Social Media, The Supreme Court & The Sociopathic Business Model™
June 1, 2015
Today the Supreme Court overturned the conviction regarding online threats.
The Supreme Court on Monday made it harder to prosecute people for threats made on Facebook and other social media, reversing the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who directed brutally violent language against his estranged wife. The New York Times
No, the Supreme Court is forcing accountability on to abuse victim’s attorneys to do their jobs. It’s up to the attorneys to show a pathological history over time as a pattern of abuse on behalf of their victim client. This is not re-victimizing the victim but saying the courts need more fact based evidence over time to support the claim and the understanding of the psychology of an abuser.
One Facebook post alone isn’t enough to convict. That said chronic abusers follow a trackable pathological pattern, where it’s likely that the abuse didn’t start or end with a single Facebook or social media post. That post along with other data, such as restraining orders, victim’s journal, or hiring a professional psychologist can protect victims from abuse.
Abusers for the purpose of this website and how it relates to The Sociopathic Business Model™ fall into two major pathological categories Selective Tolerance (A/B) and Professional Victim:
Selective Tolerance A is defined as a subset of people devoid of empathy, sympathy for another group manipulate facts, do not like to be challenged and will threaten, intimidate and demean those who expose the truth on a subject they would rather remain hidden. (Example: Discrimination doesn’t exist because they personally haven’t experienced it & they haven’t experienced it since they’re likely the cause of the abuse, or when abusers are a majority refusing to recognize the rights of the minority).
Selective Tolerance B is also common when one minority group glibly, without shame, remorse, guilt, or accountability insults and demeans another minority subset by not recognizing their rights. (Example: Women speaking out on sexism in Hollywood but not recognizing the rights of others by engaging in cultural appropriation for the sake of fashion. Essentially wanting people recognize how they’re discriminated against while simultaneously discriminating against another group.)
Professional Victim is defined as a subset of people who lack in self-awareness, manipulate facts without remorse or guilt while shifting blame and pathologically feel glibly entitled to forgiveness despite lack of accountability. Often change names or corporate names to distance from previous unethical and or illegal activity again as a means to distance from accountability. (Example: This group, does not want to earn second chances but feels entitled to them in the absence of growth, change or true accountability and those who’ve forced accountability and exposed truth they’d rather remain hidden are incorrectly called Haters; and, this is common in celebrities or those who feel entitled to celebrity based on image and not substance using the false vibrato of jealousy as a means to try and excuse their lack of accountability.
The Supreme Court case concerned Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man who had adopted the rap persona Tone Dougie and posted long tirades in the form of rap lyrics on Facebook. Chief Justice Roberts called his statements “crude, degrading and violent.”
Mr. Elonis wrote that he would like to see a Halloween costume that included his wife’s “head on a stick.” He talked about “making a name for myself” with a school shooting, saying, “Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class.” He fantasized about killing an F.B.I. agent. “Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat,” he wrote.
Abusers will only change if they are Forced Accountability from the victim who is ready to become an empowered survivor. Not every victim is ready and may times we don’t even recognize the signs of abuse. The lies we tell ourselves are always far worse than any ever told to us by others. Forced Accountability requires brutal self-honesty and more often than not will require the help of attorneys and the court system. This is why it’s important for victims to document the history of abuse (no matter how small it seems). It’s important for victims to select attorneys willing to work with psychologists who are capable of showing and explaining the pattern of abuse.
“I felt like I was being stalked,” she said (former Mrs. Elonis). “I felt extremely afraid for mine and my children’s and my family’s lives.”
The victim’s justifiable fear for herself & children over her ex who was making public threats without shame, remorse or guilt who changed his name (possibly a Professional Victim feeling he’s entitled to success and given a second chance without earning it) is not doubted and in fact validates the victim’s concerns. This woman’s attorneys with lack of understanding of the history and abuse failed her not the Supreme Court. And because the court overturned the decision it’s not the same as Anthony’s Elonis’ innocence it just means more information is needed to prove the case.
I doubt that the Supreme Court took neurobiology into account in their decision-making process. Emotional Intelligence expert and psychologist Daniel Goleman has coined the term cyber-disinhibition to describe how people can become socially inappropriate without the inhibiting cues of presence: facial expression, tone of voice, body language, etc. When we aren’t face-to-face, and we become enraged or distressed, we are more likely to type words onto a screen that could be considered aggressive, bullying, antisocial, and crude. Ravi Chandra M.D Psychology Today
Daniel Goleman is still missing the point and not diagnosing the problem at its root. These people are abusers and socially inappropriate whether they are on the internet, at home , in the office or running the company. Cyber-disinhibition is just name based on image and not substance to allow abusers to not take accountability without shame, remorse or guilt while victimizing. Again, there is a pattern in abusers and it’s not 9-5 or just when someone is on the internet.
Ravi hypothesizes that the ability to express antisocial attitudes online only reinforces them. And attitudes precede behavior. Disinhibited online aggression creates an emotionally and potentially physically hazardous real world environment for us all. Moreover, threatening words online have harmful effects even if uncoupled from actual physical aggression.
I do agree with Dr. Ravi that if the person is an abuser in real life then they are able to detrimentally reinforce that abuse online. As this site often states until we as a society are willing to expose & remove abusers instead of cowering in fear over offending abusers who can’t be offended this unethical and illegal behavior that’s entrenched in society will be viewed by abusers as encouragement where it will be replicated and rewared and will only stop when when forced accountable by exposing the negative truth they’d rather remain hidden which could hurt their image and in turn profits.