About a small, but loud group

[Octocontrabass]

That is one of the fundamental pillars of freedom of speech, that you don't have to be right.

Fair enough. I can't say I'm the most informed when it comes to these sort of things so I appreciate the correction.

When a police officer is causing the death of a black man, you would probably say that the problem is racism. While I would say that the problem is lack of accountability.

We may be more in agreement than you think: the problem is lack of accountability, but racism is one of the driving forces against accountability. It's certainly not the only one; for example, civil asset forfeiture provides a financial disincentive for police accountability.

[bzt]

You deliberately skipping the part where the hate mob threatened and forced pressure on his associates to cut ties. Threatening people is an actual crime as I've said.

His associates chose to cut ties in response to the things he said, not in response to any threats.

Your opinion is factually incorrect here. You're deliberately avoiding the fact that the associates did not "chose" by their free will, the hate mob forced them to do so. And Charles was attacked and threatened by the mob too when he refused. What do you think about that?

If the associates were free to chose to cut ties or not, then why was Charles attacked in the first place when he didn't wanted to? Why did people say to John that they are afraid?

Do you really think it is okay when a mob committing crimes without consequences?

There are times when it's necessary. But talking freely on the internet isn't a crime.

But John did nothing else, just talked on twitter. Why did the hate mob punished him for then if that's not a crime?

On the other hand the hate mob threatened his associates, attacked Charles, and even John's publisher was forced to cancel his book. Those actions are clearly a little bit more than "talking freely on the internet", don't you think? I've wrote that already, but here it goes again: threatening people and cutting off of income are both criminal activities according to the law. Those are well-known maffia methods.

Cheers,
bzt

[Octocontrabass]

You're deliberately avoiding the fact that the associates did not "chose" by their free will, the hate mob forced them to do so.

How were they forced?

And Charles was attacked and threatened by the mob too when he refused. What do you think about that? If the associates were free to chose to cut ties or not, then why was Charles attacked in the first place when he didn't wanted to?

Refusing to cut ties with John is tacit acceptance of the things John said, and John said some ugly things.

But John did nothing else, just talked on twitter. Why did the hate mob punished him for then if that's not a crime?

Imagine the following scenario: you walk into a store and start insulting the cashier. The manager refuses to serve you and kicks you out. Why did the manager punish you when insulting the cashier is not a crime?

It's the same thing here. You can say whatever you want, but people can refuse to work with you.

I've wrote that already, but here it goes again: threatening people and cutting off of income are both criminal activities according to the law.

In the state of California, most employment contracts can be terminated for any reason except discrimination against a protected class. People who bully others on the internet are not a protected class according to California law, so John's employer is free to fire him.

[bzt]

You're deliberately avoiding the fact that the associates did not "chose" by their free will, the hate mob forced them to do so.

How were they forced?

Read the article.

Code: Select all

Then they started calling on anyone who was associated with me, telling them to unfollow me and denounce me.
The request was simple: Denounce John. Stop being friends with John; don’t associate with him anymore, and publicly denounce him … OR ELSE.

This is threatening people, which IS a crime. There are examples what the mob said and did to Charles when he refused to denounce John.

Refusing to cut ties with John is tacit acceptance of the things John said, and John said some ugly things.

And what about the hate mob? They have said more uglier things, shouldn't they deserve punishment too? Actually John said nothing that hasn't been said by the mob to him before. And unlike John and Charles, the mob did not stop at "talking on the internet" they have caused IRL harm.
What about Charles? Did he say anything that's even remotely ugly? Nope, he did not, yet he was attacked too.

But John did nothing else, just talked on twitter. Why did the hate mob punished him for then if that's not a crime?

Imagine the following scenario: you walk into a store and start insulting the cashier. The manager refuses to serve you and kicks you out. Why did the manager punish you when insulting the cashier is not a crime?

It's the same thing here. You can say whatever you want, but people can refuse to work with you.

You don't understand the situation at all. John was protecting his friend, so the correct scenario looks like: imagine you walk into a store, and you see a hate group insulting the cashier. You try to protect the cashier, so you say things to hijack the mob's attention, and a friend who steps in and tries to calm down both sides gets attacked by the hate mob too. The manager is frightened by the mob so he fires the cashier.

I've wrote that already, but here it goes again: threatening people and cutting off of income are both criminal activities according to the law.

In the state of California, most employment contracts can be terminated for any reason except discrimination against a protected class. People who bully others on the internet are not a protected class according to California law, so John's employer is free to fire him.

You are factually incorrect again. Are you really trying to suggest that threatening people with their livelihood isn't a crime in California? Check the law, you will be surprised. It is a crime alright.

Cheers,
bzt

[Octocontrabass]

This is threatening people, which IS a crime.

If John believes a crime has been committed, he can report it to the authorities. But telling people "hey, look at John's tweets" is not a crime.

And what about the hate mob? They have said more uglier things, shouldn't they deserve punishment too? Actually John said nothing that hasn't been said by the mob to him before.

I doubt anyone in the mob repeated common white supremacist propaganda the way John did. Of course, it's subtle enough that you won't know it's there unless you've heard it before. Even John himself might be unaware of the connection to white supremacists.

But, if the mob did in fact say things like that, then yes, they deserve punishment too. I'm not trying to argue that the mob is innocent here - my argument is that John is not the innocent victim he claims to be.

You don't understand the situation at all. John was protecting his friend,

Again, you're confusing intentions with actions.

so the correct scenario looks like:

Except, in real life, the mob can actually hurt you. On the internet, all they can do is tell everyone about the things you've said.

[nullplan]

In the state of California, most employment contracts can be terminated for any reason except discrimination against a protected class. People who bully others on the internet are not a protected class according to California law, so John's employer is free to fire him.

You are factually incorrect again. Are you really trying to suggest that threatening people with their livelihood isn't a crime in California? Check the law, you will be surprised. It is a crime alright.

So much wrong in so little space. Octo never said that threatening people's livelihood is not a crime, he said firing people for any reason except discrimination is not a crime there. Which is factually incorrect: It must be a lawful reason, or no reason. There is more than just discrimination in the "unlawful reasons" list. Here's a longer list.

If I'm reading this right, John may have a course of action against his former employer if he can prove they wouldn't have terminated him if he was a minority in the same situation. Which is kind of a tall order, but maybe he can get someone to say the wrong thing at the right time.

That said, threatening people's livelihood is not a crime in California, at least not as far as I could find. If you think otherwise, please cite the statute (I cannot do so because I cannot point to a law that does not exist). Threatening harm is certainly a crime, but "I'm going to get you fired" does not fall under that (it typically must be immediate harm, like "I'm going to cut you"). Maybe they have some kind of "malicious communication" statute? Not that I could find. There is harassment, but that doesn't apply to this situation:

(e) For the purposes of this section, “harasses” means engages in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.

(f) For the purposes of this section, “course of conduct” means two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”

If every person in the mob wrote to him or his employer only once, that would have achieved the effect they were going for, and managed to avoid this statute, which requires at least two acts by any one person. And even then there is a lot of wiggle room here. Also, it would mean John's ex-employer is now the victim, because they received those messages.

Don't get me wrong: What the hate mob did was immoral, but it seems to me as if it was not illegal, at least not in California, and not at this time.

[bzt]

That said, threatening people's livelihood is not a crime in California, at least not as far as I could find. If you think otherwise, please cite the statute

You couldn't find it because Octocontrabass has misguided you and you were looking for an employement law. These are criminal activities, so you should consult the Penal Code of California.

Section 653m of Penal Code

Code: Select all

(a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The hate mob is guilty in this. Guilty in doing that to Aimee and to Charles without a doubt and they have no excuse. With John they are guilty too, but they might have an excuse to little their crime.

There is harassment, but that doesn't apply to this situation

Yes it does, read section (g) of 646.9:

Code: Select all

(g) For the purposes of this section, “credible threat” means a verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family, and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “credible threat.”

Driving people to suicide and forcing people to loose income is definitely something that would make people fear, and it does threaten his or her safety as well as his or her family. Note these wording in particular:

Code: Select all

made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear

and compare with this

Code: Select all

The request was simple: Denounce John. Stop being friends with John; don’t associate with him anymore, and publicly denounce him … OR ELSE.

and how people reacted to that:

Code: Select all

You don’t hear much from the other side, because people are afraid. I’ve gotten many phone calls, emails, and messages from people saying “I would love to support you publicly, but I’ve got a job and family to worry about. I’m even afraid to like one of your Tweets.”

That means the hate mob did spread fear, and that's why John's associates cut ties with him. Also the reason why Charles' associates cut ties with Charles, and not because Charles said anything wrong, but because they were afraid. So this is a clear-cut crime.

Don't get me wrong: What the hate mob did was immoral, but it seems to me as if it was not illegal, at least not in California, and not at this time.

Threatening people is a crime in California alright. In my country the law is more strict, it implicitly states that an attack on one's livelihood is a kind of attack on safety. In California you have to prove that threatening with loosing your income indeed frightened you (shouldn't be hard to prove BTW), but that's the only difference.

Cheers,
bzt

[nullplan]

You couldn't find it because Octocontrabass has misguided you and you were looking for an employement law.

Do not ascribe motive without proof. I did look at both employment and criminal law and didn't find anything that fit the bill.

Section 653m of Penal Code

That's the statute I cited, and showed why it doesn't apply. In criminal law, the entire definition must apply, and this one calls for two or more acts by one person. And a bunch of these subsections offer wiggle room to weasel out of it (e.g. "constitutionally protected activity is not included", which the defendants can use to say that they were merely exercising their freedom of speech to point out what John had said on Twitter, and whatever his employer did with the information was on them). It does not matter that subsection (g) applies if the analysis already fell at subsection (f).

In any case, none of this provides a course of action to John, but only John's employer. And even then not directly, but only as claim to law enforcement (the entity with the exclusive right to sue for criminal law is the District Attorney, and their decision is final), and then it gets even more interesting, as some of the defendants might not be Californians, and maybe not even Americans. If I was part of that hate mob, I'd be protected as a German living in Germany, as Germany does not extradite its citizens beyond the EU (which is part of the constitution). Also it means that Californian law no longer applies, and the thing escalates at least to the federal level.

[bzt]

I did look at both employment and criminal law and didn't find anything that fit the bill.

Or maybe you just don't wanted to find it I guess? I don't know why you missed it. You've quoted 646.9 section (f), but you haven't quoted the very next section (g) about threats which applies without a doubt. Not that it matters, see below.

That's the statute I cited

Nope. you've cited 646.9, and not 653m. Not that it matters, see below.

It does not matter that subsection (g) applies if the analysis already fell at subsection (f).

What makes you think that? I don't see that written anywhere in 646.9. And what makes you think that analysis says (f) applies? As far as I can see, section (f) does not apply, but since the hate mob's actions did make people frightened, so section (g) definitely applies without a doubt.

But let's take a step back. Even if one can't prove in California that this was a crime (it is in the EU and in the rest of the world for sure), it is still true that the hate mob's actions were uncivilized, immoral (I dare to say inhumane), based on false accusations which resulted in real-life harm (a lot more than "talking freely on the internet").

The thing is, anything that the hate mob said is without an evidence:
1) when asked for it, John's publisher couldn't quote any of John's tweets that would violate their code of conduct in any way.
2) same with Charles, nobody could quote any of Charles' tweets that would violate the code of conduct in any way.
3) their associates did not act by their free will, there is evidence that they were frightened by the mob, and feared for their jobs and family and acted under pressure

Yet, John and Charles are tried to be shown falsely by the hate mob as "white supremists" (with Octocontrabass' words) even though there's no evidence to support that at all. Neither John's publisher nor Octocontrabass was able to quote any of John's tweets that were clearly racist or sexists, that's a fact. Treating people like this is just not right and incorrect. This is a which hunt, barbaric and uncivilized.

Cheers,
bzt

[linguofreak]

I doubt anyone in the mob repeated common white supremacist propaganda the way John did. Of course, it's subtle enough that you won't know it's there unless you've heard it before. Even John himself might be unaware of the connection to white supremacists.

(Emphasis mine)

And this is where your case falls apart:

A dog whistle is camouflage. To be effective, camouflage must resemble its surroundings, so an effective dog whistle needs to resemble a statement of the legitimate interests of a group other than the group that is whistling, or, better yet for the dog-whistlers, the legitimate interests of society as a whole (since that makes it harder to directly attack the dog whistle). In effect, they're using some other group (or maybe the whole society around them) as human shields. So, yeah, you can deal with hidden guerrilla fighters by nuking every village in which there's a reasonable indication that they're hiding (the villagers brought it on themselves by sheltering those nasty guerrillas, after all), and you'll kill a lot of guerrillas that way, but you'll also do an incredible amount of collateral damage, and you may well help their recruitment efforts.

In short, if John is unaware of the connection between his statements and white supremacy, then he is not a legitimate target. Depending on the age of the dog-whistle involved, he may have held the position he does longer than it's been the base for a dog whistle. Furthermore, the more you attack the position that a dog-whistle is based on as if it were the dog-whistled ideology itself, the more opportunity you give the dog-whistlers to say to the group that they're hiding among "See, our position follows inevitably from yours, the other side admits it!", which will only help them recruit.

[Combuster]

Does it count as an opinion when it's factually incorrect?

YES! Yes, yes, yes it does. That is one of the fundamental pillars of freedom of speech, that you don't have to be right.

Absolutely not. Statements of facts are legally distinct from opinions and are the best way to lose your first amendment rights (or your local equivalent).

After all, you can't say "I saw John shoot that guy" to the judge and expect you can claim it was an opinion in case they find out you framed him.


That does not mean that the law isn't cautious around the human trait of being wrong and tends to require a bit more than just being wrong, like some form of malice or duty.

[nullplan]

Absolutely not. Statements of facts are legally distinct from opinions and are the best way to lose your first amendment rights (or your local equivalent).

OK, I went a little overboard there. The example you mention would fall under defamation, which I had already mentioned as a constraint. I later realized that fraud and detrimental reliance can also be such limitations. So there are a few wrong things you cannot say. In the main, however, you are free to live your life under any delusion you want to, as long as they aren't harming anyone else.

In any case, the statement indirectly pointed out by Octo as being false is a statement of opinion. (The statement was something to the effect of "there is no oppressed group in America today, except people that speak the truth to power." That is not a statement of fact but more a question of how you interpret the facts, and you are allowed to interpret the facts "wrong".)

[bzt]

I agree, except with this one:

That is not a statement of fact but more a question of how you interpret the facts, and you are allowed to interpret the facts "wrong".

This is absurd, there's no such thing as "different interpretation of a fact". Facts are always absolute and objective, there's no place for any subjectivity in them. Look up the definition of "fact" in any encyclopedia.
For example, it is a fact that "Earth orbits the Sun" and "sky is blue". You are allowed to think otherwise, but then well, you'll be simply wrong.

Denying or misinterpreting facts is a mental illness (the proper psychiatric phrase is "delusion") which is usually lethal in one way or another. Just a few examples:
- See how many people died because the Chinese at first denied the fact of the existence of the sars virus.
- Or how many people in India got infected because they denied the fact that microbes exist the "holy" water of Ganges
- Or how many mothers died at childbirth because doctors and scholars were denying the fact that microbes exists in the first place

The biggest problem with delusion is, that it is rarely lethal to the person who is wrong (there are not many Darwin award winners), much much more often it is lethal to others (like with the doctors being wrong and mothers died, and not the Chinese officials being wrong about covid died, but Dr Li Wenliang who was right and millions of others all around the world etc.). It's not the rich people and politicians that will die because of being wrong about global warming and co2 emissions, but mostly millions of poor people depending on soon-to-be deserted soil. And the list just goes on and on...

Cheers,
bzt

[nullplan]

This is absurd, there's no such thing as "different interpretation of a fact".

This is the reason I don't like to argue with you: You are the master of missing the point. Yes, there very much are different interpretations of facts. Example: A politician passes a new measure into law and shortly thereafter, the crime rate sinks. Both of these are independently verifiable, easy to prove facts. The politician's supporters interpret these facts as showing the measures were successful, while his detractors argue that the reduction in crime rate is merely in line with predictions already made before the measure was passed. Same facts, different interpretations. The correct, independent conclusion is of course that not enough data is available to make the call at this point, but that is not polarizing, so it won't be in the news.

- See how many people died because the Chinese at first denied the fact of the existence of the sars virus.
- Or how many people in India got infected because they denied the fact that microbes exist the "holy" water of Ganges
- Or how many mothers died at childbirth because doctors and scholars were denying the fact that microbes exists in the first place

And were all of these people suffering from mental illness? I think not. The Chinese government is many things, but deluded is not one of them. They denied the existence of the virus out of political reasons, not for mental illness. There is a big difference between someone who lies for a reason and a person who lies because they cannot help it.

The second one... well, if you subscribe to the anti-theist crowd, you could argue religion is a mental illness. Otherwise these people were simply mistaken. As were the people in the third example. They were not mentally ill, they had an incomplete picture of the facts, and made the wrong call with the limited data they had. True, they may have gone out of their way not to obtain that data, but that's another matter. That's just cognitive dissonance, a trait that is healthy in small doses (and indeed its absence is a sign of mental illness, like depression). It would behoove you well to not always assume the very worst possible interpretation of the facts in front of you.

[bzt]

Ok, we got a bit off-topic but I don't mind at all because this is a civilized and very interesting conversation.

Same facts, different interpretations.

Nope. They both agree on the two facts, nobody questions those. Creating a correlation between two events can't be a fact, simply because that needs deduction. For example
p = changed measure (that's one fact nobody questions),
q = dropped crime rate (that's another fact nobody questions), but
p R q isn't a fact, rather an (unknown) relation between these two facts. In your example they interpret R differently, not p neither q.

Haven't you had to do relation analysis tests at school? We had them a lot in every class, and we hated it very much. It's a kind of test with many statements each with two parts, and the students had to answer to each sentence with a letter from A to E.
A = both first and second part are false,
B = first part is true second isn't,
C = first part is false, second is true,
D = both parts are true but there's no relation,
E = both parts are true and there's a relation

For example: "the leaves are green because they are using photosynthesis to absorb energy", the answer is E, both parts are true and there's a relation (the green color is made by the frequency of the energy not used by chemical reaction creating anedosine tri-phosphate from cyclic anedosine mono-phosphate.)
Another example: "Van Gogh painted smells because Rembrandt liked space-ships", obviously the answer is B.

The correct, independent conclusion is of course that not enough data is available to make the call at this point

Yes, exactly, with my previous example R relation is unknown (relation analysis could be both D or E and would need more info to tell), however this does not change the two facts in any way. Those remain true, no matter if there's a relation between them or not.

The Chinese government is many things, but deluded is not one of them.

Oh, but they are in many ways. For example they think burning coal won't have any consequence and they can get away with it. They can't, and it will have consequences, and the price will be very very very high, measured in human lives.

They denied the existence of the virus out of political reasons, not for mental illness.

Sadly in the XXI century that's the same. Show me one politician who isn't mentally ill (not a greedy sociopath or even worse a psychopath at all). I wish I were wrong about this, but all politicians all around the world show the symptoms of mental illness alright. USA is no exception.

There is a big difference between someone who lies for a reason and a person who lies because they cannot help it.

No, the only difference is if the mental illness is socio- or psychopathic (lies for a reason in self-interest not caring about the consequences to others) or delusional (not knowing that they are brainwashed and unable to recognize the facts). In both case there's a mental illness that fits.

Finally about the doctors: what makes them mentally ill is their reaction when they ignored Ignác Semmelweiss' empiric observations, and not accepting the facts when those were presented to them (an empiric observation which can be repeated is always a fact).

Cheers,
bzt