zlacker

>>Strato+(OP)
I'm a little bit aghast at all the comments saying this is normal or no big deal. Maybe it is normal (or at least common), but it shouldn't be. If you believe it's no big deal, I can't agree. I can see this kind of behaviour from adolescents, but adults should understand that words are meaningful and have consequences, and that even if you disagree with someone, they're still a human being who deserves some modicum of respect, or at least decency. Wishing a slow death on someone, even rhetorically, shows neither, to put it mildly.

>>tempes+EM
>but adults should understand that words are meaningful and have consequences

What consequences should Gary face?

>>s_dev+US
Two fold: Legal consequences if some of the people threatened by him want to sue or have him indicted about it. And whatever YC as his employer sees fit for the resulted harm on the reputation of the company.

So, in the end, it can be everything from nothing to a criminal charge and conviction with loosing his job somewhere in the middle.

>>hef198+RX
There is zero chance he could be indicted for a threat based on that tweet. No responsible prosecutor would try.

Even if you take "die slow motherfucker" literally, it's not a threat. A wish that someone dies is not a threat. "I will kill you" is a threat.

>>slibhb+bj1
to clarify, in the US, "I will kill you" may or may not be considered a threat. It depends on whether or not it's actionable. If it's a tweet, it's probably not going to be considered actionable.

People talk shit all the time, a lot of people in this post need to calm down and stop being so quick to be offended.

Should have said it? Probably not. Does that make him a danger to anyone? Not by itself it doesn't.

>>PH95Vu+7z1
Is there a legal distinction for public figures? If Jodie Foster says, “I will kill you” does that change the calculus at all?

Or of course, “Won’t someone do something about this troublesome priest”