Sue Perkins and Twitter

[MN164]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32302939

Two things:

1. there are more and more cases of online abuse, are there more convictions too?

2. should she be responding by "taking a break" or is that "giving in"? I must say, I'd run a mile from a death threat ....

She needs to do what's best for herself. Telling women how they should behave in the face of violent threats/violence is patriarchal in itself. Women should be able to self-care in whatever way they see fit.

I have no idea if there are any more convictions. We hear about more convictions when higher profile women are threatened. I somewhat doubt whether someone violently threatening me on line or other lower profile women, black women, disabled women, those with much less power would register a blip with the police.

Or maybe I'm being cynical...

Most people who are threatened on Twitter don't report it to anyone other than Twitter support for all the good that does

Go die in a fire is not an uncommon thing to get tweeted at you. Drink bleach is another one. I'll find you, I know where you live. It's a way to silence women, and it works. I am certainly less outspoken on Twitter since being threatened by idiots.

Why didn't I report it? Because I'm not rich, or famous, I'm just a woman with an opinion, and women with opinions are dangerous and must be threatened with death, rape or both.

I agree - each person should do as they feel fit to ensure their state of mind. I guess I was remembering Caroline Criado-Perez and the online abuse she got for the banknote campaign. She must have a resilience that some don't.

I wonder if the anonymity of the internet allows abuse to happen more easily that it might in public places with real people. If that is so, then it warrants more regulation and resource doesn't it - and not just for famous people?

"She must have a resilience that some don't." Pitching one woman against another is also pretty patriarchal. It's not as if Caroline Criado-Perez didn't take breaks from Twitter whilst she was going through that abuse either. Women regularly take breaks from Twitter due to abuse. Are they just not resilient enough? Because that implies if only women were more resilient men might stop this behaviour.

You are focusing on the actions of the wrong people.

I don't understand the motivation for twitter either posting, reading or making threats. If you aren't famous do you use real names?

I don't understand either if a complaint mechanism exists why you wouldn't use it.

Sorry Still,

No, I don't use my real name. I am reasonably well known within a group of people, plus I am female, so anonymity is good, unless I want people turning up on my doorstep or threatening my children.

I have reported using the "complaint mechanism" just not to the Police, which was what the OP suggested.

Ok do you think your anonymity can be compromised beyond that group if someone were determined? I don't use any social media so not sure how safe or unsafe it is from that point of view.

Oh dear that sounds slightly sinister, I'm really not trying to fish out who you are.

I was reading about this on another forum. Apparently the threat was issued to her and Dermot O'Leary. They host a Game of Thrones after-show, where one of the main characters (male) was burned at the stake. Someone suggested that this would be an appropriate fate for the two co-hosts.

The suggestion was 'Really should have been SP and D O'L burned alive at the stake, not (character's name, don't want to spoil the show for anyone). Pair of cringeworthy bastards.'

Given that the suggester has his name and photo next to his idea, I'd say it wasn't a threat he was about to carry out.

Yes Still, it could. There are men on Twitter who will doxx you for stating an opinion they disagree with. Hence me being anonymous, and none of my social media accounts being linked.

Yops, that wasn't the only threat made. But a good bit of minimizing there....

The reference I saw was on a forum. I don't use twitter. Nicely passive aggressive of you though....

Not passive aggressive at all, sorry.

Your post suggested that she was making a mountain out of a molehill, thus minimising the fact that no one, male or female should have to put up with being threatened by yahoos on the internet. Which I found a touch twattish. If you didn't mean to minimise what was sent to her, by suggesting that a man who has his name and photo by the threatening tweet didn't really mean it, and so it's all ok, my apologies.

Scallopsgreat

You make a very good point. People should not be measured up against each other for their reactions as victims/similar. The actions of the offender should be examined first and foremost.

That renders my second question dead and buried.

However, the first question is more about preventing, inhibiting and punishing the offenders appropriately in a manner we agree would constitute "justice" with appropriate penalty.

The virtual world is not only developing and evolving at breakneck speed, it is also becoming more and more significant to everyday real life.

Has the law and law enforcement caught up?

Poor Sue hope she's not too upset. She is great

I don't know what the way forward is. I guess things will evolve. It's a situation where people who would never normally interact do so, which has tremendous benefits on one side and also the equivalent downsides.

One way I guess is that people will cordon off as they do in normal society and only mix with people who they generally get on with IYSWIM.

Clearly people issuing threats / who are prolific need to feel the force of the law but just ordinary people behaving in awful ways due to anonimity - I mean it happens everywhere it happens on here - I don't know. I guess we will evolve to deal with it, things are all new still really.

It is a crime in the UK under the Communications Act and there have been convictions. There are difficulties obviously if the tweeter (?) isn't in the UK.