This is the terrorist email:
Butterflies and Wheels
Gnu atheism, women's rights, internationalism, universalism, and gossip
This is the terrorist email:
[…] Here is a link that has the full e-mail received by individuals working for Utah State University. It was sent from a deranged lunatic demanding they cancel an appearance by Anita Sarkeesian. Wonder if he’s ever said something similar in chat rooms or on internet forums. Wonder how many agree with him. Wonder if the NSA has any records on this asshole, considering they supposedly spy on American citizens all day every day. Wonder if they might not share info with local police, or the FBI, or some agency who can nab this person. […]
…. how?!
Don’t, HJ. Please don’t give this even that much credit. This is not something that needs dissecting. It’s too urgent.
A repost of Pete Newell at Pharyngula:
It’s probably going to take more than a couple days to backtrace that email 🙁 I hope they do manage to catch the creep that sent it. In the meantime, Sarkeesian can always ‘appear’ by Skype. Let the Streisand effect do its work.
Josh, Official SpokesGay @2:
That was my point, actually. Feminists try to work on systemic sexism, they don’t go after individual people. The person’s claim to be hurt by sexism is absolute nonsense, meaning either that
From the looks of it, this is case A)… in which case, it’s straight-up terrorism worthy of quick condemnation by as many people as possible.
For Pete’s sake, ya THINK, HJ?
Josh, Official SpokesGay @6:
Sometimes it’s handy to point out the obvious, juuust in case. But your point stands: this is persistent terrorism, straight-up. The lack of action makes no difference to that. On top of that, it looks like this is tied to GamerGate, in a way:
May Utah State University not let a broken piece of ape meat impede Anita Sarkeesian from speaking.
May Utah State University not let a broken piece of ape meat impede Anita Sarkeesian from speaking.
I hope they have someone with a video camera and a room where they can record her talk, and that they publish it, and the threat, broadly. Streisand Effect FTW.
I also wish that they’d publish the whole email, including the headers. Doing a back-track would be a pleasure.
Marcus, I know security is your thing, but you’re coming across as kind of excited about the situation, here and at PZ’s. A pleasure would be Anita being able to talk without being the target of death threats.
Looks like the talk has been cancelled
And things are worse than initially reported:
femfreq @Twitter:
I seriously feel nauseous now having read that. I’ve gotten death threats and other threats of harm but this is just disgusting in so many ways. Poor Anita, no one should be the target of this.
[cross posted from Pharyngula]
Two more tweets before I conk out:
femfreq:
Joss Whedon:
Wish I had half the courage of Sarkeesian. And I think it’s safe to say this story is gonna dominate the headlines tomorrow…
Er, today I mean.
[wait for it…]
I couldn’t sleep last night over fear and disgust at the fact that terrorism against women appears to be accepted worldwide. When my mind won’t stop crying internally I write poetry:
3 Poems:
words self-healing
not a birthing debt
paid in full at puberty
woman of your dreams
love is always
first prize material
without award
unbidden love
placating self esteem
back to the source
you’re coming across as kind of excited about the situation
Because I’m fucking pissed off and if there was a ghost of a chance of being able to do something positive, I’d leap at it?
Please don’t project on me.
I’m of two minds about this.
On the one hand I feel like cancelling the talk was a bad idea. I know my own inclination would be to do it anyway, scared as I would be. Because I was scared. I don’t know Sarkeesian’s personal feelings, I’m jut describing mine. But I feel like it’s a win for this guy writing the threat.
On the other I know you have to take this stuff seriously, and you don’t want other people getting hurt in a gesture of defiance, however much said gesture may be important.
One note: as this is a threat against a specific person, in most states it’s a crime straight up, and a felony no less in some (in Utah it’s a misdemeanor, evidently: http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_05_010700.htm) . I can make all the threats I want against a group but if it gets specific then I am threatening a person. At the federal level I believe making terroristic threats is now one of those things that gets the FBIs attention — or should.
@Marcus — my hacker self would say he agrees with you, but I think the thing that gets people here is the sense that it’s like those dudes that say “let me at ‘im” and posture. I know that isn’t you but it’s what it can sound like, y’know?
I agree with Marcus. Tracking the guy down should be a priority. But it should be an FBI priority and campus police priority. Marcus does that work for a living (so do I but Marcus is more focused on incidents than me).
Chances are that the perp was a member of the campus, most likely a student. Why else get so wound up about the event? Why else even be aware of it?
As for the event, can’t even the nuttiest gun nut admit that under the circumstances nobody should be allowed to carry at such an event unless they are event security staff? Why does someone’s hobby come before the right to free speech?
@jesse, quite a few federal charges here. The threat was made on the Internet which crosses state lines for a start. It is a threat to cause death to multiple people. It is a hate crime. The list goes on.
The first line of the message is addressed to all staff and students at the university. It is a specific threat of harm to each of them individually. It goes on to make specific threats against staff and students. Thats about 30,000 counts at five years each. Or 150,000 years. Without parole.
Utah law isn’t relevant here. Sarkeesian almost certainly wasn’t in Utah when the message was sent. But even if she was it is a federal crime because it was sent on the Internet. Marcus probably has the case law better but I don’t think it is even necessary to show that the message did cross state lines, only that the infrastructure does. At any rate, since her mail server is likely out of state it would be federal.
You know, if this were a threat directed at a man speaking about non-feminist issues, I have a feeling someone they’d have just beefed up security at any expense while spouting rhetoric about not folding to terrorists.
@phillip – thanks, I figured that there wold be a lot of federal crimes to charge the guy with. I was thinking of Utah law because the threat was made to people in Utah (the university folks) and that’s where the talk would be, and of course the indications form the email sender that they were local.
@Shplane — you are likely right, unfortunately, but just as unfortunately I’m almost more worried about a guy threatening feminists than a guy threatening something or someone “bigger” — the people that rail against say, some Federal agency know that a ton of bricks is coming. If you are threatening them and serious — well, you don’t do it like that. You strike without warning (duh!).
This stuff — it’s more personal. That is, feminism generally can hit on issues that are more personal, more intimate, if I dare use the word. That makes people more defensive. It’s one reason I think there’s a disconnect between what a lot of people hear and what the message is supposed to be. But that’s a whole ‘nother thread. Anyhow, point is, it’s stuff that makes people madder because it’s closer to them. A they say, you can’t really hate someone or something you don’t care about deeply.
With feminist issues it gets to your personal relationships a lot, and that’s a much more visceral thing than say, economic policy. It’s immune to logic too, because it is that personal and often we live with a lot of cognitive dissonance because we have to get through the day. So people get even more angry than you’d expect at a stranger. I’ve met a lot of conservative people who are real right wing folks that don’t get so angry about Obama, but bring up feminism as applied to personal relationships and it’s another level.
The whole gamer thing strikes at a piece of core identity for some dudes, and its bound up with a load of other things that make feminism seem like a huge threat. Because it can seem like a personal attack in a way that some other political ideas don’t, and I submit, can’t.
So in that sense I am more worried about the email-sender than I might ordinarily be.
Amanda Hess at Slate reports on why prosecutions for online threats are so rare, interviewing a former FBI agent who worked on cybercrimes:
In other words, don’t expect the FBI to do shit unless there’s a corpse.