Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Defining "threat"

Robot Man Reformed

20:49 / 20.07.03

(From the 'Harassing PMs' thread: )

Haus:

"For example, conveniently, we have a thread or two further down the policy where the making of threats in a PM was discussed. This was, in one case not identified as actionable harrassment, because the recipient did not at the time feel particularly threatened by them; another member might have felt differently. In another, it was judged to be both threatening and harrassing, and the individual in question has been essentially ejected from the board.

We have...

The status of "you dumb fuck" and "if you fuck with me then I will fuck with you" as instruments of policy.

And we have:

Threats delivered via PM of the ever-popular legal action. Ganesh, who had some time previously been in PM contact with Knodge, also got one of these shortly thereafter (suggesting btw that the change of heart Knodge appears to have expressed to >0< about such threatening behaviour was rather a brief one), but I can't find the thread offhand."

Me:

"Isn't 'threat' a rather strong word in these particular cases?

For instance: Threat, defined by www.dictionary.com:

"threat ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thrt) n.

1) An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.

2) An indication of impending danger or harm.

3) One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace."

I can't see how ones saying that one might take 'legal action' could be construed as an intention to punish a person, per se. More an intention to persue a situation through to its natural, 'just' conclusion. (Legally, of course.)"

Haus:

"So, the phrase "the threat of legal action"...oh, never mind. RRM is pretty much inevitably going to criticise any attempt to reign in behaviour on Barbelith that might impair hir right to call people paedophiles and rail against international Jewry. This should surprise nobody.

Does anyone mind if further interruptions off the topic are ignored?"

Me:

"(I'm sorry if this derails the thread at all, and I'd be happy to move this side-topic to a different thread entirely.)

"So, the phrase "the threat of legal action"...oh, never mind. RRM is pretty much inevitably going to criticise any attempt to reign in behaviour on Barbelith that might impair hir right to call people paedophiles and rail against international Jewry. This should surprise nobody."

I don't see how what I have posted elsewhere has anything to do with what I am saying here.

What I am saying here is that 'threat' is a bit of a loaded word to be throwing around. I tried to back up what I was saying with a definition of the word from a dictionary.

By your response, which shows an apparent lack of interest in the questions I raised, I think you have evidentally dismissed it out of hand and decided that it relates in some way to how I might feel about actions taken in order to stop bad behaviour on Barbelith.(I take this from my reading of your post and please correct me in the event that I have read it wrongly.)

I don't see what connection this has to my point though.

How does my querying a particular word used in your vernacular, more importantly, the inherent conotations of this word, relate to actions being taken to stop bad behaviour here on Barbelith?

I don't see the relation, personally, although I'm sure there is one and would you be nice enough to communicate it to me? Otherwise I might allow myself to think that it has about as much relevance to my original point as your unattributed quotation: "the threat of legal action," which I have never heard anyone say, and, whilst you may have, does not really hold much water if you can't attribute it to somebody in the legal profession. And even then, the case would have to be loooked at based on its own merits.

I would be quite happy to begin a new thread on this though, if you would be happy to Haus."

Haus:

"(RRM - if you would like to start a thread on the meaning of the word "threat", please do. I suggest the Conversation, or possibly the Head Shop, or if you want to look specifically at the actions of Knodge and >0< then the Policy. Kindly refrain from rotting this thread, however)"

So here it is Haus. What do you think?

21:08 / 20.07.03

I can't see how ones saying that one might take 'legal action' could be construed as an intention to punish a person, per se. More an intention to persue a situation through to its natural, 'just' conclusion.

But sometimes people *do* claim that they're going to pursue legal action as an attempt either to punish or intimidate. Indeed, if we take one of the examples cited intimidation was undoubtedly the driving factor. Intimidation = threat, no?

Also, taking the definitions that you yourself have provided, legal action for whatever reason fits very nicely into both 2) An indication of impending danger or harm and 3) One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace. Any legal action is a threat to the person on the receiving end.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:08 / 20.07.03

I think that you are welcome to start this thread, and if anything interesting happens along in it I will be sure to contribute. Maybe we should start with you telling us what you feel a "threat" would be. Just wondering, like.

The exact phrase "threat of legal action" has about 9,000 results on Google, by the way, including on the front page both the BBC and a British broadsheet newspaper. You might perhaps want to find another dictionary than dictionary.com. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, has "threat" as, among other things, "a declaration of an intention to take some hostile action; esp a declaration of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage or other punishment (my italics) in retribution for somehting done or not done....Also, an indication of the approach of something unwelcome or undesirable".

That seems a bit more like it. The phrase "threatened with industrial action" also occurs as an example of usage of "threaten", which does not seem so far from our purposes.

22:24 / 20.07.03

Regardless of the dubious status of RRM around Litherland, I think he has made a reasonable point—or at least is trying to make a reasonable point—and you, oh so Homey Haus, have largely used your standard stock of cheap rhetorical skills to avoid the issue, while also making the person who raises the issue look rather stupid. You are, after all Haus, a v. clever fellow.

The point as I perceive it (and I too feel it is important) is that some people might tend to bandy about, what I will call “Panic Words,” without much sincerity or seriousness for the actually rules of use of the word. Put differently, some might use these words to invoke a panic response (typically an irrational, narrow, and biased POV) in fellow members of their herd.

Certainly, there are times when words like ‘harassment’ and ‘threat’ need to be used because that is exactly what is occurring; however, at other times, some people can use these words merely as a device to garner support and preference from their “friends” (and here, wrt to our online community, Nick’s thread in the conversation on Barbelith “friendship” seems particularly relevant).

The idea here being (and this, I think, is RRM’s point in a nut shell): Panic Words” are serious words which invoke serious responses; however, these words are also open to misuse and abuse: we must therefore be careful of both their use and our response to their use.

I mean, on the one hand, we’ve all read (or had read to us) “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” On the other hand, I myself am still effected by fallout from a handful of one particular (ex?)member’s “friends” who have decided to interact (or cease to interact!) with me in particular ways based on this member’s cries of harassment and threats allegedly prompted by me, and perpetuated by a small but sinister group of co-conspirators. From time to time this issue (disguised in several different but mostly transparent ways) rears its ugly head wrt my Barbelith experience.

Anyway, I entirely agree that there is potential for misuse of certain bits of language—we sometimes need to make the effort (which can be too much for us sometimes) to be compassionate, patient, and generous not only in our use of certain words, but our interpretations of transmissions which contain such words.

22:37 / 20.07.03

I agree that certain words are to be used with caution - but I think 'threat' is a reasonable descriptive term to use in this particular situation (ie. warning of the possibility/probability of financial penalty if X, Y and Z are not carried out). Whether a legal action is proposed in order to 'punish' or "pursue a situation through to its natural (just) conclusion" is a bit tomayto/tomahto, really. 'Threatening legal action' is certainly a common enough phrase - which was, I think, Haus's original point.

At the moment, we're attempting (within the Policy) to define these terms further with specific reference to Barbelith. The other thread on PMs seems to be inching toward some sort of consensus on at least one example of 'harassment' (persistently PMing someone after they've explicitly asked one not to do so), and I'd here iterate that I do think proposing legal action, in many circumstances, constitutes a 'threat'.

I'm interested to see what others think.

19:05 / 21.07.03

Grown-up, real-life, plausible libel cases aside, I think I would find a promise via Barbelith of legal action quite laughable.

However, there'd always be the possibility that the plaintiff could find a legal representative just as, shall we say, unhappy with life as themself. I think the resultant inconvenience and possible monetary expense of appearing in court would certainly justify the word "threat."

pointless and uncalled for

10:40 / 27.07.03

Commenting on this and only cherry picking parts to avoid over-reposting of pre-posted material rather than to apply spin to take sides.

a declaration of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage or other punishment

In this context the use of the word injury is not wholly constrained to the physical and provides for injury to abstracts such as character.

For reference I copy here the definition of injury as provided by dictionary.com

1) Damage or harm done to or suffered by a person or thing: escaped from the accident without injury; a scandal that did considerable injury to the campaign.
2) A particular form of hurt, damage, or loss: a leg injury.
3) Law. Violation of the rights of another party for which legal redress is available. See Synonyms at injustice.
4) Obsolete. An insult.

Here in lies a coincidentally handy little example. The threat of legal action, specifically with regard to the "threat of legal action against Ganesh" thread being taken into context, is that the legal action, regardless of merit (this being a particularly important point), would be pursue in a manner that could be construed as malicious. From what I read in that thread and that the legal action would be combinative with other action, I beleive that it is clear and right to contrue that the desired end result would not so much be a victorious suit but that it be injurious to the character, reputation and standing of Ganesh.

Further to this established state it crystalises the point that this was written He PMed me several weeks ago requesting that X, Y and Z be carried out - or further steps would be taken. This clearly fills the criteria for blackmail which, as defined by dictionary.com as To extort money from by exciting fears of injury other than bodily harm, as injury to reputation, distress of mind, etc.;

Once again we see those two little words of threat and injury.

I hope this clears up the matter.