Harassment in gaming

[tomBitonti]

I'm actually on my way somewhere, but I wanted to quickly address this. I haven't had the time to track down case Lawton see if there are any individual prosecutions, but I know that several of the "terroristic threats" statutes are broadly drafted to include threats against individuals, property, and groups. Here are 2 exemplars:

Virginia statute that makes it a felony "for any person ... , with the intent of intimidating any person or group - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/537/465.html#sthash.eIcy9fuJ.dpuf

Texas Penal Code, Title 5 Section 22.07 (a) (1) & (2)

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm

Whether or not there have been any convictions or not, in certain jurisdictions, the statutes have been drafted in such a form as to allow such charges to be brought. So I stand by my assertion.

Hard to discuss that without branching into politics. Do we need to address the definition of "Terroristic", which is a politically laden conversation, or can we keep to the issue of Harassment, with a focus on Harassment in Gaming? It seems sufficient to distinguish more serious felony type behavior from less serious harassment. For felony behavior, the recourse is to call the police. I don't think there is much more to say. But simple harassment is a more nuanced issue, and more actionable at the level of what folks might or should do.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm actually on my way somewhere, but I wanted to quickly address this. I haven't had the time to track down case Lawton see if there are any individual prosecutions, but I know that several of the "terroristic threats" statutes are broadly drafted to include threats against individuals, property, and groups. Here are 2 exemplars:

Virginia statute that makes it a felony "for any person ... , with the intent of intimidating any person or group - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/537/465.html#sthash.eIcy9fuJ.dpuf

Texas Penal Code, Title 5 Section 22.07 (a) (1) & (2)

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm

Whether or not there have been any convictions or not, in certain jurisdictions, the statutes have been drafted in such a form as to allow such charges to be brought. So I stand by my assertion.

The Virginia statue is specific to the act of burning crosses, and contends that doing so is automatically considered as intent to threaten. Didn't see anything on terroristic threats and nothing on 20 year terms.

The Texas law you reference is a misdemeanor to threaten an individual as you quoted, putting it on par with most true threat laws. The felony parts of that section all deal with groups and/or the government as the targets.

 

[Umbran]

Dude, those words are synonyms. They're interchangable in most places.

As one has noted, they are not the same in the modern military. Nor are they so in modern business, in which communications plans are frequently based on a "RACI chart", which denotes who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed on project status.

The real point is that there are, in fact, two concepts - the people who are guilty, and the people who are tasked with making things better, and these are very often not the same people. The business world and the military have gotten on board with there being two concepts. I suggest we join them, because they have great value here.

Uh, no. Just no, man. If you threaten to rape someone, and it's a true threat, you're guilty of making a true threat. If you harass someone, you're guilty of that. But to achieve terroristic threats, you have to make true threats against a group of people, not an individual. There are zero cases of someone being successfully tried for terroristic threats aimed at an individual.

I think you are incorrect there.

"A terroristic threat is a threat to commit a crime of violence or a threat to cause bodily injury to another person and terrorization as the result of the proscribed conduct."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat

So, say a female game developer is being harrassed, and gets doxxed, and someone threatens to go to her house and do violence to her. If that person were to follow through on that act, even though it is performed on a single individual, would result in fear and intimidation among many other female game developers, and other women by extension. That act, even though carried out on an individual, has broader implications, and thus counts as terrorism.

Terrorism is not defined by the number of people you do violence to, but the number of people you intimidate.

 

[Lord Twig]

Since my experience with having a character raped was brought up, I would like to point out that it was very different than what the women in this thread have described. Not that it wasn't graphic, it was. I was also told that I could continue to role-play my character as he would survive and seek revenge, but I wasn't interested.

The difference is that I did not feel humiliated or intimidated in any way. I was mad, but that's it. I told the GM to **** off and I quit the game. Then I argued with the rest of the group and got them to agree that it wasn't the tone of the game that we wanted to play and the GM relented. He never apologized and still thought it was funny, but it wasn't considered that big a deal and it was soon forgotten. Honestly it took me a while of thinking to remember the incident as it happened over 20 years ago.

In retrospect it is probably because I am part of the majority group. I don't feel intimidated by my fellow gamers, even though I am usually one of the smallest people in the room, unless women are present. (Surprising fact! Men are generally larger than women!)

As for the "men can be victims too", they most certainly can be, and it should be acknowledged. But really that's all that is required in this case. We can talk about the problem that female gamers have, and how we can fix those problems. Then a "This applies to victims of any gender also" at the end, I think, doesn't detract anything from the overall message.

Finally I would like to say that a public announcement of anti-harassment policies and raising awareness of the issue is a good idea. I can tell you that there were a couple times (not game related) where I was present when inappropriate comments were made to women and I was so stunned that I didn't do anything (not immediately at least). I was shocked. I looked to the insulted person to get their reaction to try to gauge how I should react. They didn't do anything, so I didn't do anything. This was the wrong thing to do.

Later I brought up the issue (both times), but I think the lack of immediate condemnation hampered the response. By then it was "water under the bridge" or "I'll talk to him about it" and then it is forgotten. So a reminder of what to watch out for and what to do when it happens I think can be a big help.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As one has noted, they are not the same in the modern military. Nor are they so in modern business, in which communications plans are frequently based on a "RACI chart", which denotes who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed on project status.

I believe I acknowledged that there are business plans that utilize a difference. They also use a lot of other buzzwords, and tend to mangle the concepts. Outside of those contrived structures (and they are contrived), you can substitute responsible for accountable and the meaning remains the same. I am responsible for my actions. I am accountable for my actions. Same meaning.

I am neither responsible for nor accountable for harassment in gaming, either through personal action or through membership in a group. This entire definition discussion is bizarre.

The real point is that there are, in fact, two concepts - the people who are guilty, and the people who are tasked with making things better, and these are very often not the same people. The business world and the military have gotten on board with there being two concepts. I suggest we join them, because they have great value here.

That's not any definition of the words accountable and responsible I can recognize, even using the military or RACI concepts. "Guilty" and "makes things better" has never been on any RACI duties explanations I've ever seen. And, yes, I even belong to an organization that uses RACI, which is one reason I know that the R and the A there have very little to do with your definitions or ideas. They mean 'guy who tells others what to do' and 'gal who does it and is downhill of the A'.

And I find there to be excruciatingly little benefit in using any terminology that you simplified into 'guilty' and 'working to make things better'.

I think you are incorrect there.

"A terroristic threat is a threat to commit a crime of violence or a threat to cause bodily injury to another person and terrorization as the result of the proscribed conduct."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat

So, say a female game developer is being harrassed, and gets doxxed, and someone threatens to go to her house and do violence to her. If that person were to follow through on that act, even though it is performed on a single individual, would result in fear and intimidation among many other female game developers, and other women by extension. That act, even though carried out on an individual, has broader implications, and thus counts as terrorism.

Terrorism is not defined by the number of people you do violence to, but the number of people you intimidate.

Never once said it was violence. Confused as to your point, now.

But, under that concept, any crime is a terrorist act because it can cause a wider population to fear. Rob a bank? Terrorism, people will now be concerned or fear that they will have their banks robbed or be in a bank when it's robbed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm actually on my way somewhere, but I wanted to quickly address this. I haven't had the time to track down case Lawton see if there are any individual prosecutions, but I know that several of the "terroristic threats" statutes are broadly drafted to include threats against individuals, property, and groups. Here are 2 exemplars:

Virginia statute that makes it a felony "for any person ... , with the intent of intimidating any person or group - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/537/465.html#sthash.eIcy9fuJ.dpuf

Texas Penal Code, Title 5 Section 22.07 (a) (1) & (2)

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm

Whether or not there have been any convictions or not, in certain jurisdictions, the statutes have been drafted in such a form as to allow such charges to be brought. So I stand by my assertion.

Did a quick search, and quickly found an anonymous inquiry to a fellow Texas attorney from a man trying to get his conviction of a "terroristic threat" against the daughter of a Houston police officer expunged. So yes, convictions for "terroristic threats" against individuals DO occur.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The Virginia statue is specific to the act of burning crosses, and contends that doing so is automatically considered as intent to threaten. Didn't see anything on terroristic threats and nothing on 20 year terms.

That's a fair counter- and notably, while Virigina does have some harsh penalties for threats of violence, near as I can tell, they never use the word "terroristic" as part of their drafting.

I will note, however, that every legal reference site I have looked on has noted that "every state" has laws against making "terroristic" threats. I suspect that, even without using the exact phrase, Virginia's law is known as such by state practitioners, and is probably distinguished by its penalties and definitions, possibly its legislative history.

The Texas law you reference is a misdemeanor to threaten an individual as you quoted, putting it on par with most true threat laws. The felony parts of that section all deal with groups and/or the government as the targets.

Nobody said the threat had to be "felonious", just defined as a "terroristic threat". It will still show up on your record as such, even though it is only a misdemeanor. The anonymous expungement inquiry I mentioned above noted that the conviction was interfering with the person's ability to get a job. IOW, it may only be a misdemeanor, but not all misdemeanors are crated equal.

And besides, there's also Federal law to consider.

18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

(a) Prohibited Acts.—
(1)Offenses.—Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b)—
(A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; or
(B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States;
in violation of the laws of any State, or the United States, shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
(2)Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies.—
Whoever threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished under subsection (c).

(b) Jurisdictional Bases.—
(1)Circumstances.—The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are—
(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;
(Edit)
(E) the offense is committed in the territorial sea (including the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil below, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected thereon) of the United States; or
(F) the offense is committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

So, if the threat was issued by someone out of the USA, or within its territorial seas, or special jurisdictions, you can be charged under the Federal terroristic threat law.

It is unclear by it's language whether simply using the Internet to issue a threat will in and of itself support an indictment under 18 U.S. Code § 2332b(b)(1)(A) if the conduct charged originated within the United States, but I suspect it is probable. After all, the Interstate Commerce Act has been used to support actions that were solely within the confines of a single state because the activity involved some apparatus of interstate commerce such as the Internet, or broadcast media outlets that cross state boundaries.

Under United States v. DeAndino, 958 F.2d 146 (US Ct. App. 6th Cir. 1992), email is clearly considered to be an instrument of "interstate and foreign" commerce, so the risk is there.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hard to discuss that without branching into politics. Do we need to address the definition of "Terroristic", which is a politically laden conversation, or can we keep to the issue of Harassment, with a focus on Harassment in Gaming? It seems sufficient to distinguish more serious felony type behavior from less serious harassment. For felony behavior, the recourse is to call the police. I don't think there is much more to say. But simple harassment is a more nuanced issue, and more actionable at the level of what folks might or should do.

Thx!
TomB

Well, state "terroristic threat" statutes vary GREATLY. Even though many cover even threats against individuals, as some correctly pointed out, there are others that demand the threatened target be a group of more than ten, for instance. The question, of course, is if each threat of violence against a female gamer, game journalist or game designer is legally a discrete instance, or if a pattern of such threats would support an indictment because the target is "all" female gamers, game journalist and game designers.

And IMHO- as well as others who have posted in this thread- the threats of rape, assault and death DO rise to the level of terrorism as designated by the writer in the title of the blog post that was the catalyst for this thread.

It is also a rhetorical sticking point for pushback.

 

[tomBitonti]

Well, state "terroristic threat" statutes vary GREATLY. Even though many cover even threats against individuals, as some correctly pointed out, there are others that demand the threatened target be a group of more than ten, for instance. The question, of course, is if each threat of violence against a female gamer, game journalist or game designer is legally a discrete instance, or if a pattern of such threats would support an indictment because the target is "all" female gamers, game journalist and game designers.

And IMHO- as well as others who have posted in this thread- the threats of rape, assault and death DO rise to the level of terrorism as designated by the writer in the title of the blog post that was the catalyst for this thread.

It is also a rhetorical sticking point for pushback.

I'll grant you the last point, but really, use of "terrorism" seems a bit of fear mongering. I don't see how it is useful, either in the original,linked article, or here in discussion. We can get by with simply remarking that threats of violence, or actual violence, or actions intended to cause duress (shouting, lewd remarks, &etc) are sufficient to bring in trained security personnel, e.g., police or guards. I don't think that most untrained people should handle such circumstances, except to immediately mediate if possible. In case of an already committed act, I'd try to help, but really I don't think I'd be the right person to provide council to an assault victim.

But I'm not convinced that felony behavior is a greater concern in gaming activities. Consider the example from the linked article -- being slipped a drug and being raped. The circumstance was more akin to an underage woman going to an off campus mixer. That seems a very dangerous environment. And if the up thread discussion is a guide, it was a friend that committed the assault. I don't see the very terrible outcome being gaming specific.

Where there seems more to discuss is the more nuanced issue of "soft" harassment: An in game rape scene. Unwanted attention. General verbal harassment. These are matters which are more within the purview of a typical gamer, and coachable behavior.

Thx！
Tom B

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, I agree that the terroristic behavior alleged isn't a "greater concern" for our hobby, but I disagree that we don't need to talk about it. I had ZERO idea that fellow gamers threatened women in such a relentless way until GamerGate. And as I stated, I have faced very little overt racism in the hobby. I had this image of this hobby as a bit of an oasis.

IOW, I saw my fellow gamers with rose colored glasses