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
If he said "I will kill you" it'd be a pretty open threat. I'm sure it'd still be argued a lot in courts on if it's genuine but it'd be an actual argument.

Saying "die motherfucker" makes it less obvious. Since the other extreme of "this person should die" is crude, but not a threat (lest Twitter would be shut down overnight). So it'd come down to the judge and how they interpret the phrase to get any headway

>People talk shit all the time

And that isn't right as a concept. "Shit talking" is almost never necessary in modern discourse. But the US has strong libel laws so "talking shit" won't lead to much legal consequence.

>>johnny+lX2
educate yourself

https://quinnanlaw.com/criminal-defense/elements-of-criminal...

It isn't polite speech that needs to be protected and the tests for whether something is an actual threat or not is well understood, there's no excuse for you not knowing them unless you don't live in the US.

>>PH95Vu+eP3
Okay, and a lawyer can easily argue 4/5 of those points if he did indeed "I'll kill you". He's a person in power with the means to find the subjects listed.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm just saying that I can see it being argued based on the phrasing and how far the subjects wanted to escalate this. Whether or not it would be effective or viable is another question.

>>johnny+UP3
sure, a lawyer can argue anything they want, the issue is that our court system has precedent going back 100+ years.

One of the reasons for this precedent is to prevent exactly what you're attempting to do here, which is to curb someone's freedom of expression using the law.

>>PH95Vu+if8
I'm not a lawyer so I won't say if they could win. I'm just saying that not all speech is covered under freedom of expression. Threats are not covered. Slander/libel is not covered.