4 Depressing Reasons We Can't Stop Internet Death Threats

4 Social Media Can't Get Rid of Them

Let's go through a typical online death-threat scenario: Person A exists and does regular human things, as humans often do. Person B gets offended by one of those activities and sends Person A a horrific message through Twitter or Facebook. Sometimes the messages look like this:

And sometimes they look like this:

They're all dookie, no matter how they look. You'd think that at this point the person on the receiving end of the threat could say, "Hey Twitter/Facebook/forum, this guy just said he wants me to die in a fire while my mother watches," and the Internet police would come arrest the offender, right? Wrong.

Twitter is the first to admit that it's next to impossible to ban specific users from their site. Even if your harasser tweets all the ways they're going to kill you and then posts your physical address, Twitter is going to need some time to assess the situation before banning your future murderer from their site. And no, you silly, you can't get the name of your harasser, because Twitter's privacy policy prevents them from giving it to you. So good luck when you go to the police with those anonymous threats! Unless, on the other hand, you get a death threat and you actually work for Twitter, in which case those accounts will get shut down in hours, not days.

And, by the way ...

3 The Police Can't Help Much

Let's say the threats get a little more serious. Suppose that instead of using the Internet to insult you with the usual slanders like "Poopmouth" and "Baby-Eared Fool," your troll gives you a detailed murder plan, including your home address, the names of your family members, and a list of your greatest fears. It's time to get the cops involved, right? Right! But chances are your local police are way out of their league when it comes to cybercatching Internet bullies.

For example, one journalist got some particularly nasty threats on Twitter, called the police, then watched helplessly as the investigating cop tried to wrap his head around the idea of Twitter. An old-timey deputy from the Old West would have been more helpful at that point. Another woman's harasser went through the trouble of putting her name and face and a bull's-eye on an album cover, then naming the album I Have a Tombstone With Rebecca Watson's Name on It. (Spoiler: She was Rebecca Watson!) Her local police offered to file a report, but only so they'd have a record of the threats if anything terrible actually happened to her. From there she called the FBI, who recommended ... nothing. She ended up hiring a security guard -- out of her own pocket -- for her next public appearance.

Even if your local police are the most tech-savvy people on the block and they totally understand how scary it is to get a murder message, we're still in a murky place, law-wise.

For one thing, court rulings have determined that it is not possible to identify a person by his or her IP address, since anyone can piggyback wireless networks. This catastrophic problem was well-demonstrated when authorities did a series of child pornography raids on the wrong houses. In each case, the FBI took the completely logical action of tracing the IP addresses involved back to their sources, only to find that the actual child pornographers had merely hijacked a neighbor's WiFi to cover their tracks. Even if you could tie someone to an IP address, it is against the law to use that IP address as evidence against them. The Internet may not be 100 percent anonymous, but as far as the law is concerned, unless someone signs their full legal name on every harassing death treatise, it might as well be.

Except that, even in those cases, the death threats might fall under the banner of free speech.

2 The Supreme Court Hasn't Decided if Death Threats on Social Media Are Free Speech

OK, let's say that the man or woman threatening your life has no shame attaching their name to your future demise. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the person in question is your ex-husband and the father of your children and is using his Facebook account to fantasize about the ways he would kill you if he had the chance. Let's also say, for argument's sake, that your ex-husband's name is Anthony Elonis and he looks like this:

Elonis used his Facebook account to say things like, "If I only knew then what I know now ... I would have smothered your ass with a pillow. Dumped your body in the back seat. Dropped you off in Toad Creek and made it look like a rape and murder," none of which was accompanied by a whimsical, Comic Sans disclaimer that this was all just Wind in the Willows fan fiction.

Elonis also used Facebook to threaten co-workers, the cops, and a kindergarten class, none of which went over well with the FBI. In October 2010, Elonis was convicted of using interstate communication to threaten lives and was sent to jail for three years. From there, Elonis said, "JUST KIDDING!" and claimed all of those threats were "therapeutic" and "rap lyrics" and "the world's most profound exercise in free speech." And guess what? Now the Supreme Court is going to decide if he's right.

No, really -- on Dec. 1 the Supreme Court began hearing the case to decide whose rights to protect: an artist who wants to go Eminem on his Kims, or Kim. (Spoiler Alert: Things aren't looking too rosy for Elonis' rap career.) Their decision is expected come summer 2015 -- we'll keep you posted.

1 This Isn't Just an Internet Problem

Real-life death threats, even those made in front of witnesses by habitual abusers, are carried out successfully all too frequently. For whatever reason, the law just hasn't been able to figure out how to stop a person who swears they're going to murder you from actually murdering you.

The horrifying truth is that if some drooling maniac wants to murder someone, a restraining order (the first -- and often only -- step in obtaining protection) is not likely to stop them. The police are unfortunately inconsistent in their enforcement of protective orders, sometimes picking up offenders as late as 48 hours after a report is made. (That's more than enough time to murder somebody, it turns out.) Temporary restraining orders have also been known to increase volatility in existing abusive relationships. In a study of 55 homicides, the victim had filed a restraining order against their eventual killer in 20 percent of them. Really, the most effective way to get the justice system involved is to wait for a person to actually try to murder you, hope that they slip up somehow, and then call the police.

Cheer up, though. If old detective movies are to be believed, the best way to catch a murderer is to almost get murdered and wait for Humphrey Bogart to show up and nab the guy. The system works!

While we're on the topic, check out 5 Things I Learned as the Internet's Most Hated Person.