Twitter User Threatening Broadway Attack.- Page 2

[tazber]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 2:11pm

Penalties aside, I don't see how Twitter can possible consider that this does not constitute "a threat is present, specific and immediate".

I'm glad they got the subpena, but man, why wouldn't Twitter co-operate? This is not a free speech issue. It's an abuse of free speech issue.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 2:22pm

And I will add that for me, personally, I do not blame anyone for not speaking up before the shooting in Aurora. It is true that hindsight is 20/20 and you can't live beating yourself up for mistakes in the past. However, in this case, if something (and yes, that is now a big IF) happened, or does happen, and we know that Twitter was not forthcoming with information that could have prevented it, and in this case we do know that an attempt was made to get that information, I would indeed lay some share of blame at their feet. It's one thing if something is posted and nobody does anything, then I will not say anybody is at fault, but if something like that is posted, and an attempt to stop it is made and thwarted by a social media company not wanting to work with law enforcement then yes, there is definitely a party at fault.

[bk]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 2:22pm

You know it's real simple regarding due process - if someone on a social media site makes a tangible threat of violence against people, it is very specific - people always do these ridiculous generalizations. Twitter was wrong. Twitter is disgusting enough as it is, but on this particular issue - wrong. Of course those who relish their anonymity because they never have to take responsibility for anything they may utter no matter how hurtful or harmful it may be, those will cry foul. This guy made a very loud threat that if, carried out, would be very harmful and fatal. If it's some disturbed snot-nosed teen or even a disturbed snot-nosed adult - reveal who the jerk is and teach him and others who are thinking of doing the same that if you do it you will be exposed.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 2:25pm

I'm thinking Twitter's response was because no date was set. I'm going to, when I figure out the details, other plans came up are all pointing to fantasy.

I don't say I agree, but I can (sort of) understand.


I wish we had some sort of update.

[3bluenight]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 2:26pm

first, i want to say that i agree that twitter should have cooperated in this case as it was a specific threat. if a threat was made against an individual, the company or agency would likely put security on the individual.

that being said, to me, one of the larger issues isn't free speech but the right to privacy, which isn't as well articulated in the constitution, and is therefore an interpretation battle.

if this were china, would we still be decrying give up the information, give access to the accounts? i know that is an extreme example, but i think it's important to articulate multiple aspects of any discussion.

[Huss417]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 2:32pm

I agree dramamama. I was hoping for some update by now. Then again hopefully the police are proceeding with caution.

[nygrl232]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 2:50pm

Interesting how the free speech line is often metaphorically drawn at yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater...

[Huss417]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 3:16pm

Here is some info nygrl232 I found online about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Not sure how accurate this is but is what I have been told for years. Maybe if there is a lawyer here they can tell if true or not.

Can a person be prosecuted for yelling fire in a crowded building when there is no fire?

Answer

Yes, it's called Reckless Endangerment. When you make an action like that intentionally and knowing that there is no such danger, it encourages an action in the crowd that you would have probable reason to suspect panic. People get injured in panics. To put people in danger knowingly and without justification is illegal in all states. But get hold of a lawyer for specific citations.


Answer

Yes, freedom of speech only pertains to things that do not endanger others. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowd will get you arrested. It can cause unwanted panic and people can be injured.

[Bwaydide92]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 3:38pm

Making a public threat is not covered under free speech. If someone yelled "fire' in the theatre they would be arrested, if someone calls in a bomb threat they would be arrested. I don't see how this is different. Even if this poster is joking and making other (possibly empty) threats, that doesn't mean that they should be ignored or seen as a jokester. Twitter is being really stupid.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 3:55pm

They are just making sure that the law is being carried out. A subpeona takes almost no time to to get. AND ONE WAS ISSUED YESTERDAY. I'm sure that twitter immediately complied.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 5:29pm

God forbid if the threat had been carried out, It would have entirely been Twitter's fault for not complying and therefore preventing the event. How could they be so stupid? really.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 5:41pm

The Longacre Theatre is in New York. So unless the Twitter user in in New Jersey, New Jersey Law is irrelevant on the matter.

That said, many companies have internal policies that require authorities to subpoena information before they release it. They can be subject to civil liability if they simply hand over information. Let's face it, government authorities may or may not have legitimate use for requested information (they may simply be on what is known as a "fishing expedition" looking for crimes). It's a judgment call as to whether or not something like this is actually credible, and without specific information Twitter determined that the police should obtain a subpoena.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 5:47pm

Well, in my simplified solution, I think that even if the threat were a joke (really, haha) twitter, or for that matter, anyone, should reveal the person's identity. there should be repercussions for making such a threat, even as a prank.

[nygrl232]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 6:15pm

Heartily agree, Jane2. Huss417, thanks for illustrating that. In this case, whose recklessness would it be-the person making the threat, or Twitter's?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 7:49am

Not much of an update, but
Twitter has given the user's account to the NYPD

[Huss417]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 8:45am

Curious how much information they will release. Part of me thinks it is a kid that posted this but then Im thinking would they choose a show like Mike Tyson?

[My Oh My]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 9:11am

Good!

Now I can't wait to see who this tool is. I don't care if it's some fresh-faced, trembly, wide-eyed, scared little boy/girl who was "just kidding around." I wouldn't condone harsh penalties like jail or anything like that in that case, but I'd sure hope he/she gets publicly humiliated enough to be genuinely remorseful.

If it's an adult, even an upstanding member of a community, a few months behind bars and the world's ridicule when they're released should do the trick. Did you guys see some of the stuff this idiot tweeted? It just simply isn't the type of thing to play around with. The callousness of some people, sheesh!

[Playbilly]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 9:44am

Maybe Mike himself would be the person's celly.

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 2:50pm

Didn't know about this when I was at the St. James last night. We noticed people stationed all over the place. I thought a celebrity was there. They also stamped your hand when you stepped out for intermission. Not sure if that is the norm there. Then I got hqome and saw the news. Wonder if theaters will be taking precautions until this person is found? We were wondering if the person was either an ex employee there or possibly trying to throw the authorities off and is planning to do this at another venue.

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 8:47pm

the militarized zone...eek.

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/celebrities/mike-tyson-broadway-show-target-of-threatening-tweet-1.3888863

[Huss417]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 8:51pm

Interesting the police didn't release the name.I wonder if that means they are underage?

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 9:02pm

Most probably, I would say this reeks of adolescent idiocy, or worse. (could be wrong, though.) Sicko attention ho...I mean, the twitter acct. name was "obamasmistress". Can anyone say: radical right FOX watching wingnut? Just sayin'. THAT bogus story was from 2010.

[winston89]

Posted: 8/9/12 at 2:47am

nygrl232,

I think that the recklessness in this case would clearly be the person who posted the threat. At the same time, I think that they should have handed over the info to the police when they were first asked to do so. It would be one thing if Twitter saw this and didn't act on it. But, it was another thing altogether to have to be forced to give the info to the NYPD.

And, in Twitter's defense, they have so many crazy people posting so many dumb things. If they constantly called the police for every single one that came across their servers, it would end up being a situation of the boy who cried wolf. However, I am not a fan of people being able to stand behind an alias and think that they can say whatever it is they please and think that just because no one knows who they really are, that they can get away with it.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 8/9/12 at 10:10pm

And there an end.

[Huss417]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 8:59am

I do think they could have at least said if the person is a minor, in an institution or something.