Nurse gets death threats for posing with Trump


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

They’re coming for you next: A hospital nurse who worked to save lives after the Dayton massacre this past weekend was doxxed on Twitter and has since gotten death threats for posing in a photograph with Trump

I’d like you all to meet Rita. She’s an ICU Nurse at Miami Valley Hospital. She was one of the many heroes that helped save lives in Dayton following the mass shooting.

While President Trump was visiting the hospital, he was told about her hard work. He personally approached her, thanked her and asked for a photo. She was so happy and ecstatic to meet the President.

She posted the photo online and has since received numerous death threats, harassing messages and pure bullying. As a result, she deleted her Facebook and now has to be escorted in and out of work.

The link quotes the tweet that doxxed her, which in a sense is only worsening the situation.

Much of this problem comes from twitter, where you can post anything you want completely anonymously, and if you are attacking conservatives or Republicans, face no punishment. Truly an evil company.

Share

22 comments

  • Phill O

    This is getting to so close to the NAZI tactics, it is really scary!

  • Shaun

    Sad. I’ve been seeing so much of this lately.

  • wayne

    18 U.S. Code § 875.
    “Interstate communications”

    (c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

  • wayne

    “Rule 6: Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.”
    Dr. Jordan Peterson
    London How To Academy, January, 2018
    https://youtu.be/jpxLWF65jIM
    9:51

  • Cotour

    (Today’s email. I have said it all here before but I guess I have to say it again)

    MASS SHOOTINGS: THE SECOND AMENDMENT, ESSENTIAL OR THROW AWAY?

    The other night my cell phone rings. My cell phone rarely rings because not many people have my number, and that is by design. So I answer the call and its a friend of mine, she is now retired and lives in Arizona.

    “Hi, its Susan, how are you?”

    “Im fine, whats up?”

    “You have to write for me the explanation about the Second Amendment and these insane people and these random acts of hate and insanity.” “I am in a conversation with a woman and her only comment is”, “We have to do something about the Second Amendment, it was written 240 years ago and does not apply today”.

    I was about to have a late dinner and so I told her that I would prepare an explanation and the proper way to understand the issues, and so here it is in written form so she could share it with whomever she likes.

    AMERICA AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AN ESSENTIAL OR A THROWAWAY FOUNDATION RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE?

    First lets properly define the word “Right” in the context of the intent of the Founders and what they needed to accomplish in designing their well informed interpretation of what our form of governance should look like. A “Right”, uppercase “R” is something identified by the Founders as something that you are born with, it is a function of your humanity and your very existence. It is fundamental and primary and it is not something bestowed upon you by your government. Your Rights, as per the Bill Of Rights pre exist the government.

    Think about that for a moment. First there is you, and then government exists. And if the government does not give you your Rights, then the government can not take your Rights away.

    Understand that your Rights, upper case “R” exist pre the existence of government, and the Constitution in the form of the Bill Of Rights and the first ten amendments lists and enumerates these Rights, this is the foundation of America. 240 years ago or today, there is no difference, none what so ever. Rights specifically identified and enumerated by the Founders that the government does not bestow upon you, and the Bill Of Rights enumerates what your government MUST NEVER USURP or attempt to relieve you of, YOUR RIGHTS.

    The government can however relieve you of your Rights only in specifically proscribed cases and through specifically proscribed procedures. In other words if you become a criminal and / or become a threat to your nation and your neighbors, or yourself, the government through duly agreed upon and passed laws, all within the frame work of a legislature and the Bill Of Rights can relieve you of your Rights and your freedom to the varying degrees necessary. The American government does not own you and can not do as “They” the entity Government pleases with you and your Rights. There is nothing more precious to the individual than your Rights and your freedom, they are bound together for eternity. Never take any action, like the “Greater good”, to sever them from each other.

    Lower case “rights” for example are a function of our legislative and judicial system and result from laws being passed to remedy some social, business or economic injustice or to regulate, post the existence of government. Your Rights, upper case “R”, enumerated in the Bill Of Rights exists pre the existence of government. And your rights, lower case “r”, are a function of our legislative system exists post or after the existence or formulation of government. Two very different things. People tend to conflate the two concepts of “RIGHTS” and “rights” into one, and that is incorrect and clouds the issue being discussed. If the issue is not properly and fully understood then there can be little or no progress made. And that only serves political rhetoric to further relieve the people of their Rights.

    The Second Amendment:

    One of the very unique characteristics of our American Constitution and our Bill Of Rights is that the Founders understood well the nature of the human animal as it relates to power and the abuse of power. And the Founders understood well the nature of the human animal related to the abuse of power because they lived right at the interface of their freedom, their very lives depended on their being free. And the Kings tyranny and intent to extinguish them all if he could. And so the Founders mandated that the people of America be armed to always ensure their freedom from tyranny. How far is any, King, any president or Congress from becoming omnipotent and the giver and taker of freedom? It is a very thin line, thinner than you might imagine.

    Just look at China for a modern day example, no one in China is armed except for the military controlled by the Communist government and its “president for life”, president, Xi. He was just recently made “president for life”. The Chinese military are massed on the border of Hong Kong today and they will kill thousands, maybe tens of thousands of their own if and when they have to in order maintain control. And this condition that the people of China are not armed is not by mistake. And we are not China.

    “The Communist party must control the guns.”
    ― Mao Tse-tung

    How do the people ensure that THEY will be in control of THEIR freedom and THEIR government? The Founders understood that at some point the people would have to take their freedom back from THEIR what will certainly become corrupt and freedom stealing government. Its just the nature of the beast. Their solution? The people will be mandated by Right pre existing the government to be able to keep and bear arms and with that comes certain responsibilities and dangers. Dangers both to the general public if they are used irresponsibly, and dangerous to the government if they were to go too far, which we know they will. And that really is the point. Simply, the government must have a natural fear of the people and their love for their freedom.

    And when we are talking about Rights and freedom and abuse of power where the government is well armed and will oppress the people, then the people must also be well armed to counter balance that fact. And so the Founders created the only manner in which they could ensure that the people would have a chance against the ever growing more powerful government that will certainly become corrupt and will certainly abuse their power against the people and their freedom. The entity government will without doubt in time forget that IT is a function of the people and they will soon begin to think that “For everyone’s good” and “By any means necessary” that the people are a function of the government and must never be armed. And that is when America ends if allowed. And that is the cold hard truth about guns and the people of America keeping and bearing arms. Like it or not.

    The world is a brutal place, do not become complacent in the fantasy that is America and come to believe it is not. America due to its massive success allows one to incorrectly believe that the fantasy is reality, it is not. America is a fantasy that exist only if the rules of operation are adhered to, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, unmolested.

    So understanding all this, now I ask a question: Is it possible for America to exist without the Second Amendment? Or can America exist with the Second Amendment, the Rights of the people to Keep And Bear Arms, becoming a permission of the government? The answer is a resounding, NO. Never!

    If the government does not bestow upon the people the Right, how can it be justified that the government be able to take away from the people or force the people to modify or surrender their Right? It can not, not in America as formulated.

    And if the Second Amendment is specifically identified by the Founders as a Right and designed as a counter balance to the known tyranny and tendency and nature of the government to usurp the peoples Rights, can the Constitution and America properly exist without the Second Amendment in full force? It can not. If there is no Second Amendment unmodified and unmolested then there is no Constitution or America as designed because the people are no longer primary and the people can no longer ensure their primacy.

    And as far as these psychopaths in their fantasies and delusions believe that they are accomplishing some political agenda or are just nuts, the Second Amendment is really not a part of that issue. Our Constitution and Bill Of Rights ensures that the people keep and bear be arms for the reasons stated. It does not however ensure everyone’s safety, it does however attempt to ensure their freedom.

    As a matter of fact it is responsible, properly trained, rational, armed and licensed citizens in the public going about their business that are a part of the solving of these mass shooting events. Crazies do not as a general rule look forward to bullets coming back at them. Bullets hurt. The more that the “Politically correct” mostly Left oriented powers that be and a scared populous of America talk about disarming those good people the more brazen and free people who would act out their insane scenarios and murder the innocent are free to act. A totally counter intuitive thought process that accomplishes the exact opposite as is intended. Scared of guns? Don’t buy one.

    There are many people who live with and are exposed to these crazy people and are usually well aware of their intents. They usually transmit their intents well before ever acting. And so that is where these things can be mitigated to the degree that they can be mitigated. In many instances these people are known through their schools to be disturbed, can be on psychoactive drugs and are problem, violent individuals. Who has the responsibility here? Their family’s and friends who know them well and law enforcement who need to interact with these individuals to varying degrees in order to control them as need be. Will it ever be perfect? Never.

    In the end neither the Left nor the Right extremists among us has the exclusive franchise on Crazy. Crazy is among us, crazy is plugged into the web and the web can be a very sharp double edged sword that cuts deep in both directions and must be dealt with as need be within the legal system.

    So, in answer to the question: Is the Second Amendment essential, or is the Second Amendment throwaway?

    You are now able to properly answer that question. And so now answer it.

  • mike shupp

    Shrug. Seven billion people in the world, some of them malicious, some just amused by the pretense of being malicious, and it costs nothing but a moment of time to send a hate message, Got to figure it happens. Being upset by any individual communication is about as sensible as being angry at individual ants when a swarm invades your kitchen and gets into the food.

    This is what we get for creating world-spanning social media systems financed by advertising. Don’t blame Facebook and Twitter for what they’ve enabled — blame capitalism! End shrug.

    Okay, that’s me being snide, surrounded by all you reflexive defenders of capitalism. More seriously, there are costs to “consumers” when they have to screen and evaluate all the “free” messages that come to them via the internet (there are reputable economists who talk about this kind of thing) and these aren’t balanced by the costs borne by those who create that “information.” It doesn’t cost me anything to send you a death threat because Post Consumer Brands LLC happily pays the trivial internet charges so it can tell you and me how much we’d like Bran Flakes for breakfast. Blame advertising!

    You can’t cure this cheaply with our present setup. Facebook isn’t going to hire a million people at decent wages and pay them to screen all the messages flowing through the system. One cure I can think of is an alternative internet, free of advertising, with some built in AI, which imposes charges on users and maybe recipients for each and every message. If it costs you a dime up front to send me a death threat, and a dime each for every one of your fifteen thousand close personal friends you wish to impress with your cleverness, are you likely to amuse yourself this way?

  • Wodun

    Mike, I’m afraid I can’t respond to your post without violating our hosts rules.

    On the topic in general, anonymous speech is free speech and one need only look at those who seek to punish every little thing they dislike as the evidence for why everyone should be anonymous on the internet.

    I’m not sure of the quantity or quality of the threats this lady has recieved but the tweeter has a small follower count, small number of retweets and likes, and a suspicious pattern to their tweets. It comes off as a PR account being run by a company.

  • mike shupp

    Woden — And my thought is diametrically opposed to yours. I think anonymous speech is a really bad idea in general, especially when it carries so far so quickly and so cheaply as the internet enables.

    Give an example, say Jim Johnson sends an email on Monday to Harriet Smithers promising to invade her household, rape her, and cut her children apart with axes. In my preferred world, Jim would be in jail on Tuesday, in front of a judge and jury by Wednesday, and introducing himself to his future cellmates come Friday. Arguing that he was just exercising his free speech, or that SonOfAdam12 sent that email rather than him, or that all the Harriet Smithers on the internet looked the same and it was just accident that one of them mistook the meaning of his “joke” would not suffice to free him.

    I rather approve of sensible conservative behavior. I think people should be encouraged to act prudently and with good intentions to each other. I even think we should be free to tinker with laws and customs to encourage such. I think Edmund Burke and John Locke would have felt some agreement with my notions; I even think Ayn Rand would have gone along with them, at least some days. Sorry if my opinions are so offensive to you, but …. well, I’m not sorry.

  • Mike Shupp: I do not agree with your first comment, mostly, but also do not disagree strongly. However, I agree very strongly with your point that all speech on the internet should be public, and posting anonymously should not be possible. Most of the bad behavior we are seeing today are by people, and robots, and trolls, who can get away with it because they can hide their identity.

  • Cotour

    Ditto, but the technology cat is out of the technology bag and will never be able to be recaptured and redirected.

    Where this all leads in the future is not pretty. It is estimated that Google and Facebook, no fan of conservatism, will directly be able to effect millions of voters for their own subjective ideological purposes. And they will be effected to vote in a Left oriented manner.

    And this is the tip of the iceberg.

  • wayne

    The Ten Commandments of Hans-Hermann Hoppe
    https://youtu.be/d5njf83BmyI
    4:16

  • wayne

    Jordan Peterson / Patrick Bet-David
    >excerpted comments on technology & social-media
    August 2019
    https://youtu.be/vdHJjbHwR38?t=1769

  • Cotour

    THE LIBERAL MEDIA AND THE GUN ISSUE

    This former Conservative talking head, and now Liberal CNN talking head, S.E.Cupp, is now changing her mind about the reality of guns and crazy people. Looks like who ever writes her pay check says what she thinks. Turns her political opinion and rational thinking on and off like a faucet. (Who the hell is S.E.Cupp and why is her opinion of any consequence anyway?)

    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/457092-se-cupp-quits-nra-says-we-must-do-something-about-guns

    S.E.Cupp: “Being right no longer felt righteous”

    She used to properly understand the gun issue, but because it no longer “Feels righteous” she can no longer support her rational thinking on the subject. She needs to “Feel righteous”. Its the guns, not the crazy people who use them.

    Translation, S.E.Cupp: I no longer am committed to rational thought and have now embraced my feelings over facts.

    Her emotions about HER feeling “righteous” are now paramount over rational thought and reason. Typical Liberal thought process, up is down, down is up, good is bad, Orange man bad, and I don’t care, my feelings (As per CNN) are paramount over reason.

    The issue can be a complex one for some and can certainly be challenging to talk about and understand, but when is such thinking acceptable? Never.

    It would be like saying: I need a brain operation, but because my hair is so beautiful and I will have to shave my head Im not going to have the operation.

    The same irrational and emotionally based thought process, just like a child. And that really is what we are now dealing with, emotional children pandering to other emotional children.

  • mike shupp

    Cotour —

    the technology cat is out of the technology bag

    I quite disagree. There is a real “cost” to social media, to reading and evaluating and responding to email and Twitter messages and so on, and it’s conceivable that at some point people will decide to stop paying that cost, at least many of them. To point to another example, my Dad used to have albums full of postage stamps from around the world. It was a hobby that appealed to him in the 1930s. I’ve never had the least interest in stamp collecting, and don’t feel I’ve missed much. My suspicion is that, world wide, stamp collecting is much smaller an interest today than a century ago. Who knows, even bridge and Second Life may lose enthusiasts over time.

  • Cotour

    I was specifically referring to the concept of anonymity on the internet. I do not believe that that will ever be able to be reeled in. The technology available and the party’s involved around the world will circumvent all attempts to create a non anonymous web.

    And I think if it could be achieved that that would go a long way to make everyone behave better and be less aggressive and threatening.

    Google and Facebook are becoming the real problem in how they very clearly steer and choose their allowable content, and that content is without doubt Left oriented.

  • Edward

    mike shupp,

    You wrote: “blame capitalism! … Blame advertising!

    Are you blaming capitalism and advertising for Twitter and Facebook not punishing those who violate their terms of behavior for civility — so long as the incivility attacks right-wing concepts, such as capitalism and advertising?

    Facebook isn’t going to hire a million people

    Facebook does not have to hire a million people to police its site. As with other companies, it can use audience participation to report violations, and it can cancel accounts of major violators or get the police department involved to combat death threats. It is when deterrence fails that we get all the incivility from the left that we are seeing these days. Indeed, it seems that incivility by the left has been encouraged, lately.

    The lack of enforcement of civil discourse does not sound like failures of capitalism or advertising, which are independent of the policing policies of these companies. It sounds like these companies are not uniformly enforcing their policies, favoring some people over others.

    You “Give an example” of a threatening note then make it seem as though it is not already against the law to threaten someone. We have long ago agreed that death threats are not part of free speech, and that the antagonist in your example would be “introducing himself to his future cellmates come Friday.

    Even an anonymous commenter should not be anonymous to Twitter and Facebook. Isn’t the problem that what would normally be an anonymous comment is not pursued by such companies so that the perpetrator of fear and hatred may be caught and punished before he carries out his threat. Isn’t this lack of diligence on the part of these companies only encouraging rather than discouraging these threats?

    I find it similar to AntiFA (Anti First Amendment) getting away with harming those who disagree with them, allowing them to continue violent attacks with impunity.

    From the article: “It is also revolting to see that no Democrats have condemned this nasty act against someone who should be respected as a heroic first responder. Where are their condemnations of the mobbing and ganging up on this innocent person for something that is no crime whatsoever? Nowhere. This is how silent majorities form.

    Welcome to Obama’s America, land of the formerly free.

  • Wodun

    People who make their living iff the first amendment should have a greater appreciation for it.

    An illegal act is not covered by anonymity and ideas of what constitutes proper conduct vary greatly. Punishing people for expressing views you don’t like goes against the spirit of the first amendment, especially when the punishment comes from a mob rather than government.

    There are a lot of people who think they are respectable but who run afoul of what many in society feel respectable, as so many articles posted here have shown.

  • mike shupp

    Edward —

    I was being a tad sarcastic. The point however is that an internet fueled by advertising which subsidizes mass distribution of “free” messages isn’t working very well, It’s a very far cry from what the early pioneers of computer communication envisioned fifty years ago, and what we have today certainly wasn’t inevitable.

    Would you seriously argue that a plethora of Russian ‘bots on Facebook is just what the people at ARPA and CERN had in mind all along?

  • mike shupp

    Cotour —

    Are you HAPPY with fake news, constant advertising, viruses and phishing attacks, and the rest of the modern internet? Are you content to settle for biased and incomplete news and unworried by malicious posters? Yes, you can have all this for free!

    But maybe you don’t want to hear from ten thousand potential “friends” ever day, Perhaps it’s vitally important to have data channels which are absolutely free of noise and false information — military communications for example, or financial transactions. Maybe you absolutely insist on knowing precisely from whom your data has come and to whom your own communications will go. In such circumstances you might well be willing to pay a premium for your internet.

    My thought is corporations and government agencies would probably spring for premium connections, as soon as they became available. Wealthy people would probably do the same, especially if tired of a generally unrewarding internet barrage. Make the cost low enough and the quality high enough and ordinary folks might switch to premium service as well, at least part of the time — imagine ultra high downloads for movies. Eventually most of us might see the premium net as the counterpart of first class postage, and the ordinary “free” internet as so much junk mail.

  • Edward

    mike shupp,
    You asked: “Would you seriously argue that a plethora of Russian ‘bots on Facebook is just what the people at ARPA and CERN had in mind all along?

    I would argue that these people didn’t have commerce (sales) in mind at all. When the internet became popularized with the http protocol, there was quite an argument over whether people should be able to make money using the internet. The commerce argument won out (possibly by default, as no one could legally stop them, at the time), and now we have Blue Origin, SpaceX, and perhaps some other space companies that are funded by internet profits.

    The internet was originally designed so that the U. S. military could more easily communicate with its industrial and university contractors, especially with FTP file transfers. That is all that its creators had in mind. E-mail came a little while later, so maybe we could include that as something they had in mind all along. The web took a third of a century to be born.

    The advantage of having seven billion people running an economy is that you get seven billion more ideas for what to do in that economy, and they can respond instantly to changing conditions for any given product. The disadvantage of having one committee running an economy is that they come up with new ideas very slowly and can only respond to the changing conditions for any product when that product’s time for review comes back around to the committee. The committee has a disincentive for creating new products in that then they have to spend additional time in the future pondering its changing conditions.

    Are you arguing that ‘bots are a violation of free speech rather than a different ability to practice free speech? If so, what do you think of the megaphone as a tool of free speech?

    The point however is that an internet fueled by advertising which subsidizes mass distribution of “free” messages isn’t working very well

    As far as I can tell, what you think is not working very well is that some companies only apply their terms of use to those that they disagree with and let slide those that they agree with. Violating their own terms of use is not a feature of free market capitalism, which supplies the services or goods that they have agreed to supply for the price paid — even if that price is some advertisements between the acts of radio or television plays.

    How many people complain about the internet companies that apply their terms of use equally? Not nearly as many who are complaining about the unfair (ab)use of terms of use.

    Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Microsoft, and some others have become virtual monopolies. It is difficult for competition to rise in such a market, so free market principles are hard to apply, and we rely upon these companies to act fairly — to provide their products as promised — or we rely upon regulation to assure that they act fairly.

    You wrote: “My thought is corporations and government agencies would probably spring for premium connections, as soon as they became available.

    Now you are arguing in favor of free market capitalism. You expect these premium connections to behave in the way advertised and paid for, so why do you not expect Facebook and Twitter to apply their own terms of use equally?

    The problem is not capitalism or advertising; it is that the product delivered is not the product that Facebook and Twitter promised. They are violating the principles of free markets but are not regulated to make up for being wretched hives of scum and villainy.

  • wodun

    The internet is great at fighting fake news, which is why totalitarians are so dead set on controlling who has the ability to speak on the internet. Remember when people would say to just change the channel if there is a show you don’t want to watch? Don’t go to websites you don’t want to read. Don’t read the comments you don’t like. But if you do want to express support or disagreement with something, go for it.

    I’m not sure why so many so called adults don’t get this. Most of you are old enough to know better.

  • Cotour

    mike shupp:

    There is no analogy between “first class postage” and the internet.

    The technology reaches into your brain, is able to read it, and glorifies and encourages the worst in human nature. And many people do not evolve past the need to be controversial or confrontational.

    And while I am selective and have learned to be skeptical about many of the stories and the information that I have access to on the internet, I understand that there are programs in application now and will become developed that will tend to encourage these bad natures of human beings.

    And of course right in the mix is the politics of the day, and we can plainly see that the mega internet company’s are very well funded and very well politically Left oriented. And that is the most powerful motivation for the internet to remain a mixed bag of people being able to communicate, and people being able to manipulate.

    The potential for the abuse of power is the greatest that has ever been in history, and the most powerful document ever written to combat and counter balance that human condition may not be able to handle this level of technology and ability to manipulate the human mind and their choices I.E. votes.

    So, would I like to know that all of what I saw on the internet was true and good? Of course. But the reality of where we find ourselves today we have never been before and the future therefore is an unknown in regards to it.

    Listen to this high IQ Silicon Valley nerd, Jaron Lanier, he knows what is what.

    https://youtu.be/qQ-PUXPVlos

    This is way beyond what we actually understand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *