Death threats are just as valid online (or at least are in many places) as they are in the physical world. There is a difference in terms of whether the threat is genuine or not; if one anonymous person threatens another anonymous person - can it really be believed that the threat is credible despite its obviously impractical nature?

Just like in the real world, the venue is not responsible. Walmart is not responsible if someone shouts death threats inside. Walmart or other users/customers can call the police but it's not Walmart's job to tackle the guy. The really only difference is that local & state law enforcement is less inclined to enforce the law against online individuals given the time & energy required in addition the the threat being significantly less likely to be credible.

> It is bizarre to me that one could post literal death threats online endlessly without fear of any consquences

Maybe you phrased it wrong, but the user cannot post death threats online without fear of consequences, it's just not the platform who the consequences fall upon.

A better analogy to a public location would be holding the city liable for not removing a death threat someone affixed into some city-owned monument.

I should point out that we didn't tolerate this level of liability protection when Hollywood was involved. The safe harbor for copyright infringement has a notice-and-takedown requirement that CDA 230 doesn't have. If someone publishes my home address and an incitement to violence on a web forum, the platform doesn't have to do anything in order to maintain their safe harbor. However, if that same person were to copy a photo I took of my house in order to demonstrate where to go, then they have to accept a DMCA 512 takedown request or I can sue them for damages. (Assuming I jumped through all the necessary copyright hoops in order to do so.)

Death threats posted online are just as illegal as if they are yelled in public. Police (FBI) investigate and prosecute lots of death threats and there’s lots of examples of people who thought they were anonymous being found and prosecuted for criminal threat. [0]

So I suppose it’s regulated in that it’s criminal and criminal actions are prohibited.

I’m not sure how you would fine Twitter because one of its users made a death threat, not how you would fine a McDonald’s because someone in their restaurant yelled a death threat. Or a megaphone manufacturer, etc etc.

[0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdnc/pr/federal-jury-convicts-b...

That threat was issued against a political candidate, which raised it to the FBI's attention. The vast majority of violent threats receive zero attention.

So it's technically correct to say that it's "just as illegal", but that's not the best kind of correct. While I'd be very interested in a directive that the FBI should take all violent threats online seriously, they don't have anywhere near that kind of resources. And I have a feeling that if they did start making numerous requests to unmask anonymous users, a lot of HN readers would oppose that as well.

There are many threats from normal people to normal people that result in conviction. [0] I didn’t intend for my example to be representative for all.

If you report a death threat to the police and fbi it will be investigated. I think the problem is they have to be substantiated. If I just run around the town square saying “I’m going to kill you” that’s not actually a criminal death threat. So someone saying “#diaf” is not a death threat, it’s obnoxious but not a crime.

Fortunately murder rate is not correlated to internet death threats or we’d all be dead.

This doesn’t mean that platforms shouldn’t stop boorish behavior, but it’s not a crime and we probably don’t want the FBI investigating stuff that’s not a crime.

But when it is, when I think someone is going to kill me, I feel confident that I can call the law and they’ll do what they can.

[0] https://elkodaily.com/news/local/man-arrested-for-online-dea...

>Good. It is bizarre to me that one could post literal death threats online endlessly without fear of any consquences, yet if you were to yell the same threats in a public location, the police would be summoned.

That's only because the former is done anonymously and the latter can be easily be attributed to you, right? If a kid sent death threats to his classmates using his real-life facebook account, the police would be summoned too.

The liability should reside solely with the person making the death threats, not with the communication tool they use to make the threats IMHO.

I mostly agree. But if the communication tool's owner knows or ought to know of the death threats, then perhaps they should bear some liability.

(If I were the communication tool, I'd add some term to my TOS that the user indemnifies me against losses due to speech the user made. So if I get sued because of something you said, I can come after you for the losses. Of course, this requires that you KYC . . . so anonymity might become harder in a post-S230 world. I sure wouldn't want to be someone running e.g. an anonymous far right or militia forum if I could be held liable for wrongful death or harassment claims.)

threat of harm is protected speech.

It has to be shown that there is both intent and the ability to carry it out before it starts entering the territory of illegal.

Which makes sense if you think about it. A 5 year old child threatening you with violence is not the same as a 25 year old man with a bat in their hand.

The reason threats of violence online are not illegal is because they have no ability to carry it out. This is actually a large reason why doxxing is such a big deal online. Suddenly, these people DO have the ability to carry out the threats.

If you REALLY want to go at it from that perspective, these companies leaking/selling PII should make them legally liable.