Attorneys for Taylor Swift are threatening legal action against the Florida college student who tracks the private jets of celebrities and public figures, including Swift.
Yeah I don’t think it’s unreasonable to discuss harm avoidance here. There are likely workarounds she can employ, but it’s sad that people seem to be taking the stance that “fuck her, it’s public” is the end of the conversation. Maybe her lawyers know something we don’t about what kind of harm this is actually causing. It’s easy to cheer for Sweeney when he’s giving the middle finger to a jackass like Elon Musk, but I find it harder to stand in his “I do it because fuck you” corner when he’s weaponizing information against others who aren’t huge assholes.
Speech is protected, but threats are not. Online shit talking is protected, but cyberbullying is widely condemned. As a society we need to figure out where the line is between what’s allowable and what’s highly discouraged. “It’s legal” isn’t a useful cut off for these kinds of discussions, because we’ve recently come up with all kinds of state laws to punish stalkers when their behavior crosses the line from benign to unwelcome to harmful. Stalkers can be held criminally liable for using telephone calls, letters, telegraphs, delivery of packages or engaging in any conduct which interferes or intrudes on another’s privacy or liberty, all of which are completely legal and acceptable behaviors except when they’re employed to threaten or harass.
I always figured the point of tracking her, just like Musk, was commentary on the incredible waste that is the private jet industry. The politics of the person matter far less than the environmental consequences of their actions.
I don’t disagree, but if obsessed incels are using this to assist in stalking and harassing her and it poses an immediate risk to her safety, then it obviously takes on a more immediate meaning than whether or not people can use it to shame her for being environmentally reckless.
Yeah I don’t think it’s unreasonable to discuss harm avoidance here. There are likely workarounds she can employ, but it’s sad that people seem to be taking the stance that “fuck her, it’s public” is the end of the conversation. Maybe her lawyers know something we don’t about what kind of harm this is actually causing. It’s easy to cheer for Sweeney when he’s giving the middle finger to a jackass like Elon Musk, but I find it harder to stand in his “I do it because fuck you” corner when he’s weaponizing information against others who aren’t huge assholes.
Speech is protected, but threats are not. Online shit talking is protected, but cyberbullying is widely condemned. As a society we need to figure out where the line is between what’s allowable and what’s highly discouraged. “It’s legal” isn’t a useful cut off for these kinds of discussions, because we’ve recently come up with all kinds of state laws to punish stalkers when their behavior crosses the line from benign to unwelcome to harmful. Stalkers can be held criminally liable for using telephone calls, letters, telegraphs, delivery of packages or engaging in any conduct which interferes or intrudes on another’s privacy or liberty, all of which are completely legal and acceptable behaviors except when they’re employed to threaten or harass.
I always figured the point of tracking her, just like Musk, was commentary on the incredible waste that is the private jet industry. The politics of the person matter far less than the environmental consequences of their actions.
I don’t disagree, but if obsessed incels are using this to assist in stalking and harassing her and it poses an immediate risk to her safety, then it obviously takes on a more immediate meaning than whether or not people can use it to shame her for being environmentally reckless.
Obsessed incels have been and will be stalking no matter if there’s flight data or not. This isn’t about that.
They will, and it is. That doesn’t mean we should willingly and gleefully make it easier for them to inflict harm.