What should people do about on-line death threats? @spockosbrain

What should people do about on-line death threats?
by Spocko

In this piece about the threats that AOC gets, she tweets about the “anonymous” threats that they get.

Yep. Our offices are flooded with bigoted calls too – so much so that we have to put energy into searching for actual constituents.

We forward all the threats to Capitol Police to build files. For all those who think your bigoted calls + digital threats are anonymous: Enjoy! https://t.co/Tw0LWnpmDh

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 1, 2019

So, the Capitol Police are building files. Great. What happens next? We often hear about how the Secret Service goes and has a “talk” with people who make threats to the President or other high-ranking politicians. Are AOC and IIhar Omar getting help from the Secret Service or FBI? If so, I’d like to read about people who have been arrested, tried and convicted. People need to read about those stories. These people can easily be caught they not criminal cyber masterminds. The issue is the will, the resources and the education of the public about what is threatening speech and appropriate responses.

They need to hear stories about people like Patrick W. Carlineo, 55, of Addison New York who called Omar’s D.C. office on March 21 and threatened to shoot and kill the congresswoman.

According to a criminal complaint and affidavit, Carlineo, of Addison, New York, was arrested after he made a call on March 21 to the representative’s office in Washington, D.C. During the call, he said, “Do you work for the Muslim Brotherhood? Why are you working for her, she’s a fucking terrorist. I’ll put a bullet in her fucking skull,” CNN reported. 

Upon being interviewed by the FBI, Carlineo denied he threatened Omar’s life, claiming that he actually said, “If our forefathers were still alive, they’d put a bullet in her head.” However, after FBI agents reminded Carlineo that they had tapes of the phone call and that lying to the FBI is itself a federal crime, he backtracked and said he didn’t remember what he said in the heat of the moment.

He faces a sentence of up to 10 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000. He was released from prison on May 3. The conditions of his release include home detention with electronic monitoring and a mental health assessment, treatment.

Law enforcement had executed a search warrant on April 5 and confiscated six weapons including a loaded shotgun. He set to be due back in court on June 7.

For a long time I’ve been thinking about how poorly we deal with on-line threats. Especially to women and especially from men with guns.

I think an organization needs to step in to help people (especially women) who get threatened online. There are groups that defend speech, but as I have pointed out again and again, threatening speech is not protected speech.

I know there are groups that take on this task. Like American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP), The Center for Survivor Agency and Justice  I’m sure some groups already help their members. But perhaps there needs to be a coalition of groups to work on this from multiple angles.
.
Does there need to be a new group? If I were to put this together I would include

• Women who have gone through this entire process. I’ve learned from my friends in the Gun Violence Prevention movement, “Listen to Survivors!”
• Experts in computer tracking, surveillance and security.
• Experts on free speech
• Experts in domestic violence cases.
• Private investigators
• Law enforcement from multiple states
• Former prosecutors. 
• Personal injury lawyers for civil suits.
  Corporate HR lawyers who understand how a corporate brand can be damaged when employees are caught making death threats.
  First Amendment lawyers they know what is protected and what isn’t, and can prepare for the typical excuses
• Social media and media experts
• Rich backers for seed money (I’m thinking George Soros, since he is already accused of funding everything, and he already prepared to deal with people who hate him.)

Groups that I think could be involved include:
Planned Parenthood, since they deal with threats every day and have a smart social media team
Everytown For Gun Safety, because threats often come from men with guns, they can address the use of Extreme Risk Protection Laws in states where they exists and then the need for them where they don’t.
Southern Poverty Law Center, for their understanding of where the hate comes from. And importantly, they have a history of legal cases that defund the people and groups who have spread hate speech.

One of the reasons that I focus on civil cases is that I want cases that would be MONEY MAKERS for lawyers. Yes, that’s right. I think that if the threat comes from someone who has the assets, there should be financial consequence to that person. Then, if the case is won, the individual can donate some of the money to the organization that provided the help. This can fund cases of threats from people who don’t have assets.

PART II Goals of the Threat Group:

Identify the people who are making the threats (if they are anonymous)

Determine the threat level to see what lines it does or does not cross.

Develop methods and strategies to address the case and deal with the people making the threats in an effective way that stop the threats and changes the behavior to reduce future threats.  

The Steps For Threat Team:

Deescalate:
 As I wrote in my piece: What to do when a Trump supporter threatens you, I’m a big believer in giving the perpetrator a chance to apologize, make amends and then walk away.

 This is good for a couple of reasons. First, it gives them a second chance and an opportunity to clarify.  If they don’t, and state their intent to cause harm, this provides additional leverage if the case comes to court as a criminal case. Establishing intent is an important because of Elonis V. Facebook)

Second, if you DON’T want to go to court, but you have established intent enough for a criminal case, it strengthens a civil case and other actions.

Third, I know how the right wing loves to use processes designed to protect people from threats as a club against people. We already see this when the right wing using Facebook’s Terms and Conditions and Community standards to block comments and get people kicked off of Facebook.

Not everyone wants to pursue criminal actions, sometimes alerting the perpetrator that you know who they are and will reveal more if they don’t stop is enough. This step, showing the perpetrator that you have the resources and a plan to stand up to them might be enough.

However much I want to go into prosecutor mode,  I have to remember to put the survivor and their needs first.  It is important to listen to the the person threatened when deciding next steps. Because as I know, bullies don’t always back down so….

Prepare to take evidence of their threatening actions to their employers if necessary. (This is where the HR corporate lawyers advice comes in. Most corporations have codes of conduct that, while not rising to the level of a criminal offense, would be a violation of a corporate policy)

Patrick W. Carlineo Jr.’s home. Probably not a lot of  assets to seize there.

Look to ways to condemn these actions from a group and in a manner that they care about.
Who are the sources of societal respect they crave? Do they consider themselves a Christian? Can the head of the Church be alerted?

Are there women in their lives, mothers, grandmothers, sisters, daughters etc. that would be appalled by their threats?

Are they a proud member of a school, university, professional society, sports team, community group?

If there are no moderating entities (or entities that encourage and condone this) go for the wallet on those who have money:

In the era of Trump, it is necessary to send a message to nasty rich people who threaten others. (see Gretchen Carlson vs. Roger Ailes for $20 million. Bill O’Reilly vs 6 women for $45 million)

On one hand winning sexual harassment cases puts the fear of financial ruin into people who do it, but also, it puts the dollar signs in the eyes of the people who wouldn’t take on the case if there wasn’t a financial reward at the end of the case. Some people only get serious and take action if there is a financial penalty or reward. This is something even market based libertarians can understand.

Death threats are deplorable and when they rise to the level of a criminal act that needs to be addressed as such. The people who push threats in a broader way are skirting the law with their vague speech. What they are saying is obvious to most reasonable people, but because of a lack of resources and a method to address it, the threateners keep getting away with it.

Some people have been given a chance over and over again to stop with threatening speech yet they continue. Threatening speech is not protected speech and when people cross the line, there needs to be consequences.

.