At what point would you report someone you met on the internet to the police?

[Kraut and Tea]

On a different forum, several months ago, I encountered a person from the southern states of the US, who bragged about how important it was to beat children for reasons of disciplining them. After that I kept refering to him as "child abusing redneck", which would get me banned from the forum.

I dont know how to report crimes or potential crimes to the US authorities, over the internet from Europe, but I did try to find out how and I would have certainly reported him to the police if I had found out how. Having been severly beaten to the point of hospitalisation myself as a child, I do feel like if I had the responsibility to report it emidiatly if I should ever find out that a child is being harmed.

There are things for which I guess it is obvious that we would report them to the police if we found them on the internet. I guess everyone here who would find evidence that someone was sexualy abusing a child, would report that person to the police.

Yet there are things over which some of us would disagree. Where I live, denying the Holocaust, spreading racial hate and using sysmbols from the nazi era for means of politics is a crime for which one can get up to 12 years in prison. I have in the time in which I have been a registered member of Youtube encountered one German citizen who broke the laws concerning National socialism that I mentioned above. I reported him and hope that he got a visit from the authorities.

I am sure that many people here would not agree with these specific laws, or other laws.

And I would like to ask you: When witnessing criminal activity on the internet, when is a point reached at which you will report a crime to the police?

[Arbitrary Crusader]

I dont see how bragging about abuse , unless he admits to doing it, is a crime.

Even if he admits, it still would be hard to prove it without more evidences. However one could still reports it.

As for me, I would report if there were sufficient evidences. Although if it's some person throwing bites sizes carrots at rabbits and recording it online, I would not care.

[Elfdude]

This is a hard question. Honestly if there was a way to do it and you could be sure that a record was kept I would say always in the case of a suspected felony. The problem enters in that I don't know if police will investigate a crime you haven't witnessed nor have strong evidence that happened.

On the other hand Lawyers at least here do get access to police records on individuals. If such a thing were recorded it would be very useful to support say a custody battle, an assault case, an anger case, a murder, or child endangerment to any lawyer that came across it.

Europe is far more liberal about this and tend to act on suspected crimes reported via internet. Most police even in the states understand the capabilities of the internet to act as an early warning system and many potential tragedies have been stopped, while those which have been ignored have allowed them to occur. People are pretty careful about ignoring that sort of thing.

What I would suggest is contacting either the local authorities or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, potentially child services if you have his name. Alternatively you can report suspected crimes here:

http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

for the US at least but it's tough to say what if anything would happen.

Freedom of speech is carefully guarded in this country so really unless he threatened to go home and beat his child that night there's not much you can say about him perpetuating the opinion. Neo-Nazis and etc are legal. My personal philosophy? While freedom of speech should be allowed hate speech and rhetoric is damaging to the rights of others to speech. If you want to be a Neo-Nazi fine. If you want to spout nazi rhetoric I draw the line.

On the other hand this sentiment (it's ok to beat your children) is largely due to the christian-hold on this country.

[fkizz]

While freedom of speech should be allowed hate speech and rhetoric is damaging to the rights of others to speech. If you want to be a Neo-Nazi fine. If you want to spout nazi rhetoric I draw the line.

I aprove of complete freedom of speech, Iluminism style, quoting Voltaire/his biographist: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

I think beating hate speech with censorship is not a victory at all, you are using methods used by the same hate-authocratic regimes to show suposed "freedom superiority". Albeit in the case of holocaust denial in germany I can understand.

Holocaust denial is not explicitally forbidden in Portugal, it just falls under the "denying war crimes" clausule. Yet, nobody denies the Holocaust, and Portuguese Ambassador Aristides Sousa Mendes who saved many (thousands and thousands) jews from the Holocaust is revered here. We don't need to be forbbiden to deny holocaust to not do it, for we simply are not interested in white washing atrocities in general, be it holocaust, holodomor, or anything else. But I understand this might not be the same for all societies.

Same goes for smoking pot, smoking pot is legal in portugal as long as you carry less than 5 grams and are not involed in trafficking, and our marijuanna smoking rates actually lowered since the decriminalization. Despite not being a crime anymore it is still socially shunned upon.

Sometimes civilization triumphs over censorship and forbbiding, but this can't be done easily or in every circunstance.

Only exception to the rule would be making recurrent threats of executing a crime, such a thing is already a clear agression or possible indicator of (not so much) latent criminality. However under our penal code having the intention of doing a crime is not a crime in itself, but recurrently harassing someone with threats might put you into trouble.

[Gaidin]

Question of the day: Do you even know which police department to call?

[Himster]

While freedom of speech should be allowed hate speech and rhetoric is damaging to the rights of others to speech. If you want to be a Neo-Nazi fine. If you want to spout nazi rhetoric I draw the line.

Are you saying we should ban Nazi/Neo-Nazi rhetoric. If you are I completely disagree.
It's only threats of violence, giving false information in a court of law, libel and harassing should be the restrictions on freedom of speech with legal recourse.

[Col. Tartleton]

If Nazis can't express themselves I have no right to express my animosity towards them with equivocal hate speech.

Don't take that away from me Elfdude.

If I couldn't bash the Axis countries and their people, well that's about half my material.

[Elfdude]

Are you saying we should ban Nazi/Neo-Nazi rhetoric. If you are I completely disagree.
It's only threats of violence, giving false information in a court of law, libel and harassing should be the restrictions on freedom of speech with legal recourse.

Yes, I'm saying we should ban Nazi/Neo-Nazi rhetoric because it actively silences the minority opinion. You can still be a neo-nazi, you just can't organize on it. This is how it is already largely, Nazi demonstrations are not protected by freedom of speech and their freedom of speech is considered inherently threatening. There's a reason why calling someone a racial slur gives you the right to punch them in the face, the reasoning (as the US court defines it) is that if a racial slur is used an individual has the right to consider themselves imminently in danger and can defend themselves just as much as if you had punched them.

It does not damage our ability to say that neo nazis are wrong because again, they do not have an imminent threat from someone telling them they are wrong, however their rhetoric itself is a subtle threat as defined by most US courts.

If Nazis can't express themselves I have no right to express my animosity towards them with equivocal hate speech.

Don't take that away from me Elfdude.

If I couldn't bash the Axis countries and their people, well that's about half my material.

This is not true, nazi rhetoric is considered inherently threatening to the well-being of people. You can say mean things about them all you want and it's not inherently a threat (except as per normal threat laws) however their rhetoric itself is considered threatening.

[Col. Tartleton]

Yes, I'm saying we should ban Nazi/Neo-Nazi rhetoric because it actively silences the minority opinion. You can still be a neo-nazi, you just can't organize on it. This is how it is already largely, Nazi demonstrations are not protected by freedom of speech and their freedom of speech is considered inherently threatening. There's a reason why calling someone a racial slur gives you the right to punch them in the face, the reasoning (as the US court defines it) is that if a racial slur is used an individual has the right to consider themselves imminently in danger and can defend themselves just as much as if you had punched them.

It does not damage our ability to say that neo nazis are wrong because again, they do not have an imminent threat from someone telling them they are wrong, however their rhetoric itself is a subtle threat as defined by most US courts.



This is not true, nazi rhetoric is considered inherently threatening to the well-being of people. You can say mean things about them all you want and it's not inherently a threat (except as per normal threat laws) however their rhetoric itself is considered threatening.

Yeah I see what you mean. At some point marching around in uniforms talking about liquidating inferior people might be considered threatening.

[YuriVII]

What a thread full of narcs.

[Arbitrary Crusader]

Sounds like a corrupt NARC would say.

[Gaidin]

This is not true, nazi rhetoric is considered inherently threatening to the well-being of people. You can say mean things about them all you want and it's not inherently a threat (except as per normal threat laws) however their rhetoric itself is considered threatening.

Which law or precedent established this? I'm just curious.

[Elfdude]

Which law or precedent established this? I'm just curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplin..._New_Hampshire

[Gaidin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplin..._New_Hampshire

That's the fighting words doctrine, that's not specific to Nazi rhetoric. I can say something that has absolutely nothing to do with Nazi rhetoric and have it fall under the fighting words doctrine. What's the precedent or law that established Nazi rhetoric(according to your last post) as inherently threatening to the well-being to people.

[Elfdude]

It's not specific to Nazi rhetoric but that precedent has been used numerous times to arrest Neo Nazi's and to prevent Neo Nazi demonstrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauharnais_v._Illinois

But this is a difficult issue and oftentimes Nazi demonstrations are allowed so long as they avoid breaching the limitations of the freedom of speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...lage_of_Skokie

In this case the Nazi party did win their right to distribute leaflets and etc in a peaceful manner however it was a split decision, the same decision going to the supreme court today is largely thought that it would not uphold the previous ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Another relevant case used to prevent nazi demonstrations. Basically speaking the laws pretty much restrict freedom of speech with regards to hate rhetoric.

#1 Incitement - Encouraging a mob to riot in a non peaceful manner is not protected by the freedom of speech, nor is screaming fire in a crowded building. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
#2 False statements of fact - making statements which are of course untrue is not protected by freedom of speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.
#3 Obscenity - Obscenity as defined by the miller test is not protected by freedom of speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California
#4 Child pornography - Should be obvious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber
#5 Fighting words - Words which are designed to aggravate a fight or are likely to cause a fight, including racial slurs or simply telling someone that their mother was a whore undeserving of human consideration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplin..._New_Hampshire | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_v._Falwell | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
#6 Threats - Threats are not ok and have never been ok, most recent cases on this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black
#7 Use of Protected (copywrited) speech - Use of someone else's artistic property in a way which is tied to monetary gain, i.e. I can't publish a book you write with my name on it and try and get money for that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_...on_Enterprises
#8 Commercial Speech - Commercial speech almost universally does not have the right to freedom of speech, this was established because although corporations are legally people to treat their statements as innocuous as a single person's is problematic thus commercial speech is held to a higher standard of correctness from defamatory to falsity than virtually all other speech.

Any of these cases may also be used. Judging by the intersections of these laws federally a case could easily be made that Nazi demonstrations are not protected except in ways mostly stripped of all Nazi rhetoric. Were riots to break out it's likely that the Nazi individuals would be responsible for aggravating the assault due to the content of their speech which largely eliminates the protection of Nazi's by the law meaning, "We'll let you have them (usually) but you if you cause a riot that's on you."

Most states have specific laws regarding hate speech and rhetoric type demonstrations however I really can't be arsed to look that all up. IIRC 44 states have laws which outright outlaw hate rhetoric on public property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black

[Gaidin]

So Nazi rhetoric is not inherently threatening. It has to be established as such.

[GrnEyedDvl]

On a different forum, several months ago, I encountered a person from the southern states of the US, who bragged about how important it was to beat children for reasons of disciplining them. After that I kept refering to him as "child abusing redneck", which would get me banned from the forum.

I guess first I will ask if it was a simple spanking that you are calling a beating? There is a difference.



But I find it interesting how you will commit a crime because of what you perceive as a criminal act. Repeated harassing/insulting of someone via the internet is considered "internet bullying" in many states in the US now and probably many other countries as well. Did you report yourself for this crime?

[Gaidin]

That depends, do we know what state he and/or the person he is talking about lives in?

I'm still wondering if he's even done the legwork to figure out which police department to call.

[Col. Tartleton]

Is it even worth bothering with legwork?

[Aeneas Veneratio]

But I find it interesting how you will commit a crime because of what you perceive as a criminal act. Repeated harassing/insulting of someone via the internet is considered "internet bullying" in many states in the US now and probably many other countries as well. Did you report yourself for this crime?

The original post doesn't state the forum name or real name of the guy, so I can't see, how that is an act of internet bullying.