Opinion

Jack Shafer

Thanks, Internet, for facilitating the golden age of death threats

By Jack Shafer
June 10, 2014

A man surfs the internet using a wireless connection in the lobby of a hotel in Havana

It’s never been easier to send an anonymous death threat.

In the old days, issuing one required a stamp, an envelope and a trip to a post box. You had to wear gloves to prevent embossing the page with incriminating fingerprints. Spell it out longhand? Good God no! Given a few leads, the boys in police forensics could compare it to other samples of your handwriting. Use a typewriter? Typewriters leave tell-tale signatures on the page by which the machine and potentially the owner can be identified. Cut and paste from newspaper headlines, ransom-note style? A very time- consuming  project just to put the fear of death into somebody. Use a telephone? C’mon, phone records can be traced.

As with so many of life’s labors, advanced technology has removed most of the work and hazard from sending cowardly messages to people to frighten them. The cautious and methodical know to anonymize their browsers with Tor and to use other cloaking techniques to reduce the odds of being apprehended.

If ease is the measure, we are living in a golden age of death threats. Bob Bergdahl, father of the Army sergeant who was recently sprung from Taliban captivity, has received at least four frictionless threats to his life via email in recent days. The threats have led to the cancelation of a celebratory rally in the Bergdahl hometown of Hailey, Idaho. Just two months ago, Oculus founder Palmer Luckey found himself on the receiving end of death threats for having sold his virtual reality company to Facebook. According to gaming website Kotaku, video game designers frequently face anonymous death threats after updating or changing games (Minecraft, Call of Duty, Mass Effect) in a way that displeases customers.

Other recent, high-profile recipients of Internet death threats include the Detroit police chief; a writer; an entrepreneur; an actress; a gun dealer; a pro baseball player, a pro football player, another pro football player, and a pro soccer player. (See also, this 2012 round-up of Twitter death threats.)

Death threats — Internet or otherwise — aren’t funny, even to journalists who have been getting them inside packages filled with toenail clippings and scraps of animal fur since they filed their first stories. But it’s impossible to discuss the threats without cracking jokes. The idea that a news story, poor performance on the athletic field, or the redesign of a software product would inspire even the unbalanced to commit murder can’t be taken seriously. Reconciling the illogical with reality is something only humor seems to be effective at doing.

When discussing death threats, we must also never forget context and legal jurisdiction. If somebody living in a nursing home 3,000 miles away from me threatens to end my life with a poisoned samurai sword because he dislikes one of my columns, I might flinch. But if he has no realistic chance of following through, he’ll probably not suffer for his actions. Again, depending on the jurisdiction, the closer he comes to fulfilling his ambition, the more likely the state will charge him.

If you’re taking to your keyboard to denounce me in the comments section, let me reiterate that I’m not saying all threats are empty. Some people make good on the loopiest threats. For instance, road-rage artists who vow to run motorists off the road for cutting them off have been known to do just that, resulting in vehicular homicide. Also, not all threats are equal. High-profile “targets” — such as abortion doctors, judges and presidents — can’t afford to be cavalier when singled out for Internet death threats.

Internet death threats are a product of our long-term tolerance of anonymity. The postal system and pay telephones made death threats simple to issue because anonymous messages from them are so difficult to track. As long as the death-threateners don’t need to produce an identification card to send a letter, make a pay phone call — presuming they can find a pay phone — obtain an email account, submit something in the comments area of a website or secure a place on Twitter or Facebook, the death threat will live on. The first person crazy enough to campaign for Web IDs in the name of eliminating death threats should prepare himself for — should we say — a very violent response.

The “why” behind your garden-variety death threat still puzzles me. It makes no more sense to threaten to kill somebody over the Web than it does to bare your teeth, growl, and claw at the shopper who bumps into you at the supermarket. Sure, we’re all angry, and we want to take it out on somebody — anybody. For those with an excess of hostility for his fellow man (you’re looking at one), the Web provides endless opportunities to make the two primary statements a human must make if he intends to live long. The first is, “I’m here.” The second is, “Don’t even think of messing with me.”

If that sounds too much like a page out of an evolutionary psychology textbook, try my alternate theory: An Internet death threat is the modern way of saying hello, only in the meanest words possible.

******

Don’t send death threats to Shafer.Reuters@gmail.com and I promise not to issue them from my Twitter feed. Sign up for email notifications of new Shafer columns (and other occasional announcements). Subscribe to this RSS feed for new Shafer columns.

PHOTO: A man surfs the internet using a wireless connection in the lobby of a hotel in Havana January 23, 2013. REUTERS/Desmond Boylan

Comments
8 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

That’s right, anyone that disagrees with you is crazy, and some of them threaten you. The message you deliver for your masters is part of what makes many people angry. Just because a few are nutty doesn’t diminish the legitimacy of that anger. You spew garbage and work only for the wealthy. That makes you a target of derision. I think it is warranted. The derision, not the threats. But then, maybe you don’t know the difference.

Posted by brotherkenny4 | Report as abusive
 

brother kenny 4 hit me on my burner

Posted by BuileSuibhne | Report as abusive
 

Shafer, be at ease. You are not nearly important enough for anyone to threaten you seriously.

Posted by JRTerrance | Report as abusive
 

Ego and stupidity.

Posted by blogoleum | Report as abusive
 

I’m all in on Web IDs.
I’m also all for bringing back the legal duel.
The recipient of the threat traditionally gets choice of accepting the challenge, and choice of weapon.
So let’s make the death threat irrevocable, transparent and resolvable by legal duel.
Maybe then the little people with the big typing fingers will think twice before submitting to their emotional outbursts.

Posted by jim.e.k. | Report as abusive
 

Mr Shafer has certainly shaken the tree

Posted by auger | Report as abusive
 

I am impressed by brotherkenny4′s comment. In the space of just 77 words, he has managed to cover all the wacko bases: paranoia, a straw-man argument, illiteracy, class warfare, incoherence, gratuitous insults, and non sequiturs. Congratulations, brotherkenny4: you’ve won the Internets!

Posted by gtodon | Report as abusive
 

@brotherkenny4

Since when is a death threat the same as disagreeing with somebody ?

I disagree with people all the time, and yet haven NEVER Felt the need to
say anything about wanting them dead, or even threatening them. Instead,
I debate that person using facts. Though I must admit, sometimes you can’t argue with crazy.

Judging by your angry rant, it seems that you have no idea how to disagree
with somebody in a civil manner.

Perhaps you are trying to justify your own deplorable uncivilized
behavior.

If you don’t know how to disagree with somebody without calling for their death or threatening them, perhaps you need a lesson in manner.

Posted by gurlinsweden | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •