Print This Post
Jul
27
I know it’s a Sunday, a day of rest for many. So I’d like to offer an academic-only topic for you to consider while you enjoy the hours. Think of it as something like a law school exam question, where you have to work with whatever the instructor gives you. I’m a bit rusty with this type of writing (of an exam question), so advice on what might be missing is more than welcome.
The Assignment: To consider, analyze and compose a response for the hypothetical recipient of the following hypothetical communication:
if you continue to be this annoying regarding [fill in the blank with the name of a politician about whom you've written] (”Politician”) race, you’re in for a serious fight. just wanted to warn you before i start swinging.
Assumptions:
The person who sent the communication (”Sender”) and the person who received it (”Recipient”) know of each other but do not have any formal or informal connections other than that they both write about politics and are on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.
Neither Sender nor Recipient is a politician.
Sender does not live in or near the political jurisdiction of Politician.
Recipient lives in the political jurisdiction of Politician. Recipient did not vote for Politician in Politician’s last election (during a non-Presidential election year) which Politician won by approximately 67% to 33% of votes cast.
Analysis
The first observation in this hypothetical is that Sender’s communication announces a threat against Recipient in order to intimidate Recipient into no longer writing about Politician and/or writing about Politician in a way that Sender dislikes.
The analysis of that observation is that such a threat violates the informal but often noted convention related to blogging and political blogging in particular that, when a political candidate or elected official dislikes blog content, bloggers expect that person to respond to the content directly. This can be done by emailing the author of the content, writing about the content in the politician’s own literature (whether online or offline), or responding to the content via comments that can be attributed directly to the politician or to his or her proxies (who identify themselves as such).
In this hypothetical, Sender is not Politician and has no known connection to Politician other than possibly being members of the same political party. We can assume for the purposes of this exercise that Politician has never responded on Recipient’s blog to any of the writings Sender calls “annoying” but may have had other communications with Recipient about content written in the past.
A second observation is that Sender fails to specify what the “serious fight” will be about or what tools will be used to do the “swinging.”
So what is the threat? Let’s analyze further:
Note that Sender does not say that he or she will be “swinging” with unsurmountably excellent information about the politician.
Also note the tone of the communication and phrases like:
if you continue to be this annoying regarding
you’re in for a serious fight
just wanted to warn you
before i start swinging.
A reasonable person, similarly situated to the Recipient, could reasonably conclude that the lack of connection between Sender and Politician, the stated dislike of what Recipient writes and the implied and explicit warnings about future behavior by Sender indicate that Sender hopes Recipient feels so at risk of being hurt by this unspecified threat that the preference will be to stop writing about Politician.
A reasonable person would also call that a threat to Recipient’s First Amendment right to free speech, as well as just plain mean, nasty and unrelated to anything that has to do with Politician’s actual race or credentials.
So - let’s sum up for a minute:
A reasonable person reading the communication and the attendant circumstances outlined here could conclude that Sender is threatening Recipient and wants Recipient to feel so threatened that Recipient will stop writing about what Sender doesn’t like to read (maybe Sender should just stop reading what Recipient writes? nah - that would be too easy; maybe Sender should challenge the content of what Recipient writes with facts to counter Recipient’s assertions and opinions? nah - that would be too hard for Sender; okay - back to Analysis).
Since Sender doesn’t define the threat with any specificity, it’s impossible to know what Sender believes would actually be a threat that could keep Recipient from writing as Recipient writes, if in fact anything could achieve that.
Let’s hypothesize that Recipient’s writing is read by fewer than 300 visitors per day, which is to say that, in the scope of the millions who read political blogs, Recipient’s blog has very few readers and, statistically speaking, maybe even it could be said no readers.
Therefore, a reasonable person could conclude that Sender’s threat is unfounded (assuming the goal of the threat is to stop voters in Politician’s district who read Recipient’s blog (assumedly a tiny number) from being influencing to vote against Politician or at least re-think their choices in Politician’s district), since Recipient’s writing would, practically speaking, be incapable of influencing any statistically significant proportion of voters in Politician’s district (which, I’ll throw out this other assumption - probably isn’t populated with a lot of people who even know what a blog is, much less reads them). (And, if Sender is correct in the assertion that the writing is annoying, a reasonable person might assume that few readers ever finish what Recipient writes anyway.)
These assumptions raise the question of why Sender would bother to communicate a threat to Recipient’s use of free speech rights if Recipient’s use of free speech doesn’t matter to 99.9% of Politician’s voting district (two-thirds of which voted for Politician two years ago).
Other questions that you might ask and consider as relevant or irrelevant to devising a response to Sender:
What if Sender and Recipient are not both bloggers but rather Recipient is a mainstream media news outlet or alternative weekly or television station reporter or anchor?
Does Sender have a habit of making personal attacks rather than constructing fact-based arguments against that which displeases him?
Has Sender sent this kind of communication to anyone before?
Has Sender acted on this kind of communication to anyone before? With what results (did the Sender or the Politician benefit? Was harm done to the recipients of those communications?)?
What laws if any has Sender broken or are in danger of being broken? Civil? Criminal? Subject to restraining orders? (think harassment, stalking etc.)
What role if any does Politician play in Sender’s behavior?
You get the idea.
Resolution
Your task now is to devise a response to Sender’s communication. This response can be in the form of steps, a communication or a combination.
For example:
Should Recipient call Sender?
Should Recipient forward Sender’s communication to Poitician (and how should Politician respond)?
Should Recipient forward Sender’s communication to Politician’s opponent?
Should mail servers be contacted since they serve as conduits for the threats?
Should Recipient forward Sender’s communication to the editorial board of the newspapers and entities that will be making endorsements in hypothetical Politician’s race?
To what other entities or individuals might Recipient forward the communication?
Should Recipient write more than ever about the race in the same, usual fashion? Should others write more than ever about the race in their same, usual fashion?
Should others who blog find their blood chilling and boiling at the same time at the idea that a fellow blogger would send and use a threat of personal attacks against another blogger in order to get bloggers to stop writing about anything? What would be the consequences to all bloggers and discourse in the blogosphere if a threat of personal attacks did stop Recipient from blogging (the implication being that, just as giving in to people who kidnap and want a ransom of some type, once you give in to such demands, the demands will become more frequent and more bold)?
Given that the threat is unspecified, what if anything should Recipient consider disclosing?
Also feel free to suggest what other elements might be important for the Sender, Recipient and maybe most importantly, the innocent (or not so innocent?) bystander Politician, in whose name Sender has made these threats. For example, is there a possibility that Sender’s attempts to help Politician will only hurt Politician?
Good luck, and don’t be afraid to think out of the box.
Oh - and really, the last word: Notice how I haven’t suggested that Recipient wage a personal attack on the Sender. No recipient of such communications should ever resort to that. It will only backfire, not to mention not be what a reasonable person would do.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:59 pm July 27th, 2008 in Politics
Comments
32 Responses to “WLST 101: Anatomy Of A Threat”
Leave a Reply
-
Upcoming
Submitted for consideration in assignment
Eric responds to the hypothetical in the following manner:
“Fuck you. Swing away!”
Blog the whole thing, including the email of said sender and their name. You don’t fight this kind of shit by helping deflect blame for the sender by attempting to be above brow. If you are swung on at knee level, swing back harder. It’s the only thing bullies understand.
Next.
[...] an assignment by your adjunct professor in blogology: Guess who is threatening Jill Zimon? Post assignment answers in the [...]
Short version:
Don’t be a jackass blogger. Threatening people will only get you into a pile of poo you could never have imagined.
jill it’s either like the 6 yr old who canlt come up with a coherent way to debate so he says my dad is bigger than yours instead…or the mob who says i expect retaliation…neither is satisfactory from an adult threats cannot stop your first amendment rights and one other thing…sometimes threats can be gronds for a federal investigation. my computer is down so i hope this phone comment relays my support and ditto what eric said
Hmm… perplexing issue here… Here’s what I might be inclined to do:
1. Forward the threatening email to BOTH the Politician AND his/her Opponent.
2. Forward the threatening email to the newspapers and TV news outlets that cover the area — asking deep questions about the affiliation between the Politician and the Sender.
3. Mail servers *must* be contacted with the raw, original emails so that they can trace the Sender — if necessary (and if the Recipient knows a judge), get a warrant for the information.
4. Continue writing about the Politician.
5. The recipient should ask their blogging friends to write about the Politician as well — with overly annoying frequency — in the same vein that the Recipient has been writing.
6. The Recipient must cover his/her *ss: make sure that everything written is the truth and can be verified — the same goes with the “associate” bloggers. Truth is the best defense against any implied threat of damage, either legal, physical, or emotional.
7. Recipient should give him/herself far more credit than they already do.
The Sender is obviously attempting to have a chilling effect on the recipient’s writing: either they don’t like what is written, or how it is written. Perhaps they don’t like bloggers in general (there are a few of those out there).
But the Sender is treading on thin ice, and should be careful. At last recounting, Missouri has already passed a law over this, and other states are following suit.
Of course, Eric’s sentiment has some merit, as well…
Oh, hell… on second thought, start a blog carnival on the subject — get everyone in the act!
My recommendation: call Scott Pullins.
He has a background in suing people for crap like this - and though he may not win, he certainly will bring some probably-unwanted attention to “sender”.
Get suggestions Will K. Start 4,5,and 6 immediately!
josh mandel. next question please.
jill, sometimes it’s better not to write like you talk.
From the assignment:
Neither Sender nor Recipient is a politician.
Sender does not live in or near the political jurisdiction of Politician.
“In this hypothetical, Sender is not Politician and has no known connection to Politician other than possibly being members of the same political party.”
I assume by “write about politics,” you mean blog about politics. Anyone who wrote for a newspaper or a magazine could expect to be fired for that email.
So assuming that the fellow writer is a fellow blogger, the barely veiled threat is particularly disappointing. If there’s one fundamental thing you would think bloggers could agree on, it would be the need for free and open debate.
Unfortunately, bloggers trying to silence other bloggers — by exposing their real identity, contacting their employer, complaining to their ISP or blog host — isn’t uncommon.
It would be nice if some people just grew up.
ok, someone associated with josh mandel.
i didn’t read your “assignment” in full, because my eyes began to bleed from the incomprehensible gibberish. you’re starting to sound like john mccain.
if you have something to say, jill, just say it please. stop making my eyes bleed.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QwCPAo5e_F8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=34hZPisnIA0
Jill,
In my humble opinion, the post that you just wrote will do the job.
Joel
Sorry to see Dave Hickman’s prescription ran out again.
Don’t worry, man. When Obama is president he’ll make sure you get your meds every day.
There’s no trust, no faith, no honesty in men; all perjured, all forsworn, all naught, all dissemblers.WilliamShakespeareWilliam Shakespeare
I like Will’s suggestions above, especially the ones involving the Recipient notifying media outlets and both campaigns -and would suggest that Recipient also notifies anyone else who should be put “on notice” that such threatening behavior is happening around the campaign.
I would not advise contacting the Sender unless it is in writing or the conversation is on record. I suppose the Recipient could also hire a lawyer to make contact.
Lastly, there is most definitely a larger question here than this incident, and that is what you wrote earlier: “What would be the consequences to all bloggers and discourse in the blogosphere if a threat of personal attacks did stop Recipient from blogging”. I would encourage Recipient to write about this on larger forums and submit op-eds to newspapers and/or magazines to explore this question and gather feedback from a diverse group of readers/bloggers/citizens.
We already have the statistics for the future: the growth percentages of pollution, overpopulation, desertification. The future is already in place.G%FCntherGrassG?nther Grass, Winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, 1999
jill, my dearest. if you are indicating that you are the recipient of these “threatening” correspondences from the sender who disagrees with your assessment of his/her politicial friend, i believe that the appropriate response from you is clearly apparent: disarm the guy by posting another photo of you in your bathing suit. it worked for me. i disagree with you on a much more infrequent basis now that i have seen how pretty you are. if it can work on someone like me, this other person should be putty in your hands. use those God given assets to your advantage.
oh, and tim, your credibility has been totally destroyed vis a vis mandel as the other poster noted before. you could not have advised him that he would end up in iraq when mandel joined the marines in 2000 unless you had a crystal ball that 9/11 was going to happen 18 months later. in fact, if that were true and you knew, then you should have done something to stop it.
Everyone in the blog arena must use some appropriate control. There are more and more lawsuits and actions in this regard and if those who threaten do not control themselves, they will find the FBI at their door and civil suits against them that will make them penniless. The best fight against speech, is more speech. That is what you all stand for. The approach taken by Jill here is appropriate. Most of you would have identified the idiot threatener immedidately and not tried to persuade the idiot to get a life, get out of the basement and look at the sun.
Keep writing all, but remember that there are lines that can be drawn - the shout in the crowded movie theater destroys and is not permitted.
Finally, I indulge in a personal comment: What Tim Russo says is unimportant.
Thanks everyone for their input. Look for your reports cards in the mail.
In the meantime, if I were the Politician, I’d get my a$$ as far away from and disconnected with the Sender as possible, especially if I’m way ahead of my competition. Because the last thing the person in front needs is to have their name come up over and over and over and over and over and over in connection with blogs of all things in defiance of an attempt to limit free speech by threatening personal attacks that have nothing to do with the Politician.
Just makes the Politician look ruthless, without intergrity and dirties up his or her political party too.
Again, not something a hypothetical frontrunner or incumbent should be looking for, except to neutralize.
But, that’s if this were all real.
Jill,
I’ve always thought you were a total class act. I thought this article was a good idea, although, like Tim, I think it was a little hard to read.
We’ve all got to find a way to interact better online with each other. The threats, the name calling, the insults have to go.
Tim Russo and I have become friends over this issue. His writing has changed for the better over time, as has mine.
This issue, IMHO, presents a rare opportunity for all of us to reach across party and idealogical lines and work to show more courtesy, candor, and class to each other. I hope that you agree.
Thanks for the comment, Scott. I like those three Cs - courtesy, candor and class - there’s no reason why they have to be mutually exclusive.
i have three c’s in mind also. probably shouldn’t share here though. i’ll find an alternative method to transmit in the near future.
Joe - that’s going to have to be the last one of these kind of themed comments. I’m going to have to keep them unapproved from now on. Please stay with the ones you write that have logic and facts about the blog entry’s topic.
And thanks, as always, for reading.
something wrong with courage, character and charisma?
the panoramic view that i had mentioned earlier still has not been forthcoming. very disappointing.
Regarding “killing time on a Sunday afternoon” — I just finished your post and it’s already Wednesday.
Reignman - I can see that it took you at least four and a half minutes - maybe you’re just a thorough reader?
FYI - The Ohio Republican Party is going to start a new grassroots outreach effort. I hope they remember not to use threats as part of their motivational brew.