[Phantom Hoover]

You said that the offending tweets were the real attempt to 'rule by fear'; that is what I replied to.

[headdie]

It's still pretty ****ing obviously not an actual attempt to influence Gabe Newell's actions through threat of violence, though, despite your high-minded moral condemnation of it.

You are making an assumption, one that is most of the time correct but without knowing what is in the mind of the person making the comment you cant know for certain.  Also it is not a threat made lightly by a civilized person who understands the gravity of wishing death upon someone even if they dont intend to carry out the actual act, morally it ranks with rape threats its disgusting and as such should be kept out of personal dealings.  When its to someone you have no personal dealings with then the lack of knowledge of each other's mental state makes it all the worse, sorry PH but it is plain wrong to do and there is not a single argument that would convince me otherwise, even Hitler should have been brought to trial and imprisoned for the rest of his life if he had been taken alive.  End of the day we are supposed to be civilized people and should act as such.

[Phantom Hoover]

And lest we forget, this is the same Steam that has repeatedly allowed totally unfit for purpose and deceptively marketed games to be sold freely on their platform, but feel they need to react quickly and decisively to devs that get angry at them on Twitter or who expose their shamefully negligent security. I don't really care that much about this particular dev, but Valve are as usual acting like a pack of self-absorbed amateurs.

[Flipside]

It's all about context, really.

I could post a comment like 'Sometimes it makes me want to shove a CD up his arse whilst shouting "DRM!"' because I was frustrated about something, and, as a consumer there would be a certain assumption that I did not seriously intend to do so. The use of obvious comic imagery helps, I find.

The problem is, the Tweet read 'I am going to kill Gabe Newell, he is going to die', if a third party said that of me, I'd feel pretty ****ing intimidated.

[headdie]

And lest we forget, this is the same Steam that has repeatedly allowed totally unfit for purpose and deceptively marketed games to be sold freely on their platform, but feel they need to react quickly and decisively to devs that get angry at them on Twitter or who expose their shamefully negligent security. I don't really care that much about this particular dev, but Valve are as usual acting like a pack of self-absorbed amateurs.

I fail to see how valve's questionable decisions with steam warrants death threats.
Has Gabe/Valve/Steam done something to enact or permit murder? No
Has Gabe/Valve/Steam done something to enact or permit rape? No
Has Gabe/Valve/Steam done something to enact or permit bodily harm? No
Has Gabe/Valve/Steam done something to enact or permit mental suffering? No

What Gabe/Valve/Steam has done by your own admission is
 - Permit unfit for purpose products on the platform
 - Attempt to cover up flaws in their system

Sorry but no computer software which lets face it can be fixed with a few hours of reinstall is worthy of this behavior and if selling unfit products was justification for killing/threats to kill then shopkeepers better start carrying automatic weapons.

[Grizzly]

You said that the offending tweets were the real attempt to 'rule by fear'; that is what I replied to.

I am pretty pretty sure that I said that *DEATH THREATS* are attempts to rule by fear. In an athmosphere where several people have had to leave their house due to detailed death threats, I really can't be arsed about 'common idioms'.

[Phantom Hoover]

I can, because I don't really want to have to live in a world where everyone's actions are subject to massive sanctions for the sake of political point-scoring. It's in the same boat as people getting convicted under anti-terror legislation for making jokes about bombing an airport on twitter.

[headdie]

Thing is over the internet because of the lack of body language and often sense of context its harder to get the full meaning of what is being posted, and yet in both the cases death threats and bomb threats if made in front of police can get you arrested at a minimum of threatening behaviour and possibly for more speciffic charges because Society has deemed that behaviour unacceptable (in the UK this has been a case since the troubles with the Irish so it is not a recent knee-jerk think unlike the USA). 

Now I understand that face to face there is context to consider, but I mentioned that at the top of the post for good reason, which is that context is absent online and as such because there is also no knowing the mental state of the poster, for everyone's sake it has to be taken seriously because lets face it how would you take it if a loved one of yours died in an airport bombing which was not stopped because someone with no previous history of extremism made the threat over twitter and the security services thought it was a joke or not serious?

[Phantom Hoover]

Now I understand that face to face there is context to consider, but I mentioned that at the top of the post for good reason, which is that context is absent online and as such because there is also no knowing the mental state of the poster, for everyone's sake it has to be taken seriously because lets face it how would you take it if a loved one of yours died in an airport bombing which was not stopped because someone with no previous history of extremism made the threat over twitter and the security services thought it was a joke or not serious?

This scenario has never actually happened, I have no reason to believe it ever will happen, and I'm not convinced the kind of policies being discussed would actually prevent it from happening, so no I'm not going to impinge of freedom of expression because of its hypothetical occurrence.

[Mr. Vega]

This is a really stupid discussion.

[headdie]

Now I understand that face to face there is context to consider, but I mentioned that at the top of the post for good reason, which is that context is absent online and as such because there is also no knowing the mental state of the poster, for everyone's sake it has to be taken seriously because lets face it how would you take it if a loved one of yours died in an airport bombing which was not stopped because someone with no previous history of extremism made the threat over twitter and the security services thought it was a joke or not serious?

This scenario has never actually happened, I have no reason to believe it ever will happen, and I'm not convinced the kind of policies being discussed would actually prevent it from happening, so no I'm not going to impinge of freedom of expression because of its hypothetical occurrence.

Really?

Point one: I am sorry but there is no conceivable good that can come from a threat of violence of any sort as such I do not see how there is any good hiding behind freedom of expression, ***personally*** speaking I rank it with expressions of social intolerance.

Point 2: July 2013 - June214 Office of National Statistics on reported crime Page 15 lists

VICTIM-BASED CRIME
 - Violence against the person offences
  - Violence without injury ⁵ - 330,676
.......
⁵. Includes threat or conspiracy to murder, harassment, other offences against children and assault without injury (formerly common assault where there is no injury).
Listed at the bottom of the table on page 17

So yes it does happen and for good reason, the threat itself is emotionally distressing

edit:
added quotation for the second point
edit2:
better explained what the link for point 2 is

[Phantom Hoover]

So I realise this conversation has wandered a lot but I was talking about your terrorist scenario there.

[headdie]

ugh posting after midnight does me no favours

So yes a face to face encounter is unlikely, the point still stands that online you lack a lot of the information to make a judgment call on the individual case and given how western society, at least, works you need to take these things seriously until you can prove otherwise and unfortunately that means a talk to the police often with arrest to make sure they are getting the truth from the person along with seizure of related items so they can be examined properly.

[AtomicClucker]

All I can say is: That what Gaben giveth, He can Taketh. Fear Gaben's Wrath and Booteth.

[Phantom Hoover]

ugh posting after midnight does me no favours

So yes a face to face encounter is unlikely, the point still stands that online you lack a lot of the information to make a judgment call on the individual case and given how western society, at least, works you need to take these things seriously until you can prove otherwise and unfortunately that means a talk to the police often with arrest to make sure they are getting the truth from the person along with seizure of related items so they can be examined properly.

Here's the wikipedia article on the incident I'm referring to. Note that the guy didn't just get 'a talking to from the police'; he got a criminal conviction which took three appeals to overturn. That's completely, utterly unnecessary and it sort of reflects on the general attitude in this thread that saying such things gives licence for all sorts of absurdly excessive repercussions.

[Dragon]

Any death threat made in anger should be taken with all seriousness, online or not. Note, this guy could have meant a lot of things, but one thing's that's clear from his tweets was that he wasn't in a joking mood. He was writing this in anger. He might have cooled off after anger has passed - or not. You never know, even outside the internet. There are people who cling to such irrational grudges even after the initial burst of anger has passed. Gabe is a high-profile executive - tracking him down would be no problem, and a dedicated enough psycho might just find a way to get a shot in. You don't want to take that chance. Making a death threat, or bomb threats, or whatever marks the one making them as an individual who would consider this course of actions as a solution to his problems. Such a person needs to be at the very least contacted by police and put under observation. For someone who's just angry, this would serve as a proverbial "bucket of water", for someone who's serious, that could lead to a conviction and thus prevent a tragedy.

While the punishment demanded in the "Twitter joke trail" was overdone, the general idea was very much valid. The Tweet didn't have markings of a joke, but rather of anger. It wasn't obvious that he was not some psycho willing to blow up an airport just because of his flight being canceled. Here's the tip: if you're angry, keep your mouth shut and calm down. If you don't have anything to say by then, this means you never had anything to say at all. Most of the things said in anger should never have been said anyway, just like most things done in anger should have never been done.

[headdie]

I was going to post a reply but Dragon phrased things in more detail already in a manner that coincides with my own thoughts so I will let that stand

[Phantom Hoover]

It wasn't obvious that he was not some psycho willing to blow up an airport just because of his flight being canceled.

Yes, yes it was. Read the article. The threat wasn't even noticed until after it had failed to materialise, and the airport itself concluded there was no credible threat. The idea that these things have to be taken with the utmost seriousness doesn't really have much basis in reality.

[headdie]

Yes that case should at its furthest should have been thrown out but the rest of what dragon said stands

[Scourge of Ages]

If I go up to my friend after we've been playing Nidhogg, grin and say, "Hey you son of a goblin, I'm going to slit your throat", he will probably laugh and carry on.

If I go up to that same friend upon meeting him for the first time in days, grin and say, "Hey you son of a goblin, I'm going to slit your throat", he would probably nervously chuckle and wave it off.

If I go up to a coworker who I do not have a close relationship with, grin and say, "Hey you son of a goblin, I'm going to slit your throat", he has every right to be afraid, even though my demeanor would indicate that I'm only joking.

If I go up to a random stranger on the street, grin and say, "Hey you son of a goblin, I'm going to slit your throat", he should probably be very afraid, no matter what I look like.

My point is: a threat on somebody's life, no matter the context and nonverbal cues, should be treated as credible unless both parties have a very clear understanding that it is not credible.