THE DAY
You’d think I spend the entire day looking into this stuff, but this was actually brought to my attention by someone else: the case of a black woman who’s being essentially harassed, stalked, and threatened on Facebook by a white guy and what people are NOT doing about it.
In brief, a guy calling himself Matt Walters whom Facebook user Heather Smith says, she’s never met or spoken to (but obviously friended, or he couldn’t leave messages on her feed) has been posting threats of violence, including graphic accounts of kidnapping and murder:
And this has only been escalating over time.
Now, this guy was reported to Facebook. Ms. Smith took her concerns to the Houston PD–and they did nothing. Other people have added their voices to Ms. Smith’s. One even reached out to the guy’s brother. In the meantime, Ms. Smith’s Facebook page is blocked because Facebook gets pissed that she’s sharing posts because that violates “community standards.”
And no one has done anything, least of all Facebook. (Okay, the Houston PD finally took a report, but only grudgingly.)
So here are a couple things that boggle the mind.
Now, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t claim to be an expert in constitutional law. But while some might argue that this kind of explicit threat is protected under the First Amendment, I gotta say . . . not so fast. Yes, people are allowed to say hateful things. Some of them even run for president (but more on that in a second). But people are not allowed to make threats. Really, go read this; I’ll wait.
Back? Okay, so I think we can agree that this guy’s taking his First Amendment liberties just a little far. In fact, we can also look at Facebook’s own guidelines and see that this guy is clearly in violation (toggle down to direct threats). If you don’t want to bother going to the page, here’s what it says:
“Direct Threats: How we help people who feel threatened by others on Facebook.
We carefully review reports of threatening language to identify serious threats of harm to public and personal safety. We remove credible threats of physical harm to individuals. We also remove specific threats of theft, vandalism, or other financial harm.
We may consider things like a person’s physical location or public visibility in determining whether a threat is credible. We may assume credibility of any threats to people living in violent and unstable regions.”
On another page, Facebook says this:
“What does Facebook consider to be hate speech?
Content that attacks people based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease is not allowed. We do, however, allow clear attempts at humor or satire that might otherwise be considered a possible threat or attack. This includes content that many people may find to be in bad taste (ex: jokes, stand-up comedy, popular song lyrics, etc.).”
So Facebook does nothing despite a clear violation of their own standards.
Here’s what’s more concerning. In fact, it’s so concerning because every law enforcement agency in the bloody country ought to know this.
This guy is engaging in stalking behavior. Stalking behavior can escalate over time, as this guy has clearly demonstrated. Further, when stalking escalates to the point where there are overt and explicit threats of violence, the actual violence is, frequently, not far behind. The old shrink thinking on this was that stalkers were . . . well, you know, they were probably harmless.
But stalkers are not. Stalkers take many forms, from the overly aggressive and intrusive to the guys who can’t take no for an answer and persistently make contact even when this contact is discouraged. In fact, attempts to engage with them in any civil way is frequently misinterpreted as encouragement. No is heard (or read) as . . . well, maybe. If you just try a little harder. If you’re persistent, eventually, she’ll crack or he’ll realize what he’s missing.
Of course, that is not the case here. This guy is making threats. He is predatory and he is escalating; his threats have become more graphic and detailed. For heaven’s sake, the FBI teaches this stuff , and it was certainly drilled into me during forensic shrink lectures. Any law enforcement agency worth its salt should know that escalation frequently culminates in violence.
Now, the fact that the guy is a stranger does lessen the risk. People whom you’ve known and been close to are much more likely to be violent than a complete stranger.
Still. This woman has a case. If she’s hurt in any way, not only will Facebook be liable because they’re violating their own guidelines, so will the Houston PD.
But this story coming on the heels of my post yesterday about that Oberlin professor and yet another story today about a guy who was deported back to Egypt after making threats against Trump . . . here’s what I’m also concerned about.
We have a guy running for president right now who advocates violence. Make no mistake; that is what he’s doing. He targets ethnic groups. He threatens to kill people. Anyone who doesn’t agree with him is stupid and someone he will destroy.
Does he have a right to speak this way? Well…you know, reading the case law, maybe yes, but maybe no. I’m not so sure. What he is doing is getting away with it–but here is where I think that Trump’s rhetoric is coming perilously close to a definition of hate speech that is not protected by the First Amendment.
He advocates violence–and what has been happening at Trump rallies? Yes, exactly: they have an undercurrent of barely restrained violence and there have been instances of overt violence, which Trump has not condemned: see here and here. People talk about Trump harnessing a certain segment of the population’s “anger.” But his rhetoric is also giving them tacit permission to be violent.
And that is against the law. It is against the law.
Further–and this is my opinion; I might be wrong–I think that the current political climate, fueled by Trump, is making it much easier for people to condone violence as a solution. I’m not saying that he’s completely responsible; that would be absurd. People were angry before Trump came along to play on that rage and ride a very dangerous riptide of anger and bigotry that’s been nascent for a while, perhaps relegated to, say, a college campus for a time but now spilling over into the general public. This is a man who is not interested in civil discourse or tolerance, and his brand of violence is only steam and traction because it is now more acceptable to behave that way.
Am I saying that Trump is responsible for what’s happening to Ms. Smith? No. Of course not. But is Trump’s behavior and rhetoric tacitly endorsing this? Oh, you betcha.
Here’s the inequity for you. A guy who threatens Trump gets deported. A woman who’s threatened–and graphically so–by a guy on Facebook . . . she doesn’t get anything.
And Trump, who advocates killing families of terrorists and barring Muslims and receives the endorsement of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the KKK . . . he gets Secret Service protection.
Think about it.
Oh yeah–and I also wrote today.
WRITING OUT LOUD
Dark Side of the Moon
Day 1: 4326 Day 11: 2500 Day 21: 1800 Day 31: 745
Day 2: 2085 Day 12: 500 Day 22: 0 Day 32: 0
Day 3: 3011 Day 13: 1000 Day 23: 2700 Day 33: 4000
Day 4: 2652. Day 14: 3700 Day 24: 3500 Day 34: 2800
Day 5: 3210 Day 15: 5630 Day 25: 1500 Day 35: 4500
Day 6: 3450 Day 16: 1060 Day 26: 0 Day 36: 4800
Day 7: 0 Day 17: 130 Day 27: 0 Day 37: 0
Day 8: 2756 Day 18: 0 Day 28: 380 Day 38: 450
Day 9: 4580 Day 19: 3000 Day 29: 390 Day 39: 1000
Day 10: 2670 Day 20: 2600 Day 30: 380 Day 40: 2500
Day 41: 2600 Day 51: 1000 Day 63: 4800 Day 73: 1500 (edit)
*Day 42: 830 Day 52: 1600 Day 64: 3300 Day 74: 250 (sick)
Day 43: 3600 Day 53: 2600 Day 65: 2500 Day 75: 3000 (edit)
Day 44: 5000 Day 54: 3600 Day 66: 1200 (edit) Day 76: 2500 (edit)
Day 45: 2600 Day 55: 3200 Day 67: 1000 (edit) Day 77: 2500 (edit)
Day 46: 3000 Day 56: 4000 Day 68: 3000 (edit) Day 78: 2000 (edit)
Day 47: 2800 Day 57: 1200 Day 69: 1000 (edit) Day 79: 2000 (edit)
Day 48: 2500 Day 58-60: 0 Day 70: 1000 (edit) Day 80: 4300 (edit)
Day 49: 1000 Day 61: 3500 Day 71: 1500 (edit) Day 81: 1000 (edit)
Day 50: 4600 Day 62: 3000 Day 72: 2500 (edit) Day 82: 2000 (edit)
Day 83: 1500 (edit)
Day 84: 2700 (edit)
Day 85: 1500 (edit)
Day 86: 0 (travel)
Day 87: 0 (travel)
Day 88: 0 (travel)
Day 89: 2500 (edit)
Day 90: 2400
Day 91: 1300
Day 92: 2200
Blog Post: 1500
***
What I’m Watching:
Mental Dental Floss . . . er . . . Shades of Blue. And the first ep in The Americans’ third season. Boy, missed that show. So well-done.
***
What I’m Reading:
German Rocketeers, some constitutional law; a terrific article on inherited memory.
***
What I’m Listening to:
Breathless CNN announcers wondering if anything can stop Trump, all the while taking zero responsibility for having done nothing about him themselves because they apparently forgot that they were supposed to be, hello, investigative journalists, and being so bloody clueless about how anything that happens now can be manipulated to Trump’s advantage.
I don’t know if we’re doomed, but it sure feels like it somedays. The only solace? Even though the guy clearly thinks of the office as tantamount to a dictatorship, some folks have also come right out and said that they sure hope the military won’t follow illegal orders. On the other hand, history isn’t on the angels’ side here; if past is prologue, then there is plenty of evidence that the military would cave.
Whatever your deity of choice . . . help us all.
