On one hand, threatening someone (or someone's loved ones) with death is utterly wrong and despicable except for crimes committed by that someone with similar impact where emotions may run really high and would be understandable under the circumstances. A net neutrality defeat is not one of those situations when its direct impact is looked at. [To expand further, I also believe that death threats or attempts even for the most heinous crimes is wrong for a few different reasons, though it's understandable why someone may think that's right.]
On the other hand, without further information on whether the convicted person could or would actually carry out the threat (the assessment of which may not be an easy endeavor), and when the person doesn't have a prior record, the following stance by the US Attorney's office seems way too harsh to me:
> The US Attorney's office in Virginia opposed the motion for bail pending sentencing.
> "Incarceration is, by its very nature, a hardship, and neither the defendant's mental health status nor the nature of his conviction is rare or uncommon, particularly when compared to other offenders," the government wrote.
We know that law is meant to reduce discretionary decisions, but discretion is also there in the actual sentencing and in bail decisions. Somehow the attitude of US Attorneys to get a very high conviction and sentencing rate, as measured in person-decades, seems more like a stepping stone to future political growth of the attorneys and less about viable deterrence of crimes.
If we were to take a poll asking people if and when they wished a certain prominent figure would just disappear (or die) because of some decision that was believed to be incorrect and damaging, I'd guess the majority of the population everywhere would say they've had those thoughts several times in several instances. Humans are emotional creatures, and our reactions to many things are emotional, with rationality probably struggling to reign in the emotions. In a sense, everybody is emotionally unstable at several points in life. I feel we ought to come up with better ways to handle these as a society.
It's one thing to say such things in private over a beer, or even say something dumb on Twitter, but it's a real escalation to e-mail the person directly, with maps of pre-schools in the area, saying they are going to kill his kids...
Everyone has thought that the world would be better without someone in it, but he didn’t stop there.
This isn’t your average internet “ill kill u noob” death threat.
He emailed Pai with a list of local schools and threatened his children. He said Pai was responsible for children’s suicides and threatened to kill him. He showed clear malice and intent.
You shouldn’t be conflicted about this, what he did was wrong. Even if you hate Pai or net neutrality what he did has tarnished net neutrality advocates as violent nutters.
Yep I’m sure many have had those thoughts. But most haven’t researched Pai’s kids schools and send him a death threat, like this guy did. And he got rightly prosecuted for it.
I say this as someone who hates Pai. The most I could imagine doing is bringing a lawsuit.
It’s about time these kinds of trolls started seeing the consequences of their online actions.
When you stir up the beehive, you likely encounter a bee just crazy enough to sacrifice itself in order to sting you. Ajit Pai is, obviously, a traitor, and has pissed off a large portion of the citizens of the US. I'm surprised he hasn't had more direct action against him.
7 comments
[ 13.6 ms ] story [ 717 ms ] threadOn one hand, threatening someone (or someone's loved ones) with death is utterly wrong and despicable except for crimes committed by that someone with similar impact where emotions may run really high and would be understandable under the circumstances. A net neutrality defeat is not one of those situations when its direct impact is looked at. [To expand further, I also believe that death threats or attempts even for the most heinous crimes is wrong for a few different reasons, though it's understandable why someone may think that's right.]
On the other hand, without further information on whether the convicted person could or would actually carry out the threat (the assessment of which may not be an easy endeavor), and when the person doesn't have a prior record, the following stance by the US Attorney's office seems way too harsh to me:
> The US Attorney's office in Virginia opposed the motion for bail pending sentencing.
> "Incarceration is, by its very nature, a hardship, and neither the defendant's mental health status nor the nature of his conviction is rare or uncommon, particularly when compared to other offenders," the government wrote.
We know that law is meant to reduce discretionary decisions, but discretion is also there in the actual sentencing and in bail decisions. Somehow the attitude of US Attorneys to get a very high conviction and sentencing rate, as measured in person-decades, seems more like a stepping stone to future political growth of the attorneys and less about viable deterrence of crimes.
If we were to take a poll asking people if and when they wished a certain prominent figure would just disappear (or die) because of some decision that was believed to be incorrect and damaging, I'd guess the majority of the population everywhere would say they've had those thoughts several times in several instances. Humans are emotional creatures, and our reactions to many things are emotional, with rationality probably struggling to reign in the emotions. In a sense, everybody is emotionally unstable at several points in life. I feel we ought to come up with better ways to handle these as a society.
This isn’t your average internet “ill kill u noob” death threat.
He emailed Pai with a list of local schools and threatened his children. He said Pai was responsible for children’s suicides and threatened to kill him. He showed clear malice and intent.
You shouldn’t be conflicted about this, what he did was wrong. Even if you hate Pai or net neutrality what he did has tarnished net neutrality advocates as violent nutters.
I say this as someone who hates Pai. The most I could imagine doing is bringing a lawsuit.
It’s about time these kinds of trolls started seeing the consequences of their online actions.
Is Trump Derangement Syndrome an actual diagnosis now?