throw GamerGate into the discussion:

The decision arrives as social networks have come under fire for facilitating threats made against women and minorities. During “Gamergate,” for example, women who spoke up about sexism in the video game community received death and rape threats online. In response to these kinds of complaints, social networks have attempted to beef up their anti-harassment policies, but problems continue.

On Monday, prior to the decision, Jamia Wilson, executive director of Women, Action & the Media, told HuffPost that “the cultural impact for this case is potentially groundbreaking.” She added, “It’s offensive that the infliction of pain on girls, gender non-conforming people and women … is common, and considered entertaining and acceptable.”

The National Network to End Domestic Violence said that it was disappointed by the ruling. “We expect that it will become more difficult to protect victims of abuse from threats,” the group said in a statement Monday.

You can see that the WAM idiots are pretty bummed out about this one. I’ll role with the ACLU every single time over those fascistic bastards. This is also why I wasn’t too concerned about RogueStar going to jail over his joke. The guy in this case actually did have to go to jail for three years, and he may still be retried under the new standard. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly shown that it protects speech vigorously. Today was just another step in that journey. I only wish they would have went a bit farther than they did. Still, I’m satisfied with the decision. Look at how the other side is acting. How could you not be?

41 comments
  1. To shamelessly quote my favourite movie of the last decade, “Oh, what a day! What a lovely day!”

  2. Let us remember that threats of any kind (online included) are dick moves & most of the time done by someone too pussy to carry out said threat anyway if the opportunity ever presented itself….or just completely fabricated in hopes it’ll spur some Patreon donations.

  3. Huff Po is always trying to pull Gamergate in because they know it’s more clicks for them. Not this time. You can drown without my foot pushing down on your head.

    1. The most humorous part of the Huffington Post piece? They state the following:

      “During “Gamergate,” for example, women who spoke up about sexism in the video game community received death and rape threats online.”

      Did GamerGate end without telling anyone?

      Fucking HILARIOUS to say the least.

      1. Absolutely hilarious, considering that there are still 500-2000 tweets daily (when nothing big is going on), people making documentaries, and youtube commentators, lol.

  4. Is it just me or has anyone else notices the trend of SJW’s to refer to anything that could be attributed to trolling as the work of a, “gator.” It’s almost like they are trying to substitute the one for the other. I wonder if they are trying to make all Trolling synonymous with GamerGate, on purpose or if their collective foreheads are too low to know the difference?

    1. Oh it’s 100% completely intentional that everything bad (or perceived bad) on the internet is blamed on “gators”

      They figure if they repeat the lie often enough the general (uninformed) public will begin to believe it…

      1. general (uninformed) public
        The extreme apathy of this demographic facilitates the madness of hysterical bitches and uber madness of manginas[mostly raised by single mothers perhaps ?]

    2. I’ve noticed that too. It’s like they’re so desperate to prove that GG is about harassment and only full of trolls that they associate anyone who they consider to be a troll or a harasser (which each have very, very lose definitions to aGG) with GG.

      1. I’m thinking that’s why it’s said that /Baphomet/ has such an issue with GG. It’s got to be like Jack Nicholson’s Joker. “Can somebody tell me, what kind of a world do we live in where a bunch of gamers involved in a consumers boycott get all my Troll-cred? Twitter needs an enema!”

        1. It’s got to be something like that. Maybe for the fact that some people see /baph/ as an extension of GG rather than it’s own individual group. Who knows?

    3. Let’s get some actual gators. I lived in Florida for a decade.I know where to find them.

  5. They didn’t rule on the 1st amendment aspects. Just that it requires imtent, not just a reasonable person might consider it threatening

  6. Boy they sure hate it when someone points out to the what the law is, as opposed to what they wish it to be huh?

  7. Guess I shouldn’t have mistaken the people in judicial system with the same as the idiots running social/MSM then huh? Perhaps there may be some small glimpse of hope left in this world, just maybe.

      1. Yep, they enable & celebrate the stupid.

        Honestly if both Twitter & Tumblr vanished overnight, that would be the end for the easily offended. Because without those two platforms to complain about being offended on, no one would know they are offended & so there personal offense would stop being celebrated.

        1. so there their personal offense would stop being celebrated.

          When an entire ideology is built on personal offenses is this really surprising ? If you really want to stop the madness kill and bury it.

  8. They can just be pissed off, this bullshit gets on my nerves. If someone messages you an incredibly gruesome way they’re gonna slit your throat, chances are (if they live near you) that’s a threat and i could understand being terrified. But if someone publicly posts some vague or even detailed message hinting at killing someone, it’s more than likely fake and taking any legal action just makes you look like a moron. “Public” death threats are nearly guaranteed to be trolls out for attention, especially in this case where Rogue Star was just adding on to a running joke. Also, the problem remains that only words were spoken, no immediately harmful action was taken.

    1. I can see both sides to this. The ruling is good for obvious reasons, but at the same time, what IS there available to help people who ARE being legitimately attacked and threatened? What differentiates legit threats from usual internet bullshit?

      1. The ruling made it clear that intent has be considered…so, rap lyrics about killing somone?
        Not a threat.

        Writing “Bitch, I’ma stab you” on someone’s facebook wall? Threat.

        Seems pretty damn logical to me…it just means they are applying a test of ‘where is this directed’ and ‘did they intend to threaten’.

  9. I love seeing HuffPost paint GamerGate as haeassment toward women and in the very next paragraph cite a group whose study proved GamerGate has nothing to do with harassment of any demographic.

    Congrats HuffPost. You’re ironically stupid. You’re “stupid for a new generation.”

  10. Hahahaha! Suck it! It’s funny how things can change so quickly. The whole gaming community and journalists celebrated when games were protected for being art. Well fast forward 5 years later and now the gaming community is celebrating free speech winning again and the journalists are the ones throwing a shit fit.

  11. Gee, you’d think the femtards at HuffnPuff would be happily relishing this judgment, as they now know they can continue to publish their lies, hatred and threats against non feminists (and Feminists who think outside approved femthink) with apparent legal impunity. But then expecting a feminist to ever be happy is probably asking too much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.