the police would.

this isn't about the fact that she asks for negative bullshit. there is no doubt that direct speaking about "finding you" or "taking you out" or whatever is going to be considered a threat in the eyes of the law.

JORR, I don't think you can sit there and say the threat isn't credible. What if it is? That shit has to be taken seriously or it could be a big mistake. Some of these people are completely nuts.

DiCaro is a fucking moron, but there's no justification for this, and it absolutely is a threat.

So even the reasonable person standard isn't enough when....what, exactly? What's the threshold for this special treatment you're implying? Internet people's get to apply a different standard to consider "threatening" because...why, again? Because what was said is on the internet, that lowers the threshold for credible threats? That makes little sense.



So now Julie gets to claim all of "Chicago" as domain in which any meany-head words are considered credible threats? What if the guy screwed up and said Rockford? Des Plaines? Lincoln Park? What if, *gasp*, he mentioned a town right next to the one Julie lives in?!?! Does Jules warrant police protection whenever anyone decides they are going to proclaim their intention to commit criminal acts within Chicago city limits or even the near suburbs?

The guy didn't said awful things because he's an awful person, but why ignore objective fact regarding what he actually said in favor of being outraged? What's the point?

We all know this wasn't a credible threat, but why are people compelled to pretend it was?

As the hearings began, the prosecution accused Bryant's defense team of attacking his accuser's credibility.[6] It was revealed that she wore underpants containing another man's semen and pubic hair to her rape exam the day after the alleged incident.[7] Detective Doug Winters stated that the yellow underwear she wore to her rape exam contained sperm from another man, along with Caucasian pubic hair. Bryant's defense stated that the exam results showed "compelling evidence of innocence" because the accuser must have had another sexual encounter immediately after the incident. She told investigators that she grabbed dirty underwear by mistake from her laundry basket when she left her home for the examination. On the day she was examined, she said she hadn’t showered since the morning of the incident. The examination found evidence of vaginal trauma, which Bryant’s defense team claimed was consistent with having sex with multiple partners in two days.

The evidence recovered by police included the T-shirt that Bryant wore the night of the incident, which had three small stains of the accuser's blood on it. The smudge was verified to be the accuser's blood by DNA testing and probably was not menstrual blood because the accuser said she had her period two weeks earlier. It was revealed that Bryant leaned the woman over a chair to have sex with her, which allegedly caused the bleeding. This was the sex act in question, as the accuser claims she told Bryant to stop but he would not, and Bryant claims he stopped after asking if he could ejaculate on her face.[8][9]

Trina McKay, the resort's night auditor, said she saw the accuser as she was leaving to go home, and "she did not look or sound as if there had been any problem."[10] However, Bobby Pietrack, the accuser's high school friend and a bellman at the resort, said she appeared to be very upset, and "told me that Kobe Bryant had forced sex with her."

Well, I guess it could be a real threat, but I'd bet a lot of money that it isn't. I agree with you that there are a lot of nuts out there. But I kind of agree with bernstein in that the maniacs you need to worry about are most likely those that seem friendly or don't say anything at all.

You've argued against some more contemporary forms of feminist arguments that attempt to eradicate the barriers between what we understand to be "men" and "women." In that light, why wouldn't a woman receiving a threat take it differently than a man would?

She's a lightning rod, no doubt. That doesn't it make it right for someone to Tweet that stuff to her.

If a guy says "I'm going to come to where you live, find you, and rape you," that's pretty cut and dried, I think.

Well, I guess it could be a real threat, but I'd bet a lot of money that it isn't. I agree with you that there are a lot of nuts out there. But I kind of agree with bernstein in that the maniacs you need to worry about are most likely those that seem friendly or don't say anything at all.

It probably isnt a legit threat but its way past the line of "better safe than sorry"

Even with her being an agitator and attracting a certain amount of understandable hatred, that's way over the line.


The question is, who here at CSFMB is behind that account?

You're not serious, are you? I would be very disappointed if even our most vociferous Julie basher tweeted shit like that.

I don't think an anonymous Internet "threat" is more or less credible based upon its target.

You're not serious, are you? I would be very disappointed if even our most vociferous Julie basher tweeted shit like that.

Is there anyone here who doesn't agree that the guy- and plenty of other guys who interact with Julie on Twitter- is a disgusting scumbag? There is no justification for the shit he was tweeting at her. But pretending that it is likely he is going to come to Chicago and rape her in order to illustrate how disgusted we are is kind of silly.

Not trying to imply that, but I sense that your argument partly rests on the belief that she shouldn't take such tweets so seriously (haven't read every post). But if we're wired differently why can't part of that difference be different reactions to threats, even if perceived. I think when people read something like that they cycle through different reactions they could take while trying to process what theyre reading, and I suppose a great many of reactions people could consider for themselves are partly based on gender-informed assessments of the situation.

We should only take threats seriously when there is a 100% chance that the violent act is going to happen.

We should only take threats seriously when there is a 100% chance that the violent act is going to happen.

No, Rick. We should use common sense. There are all kinds of threats made everyday in all types of social media. Is there some epidemic of people acted upon those threats. You're acting like a guy tweeting, "I'm coming to kill you" is equivalent to getting a carefully prepared death threat in your mailbox with letters cut and pasted from various magazines. It's not. People say stupid shit on the Internet because they're anonymous and it's easy. I'm gonna find out where you live and come to your house tonight if you don't stop disagreeing with me. See how easy that is? It's not a real threat.

A lot of bad stuff has been posted on this board over the years, most in jest and the rest in a semi serious fashion. Even amid the heat of some of the Degenerate Dave meet me on the corner crap, I can't recall anyone posting such a collection of vile threats against another board member. And plenty of folks here invite personal attacks.

Slippery-slope. Who is to determine what a real threat is?

Sometimes I want to do bad things to you. I'm just flirting, though.

No, Rick. We should use common sense. There are all kinds of threats made everyday in all types of social media. Is there some epidemic of people acted upon those threats. You're acting like a guy tweeting, "I'm coming to kill you" is equivalent to getting a carefully prepared death threat in your mailbox with letters cut and pasted from various magazines. It's not. People say stupid shit on the Internet because they're anonymous and it's easy. I'm gonna find out where you live and come to your house tonight if you don't stop disagreeing with me. See how easy that is? It's not a real threat.