• Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    I imagine the “Delay, Deny, Depose” didn’t get her in trouble nearly as much as the “You people are next” part. Yeah, that’s a bit hostile there.

    • robocall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      I can agree with your statement, but is it an act of terrorism? I don’t think her threat should be categorized as terrorism.

      • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        I don’t think it’s terrorism either as I understand. Terrorism targets citizens for leverage.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Please, marginalized people get more explicitly threatening crap said to them all the time and people rarely get arrested or charged for that. She’s being charged because the system wants to make an example out of her. The judge basically said so himself at the bail hearing,

      “I do find that the bond of $100,000 is appropriate considering the status of our country at this point,” the judge said.

      • Kalysta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        They need to appeal this. Clear judicial error. If he wouldn’t have done this 3 weeks ago legally he can’t do it now.

      • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Not saying you are wrong about the marginalized, but in this case she said, what could be considered threatening, a call to a health care provider that was not only actionable, but entirely recorded.

        “The system” won’t make an example out of her, “Exhibit A” will. That’s the difference.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          It’s both.

          $100k bond for a threat that is neither specific nor credible is absurd.

          If it were a first time offender threat against a normal person (which is more specific), at most it would result in probation and a restraining order.

      • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        100k for a threat made in reaction to what was likely fear for her life, or the life of her loved one.

        It’s pretty amazingly cruel.

      • ArtieShaw@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Ouch. “This place is a shit show,” the judge said. (Not really, just fixed it for him).

    • frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      There’s no direct threat there more than saying the boogeyman will get you. People threaten marginalized communities like this on TV, radio and social media every day with no impunity because it’s just vague enough not to count because stochastic terrorism is totally cool for SOME people.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Talk to any call center worker at any shitty company in the US and they’ll tell you they’ve heard the same thing or worse before. This isn’t new for shitty companies at all, they’re just trying to make it seem like it’s new in response to this situation and not something that they’ve been ignoring for decades.

      • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        First amendment doesn’t cover true threats. So it all kinda depends on context and whether who it was said to felt as though they were in real danger.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          That doesn’t seem like a true threat to me.

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/true-threats

          A person speaking out of anger who the person does not have a real reason to fear and believe they’ll follow through is not a true threat. Saying “you’re next” is clearly hyperbole. There’s no chance she loses this case. They’re just trying to make an example out of her for the moment to scare other people.

          You might say it is a true threat in and of itself. There is very good reason for people to believe the state will arrest more people who use this speech. They’re assuming this is true, because they want them to fear them in order to stop them. This is what we call terrorism, except it’s the state doing it so I guess it’s totally fine.

        • samus12345@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          Even more importantly, it matters who you’re threatening. Your wife? Meh, no biggie. An insurance company? Straight to jail.

        • frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          Bullshit. Denying life saving care is a much much much more direct threat to life, as are abortion denials. The concept of a true threat depends mainly on whether you are an acceptable threat maker or not.

          • meco03211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            Except if you are actively dying and I refuse to help in my personal capacity, I’m not threatening to harm you. I’m just not helping you from imminent harm (presuming I didn’t cause that imminent harm). Now if you’re on fire and I’m currently watering my lawn with the hose when you ask for help, it’s shitty of me to not help. But if you’re in a gunfight with someone and you’re asking me to render aid as they are still a threat, sorry pal.

            • Lemminary@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              I’m just not helping you from imminent harm

              Doesn’t the law protect that in some way? I thought medical professionals were compelled to save lives first and then “worry” about costs later with the Hippocratic Oath and all. Or maybe it’s limited to some instances? Idk, I’m not from the US and our system works way differently.

              • meco03211@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                14 days ago

                That is a “good Samaritan” law. They can compel you to help, but that could be calling law enforcement. That’s also why in my examples the gunfight still had a deadly threat. No laws compel you to put yourself in danger to help.

            • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              Now if you’re on fire and I’m currently watering my lawn with the hose when you ask for help, it’s shitty of me to not help.

              Inaction is still an action. If you have the ability to save someone and you let them die, you may as well have started the fire yourself.

              The only real point you have is that you don’t render aid when there’s an active threat.

    • zaph@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      I’ve met victims of domestic violence who were threatened much worse than “you guys are next” so I’m not buying this as anything other than the system trying to use her as an example.

      • tamal3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Just want to point out that your example implies domestic violence is a lower level of violence, and as such this shouldn’t count as a real threat?

        I agree that this person saying “you guys are next” is not a threat to the degree that it should be chargeable, and that she’s being made an example of. That’s just not the reason I would site. I would site that she seemingly didn’t have any actual intention to hurt anyone, nor would she have even known who she was talking to on the phone. It’s ridiculous for police to have gotten involved to the degree they did.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          I recommend doing it like I did below the horizontal lines down there 👇

          btw, tap me 4 formatting tip

          To strike through, use ~~ before and after the offending text:

          ~~This text would be strike’d~~
          



          The United States has the most equitable healthcare system on earth.

          Edit: sorry about that, cat stepped on my keyboard

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          For something really embarrassing -

          Original embarrassing comment:

          I hate Star Trek

          Newly edited comment:

          edit: removed opinion I reconsidered

        • zaph@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          Just want to point out that your example implies domestic violence is a lower level of violence, and as such this shouldn’t count as a real threat?

          Reading comprehension ain’t for everyone.

          • tamal3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            14 days ago

            Thanks for the reflection edit! I don’t think I’m stupid, but you’re right that I didn’t read your comment correctly. Do you want me to remove my original reply?

            Edit: decided to remove

      • dan1101@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Do not threaten commerce, they don’t tolerate that. The money must flow at all costs.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Clearly she was saying that they were next to receive a gift basket for all their hard work in denying claims for profit

  • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    I don’t know about insurance but I worked once alongside a Google call center DB team, for adwords and they received lots of messages like these over inbound AND outbound calls, emails or chats.

    Google is EXTREMELY strict with threats issued to their own employees, even third party contractors, to the point they would ABSOLUTELY and without chance of appeals blacklist people like this person.

    To dimension the sheer scale of being blacklisted by Google, that means that every IP address they ever registered you using, be it by VPN or whatever, gets thrown in a black hole you can never escape

    Google services or accounts you linked using those IPs? Fucked forever.

    If you were part of the unlucky people who get a static IP set, get ready to start a lengthy process just to remove your account from being associated to that one.

    Marketing manager accounts? Screwed for life. Might as well say goodbye to your job and consider never advertising through adwords again.

    And I’m not even touching what happens with payment processors, YouTube, educative domains and, worst of all, corporate compute instances.

    If Google didn’t destroy you in those cases, your company and your bank certainly will.

    So yeah, if Google takes that shit seriously, you bet a healthcare provider will do the same

    • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      That seems impossible to manage… you would cripple google by running a botnet tainting millions of IPs that will get cycled to legitmate users.

      • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Fear can be a very powerful motivator, as everyone one rent check away from the street knows. It’s time for the leeches to feel some of that fear

        • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          You need to reread what the judge said when he set her bail. When the rich become afraid for their lives they send their law enforcement after those people they are afraid of and they fill the jails that they own with the people who have inspired their fear.

          All this fervor is not going to result in a changing of healthcare. Not with our newly minted Republican Congress and a douche canoe for a president. No all of this is going to result in a curbing of our free speech rights and a deadlier police state than we already live in. To say nothing of what’s going to happen to our voting rights in the next 4 years.

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    This judge is just making things worse by doing this.

    After being charged with threats to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, a judge set Boston’s bond at $100,000.

    “I do find that the bond of $100,000 is appropriate considering the status of our country at this point,” the judge said.

  • pixelscript@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    Regardless whether you support her general conduct, I think we can all rally around one tenet here:

    Don’t harass a shitty company’s T1 support out of priciples against the company in general.They’re in no better position to effect change in the system than you are. They exist only to be slightly more competent phone robots, turning your whiney noise into itemized actions, and filter those actions down to a restricted subset of system commands the company permits them to do.

    If anything, they’re on our level of the totem pole. Any outrage directed at them for actions of their broader company are a gross misdirection and wholly counterproductive.

    I don’t know who this lady was speaking to on the phone. But if it was some minimum wage phone bank slave who is just the ablative frontline of the customer support hotline, I don’t support her threat in that context.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      This is a dumb take. Their frontline workers should take the brunt of what the public feels. That is the point as you can’t get to anyone higher up. Maybe people won’t want to work there anymore and they will have to pay much higher wages to attract people.

      Sounds like a win to me. Company goes under because no one wants to work for them knowing the public hates them or they will get paid enough they don’t care.

      In your world we can’t show hate because someone isn’t paid enough and it isn’t there decision. It’s not their fault. But then you can’t access the person who is at fault so there is nothing you can do. This is fundamentally broken concept and is akin to resignation.

      • lady_maria@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        Their frontline workers should take the brunt of what the public feels.

        Yes. That is the job. But the fact that they already take the brunt doesn’t justify anyone screaming/abusing/threatening/ect the CSR.

        Sounds like a win to me. Company goes under because no one wants to work for them knowing the public hates them or they will get paid enough they don’t care.

        A win for whom? What exactly do you get out of it? Satisfaction? Is it just some kind of flaccid moral victory or something?

        If this were actually the case, quite a lot of businesses would’ve gone under a long time ago. Most of them still pay shit wages.

        In the meantime, real people are negatively affected by the assholery of customers every single day.

        This is not a win for the workers. It’s hard enough being forced to spend most of your life working to make just enough money to scrape by, let alone being screamed at, insulted, condescended to, ect.

        But then you can’t access the person who is at fault so there is nothing you can do.

        except to berate the CSR, apparently. There’s definitely nooo way to voice one’s concerns while speaking like a respectful, emotionally competant human being.

        Wait, what does flipping out on them accomplish again?

        • Doomsider@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          Good we agree it is their job. This was not really a threat and let’s be honest because of the power difference this lady is facing actual jail time whereas the worker faces nothing.

          As I explained, it is a win if CSR don’t want to work for the company unless they are paid more. At this time in history there is a glut of jobs. No one is forcing these people to work for this shit company.

          Making an obvious statement out of frustration is not berating. This lady did not even curse the CSR out. I mean you are really just siding with the corporation under the guise of protecting the CSR agent.

          Having worked as a CSR for years I can definitely say this was no where near flipping out. Nice try though.

          • lady_maria@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 days ago

            This was not really a threat and let’s be honest because of the power difference this lady is facing actual jail time

            I haven’t even made a single comment thus far about what she said, but I absolutely get why she said it. The fact that she’s facing jail time is absurd.

            the worker faces nothing.

            What we say to others can and often does have an effect on their mental health. Being forced to sit and take abuse and harassment with no recourse isn’t “nothing”. bffr

            As I explained, it is a win if CSR don’t want to work for the company unless they are paid more

            That’s not how the real world works, though. The majority of us are forced into our jobs because they need money to exist. Even if they wanted to leave, the job market fucking sucks. Not to mention, a lot of the jobs that exist are at other, equally shitty companies. Not much of a choice there.

            Making an obvious statement out of frustration is not berating.

            Again, I neither said nor implied that it was. I made it pretty clear that I was responding to this specific statement:

            Their frontline workers should take the brunt of what the public feels.

            The result of getting “the brunt of what the public feels” inherently includes being berated, insulted, ect. I’m sure you’ve experienced as a CSR; as have I. Countless times.

            I mean you are really just siding with the corporation under the guise of protecting the CSR agent.

            I’d love to hear you elaborate on this claim. It certainly is an interesting one.

            My entire point is that I believe (most) people, CSRs in particular, simply deserve to be treated with respect… even when the conversation is about a problem that upsets you. It’s not exactly a complicated argument; nor is it much to ask for.

            Now that I think about it, not even one of my points was actually addressed in your response. Nice try, though!

      • pixelscript@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        Charging at them directly where they want you to charge, their designated fall guys, sounds like a superbly inefficient strategy. You are pinching a huge amount of bystanders caught in the middle to for a proportionally negligible effect.

        Yes, if someone who is desperately asking for a proverbial (maybe literal?) bullet in their head puts a hostage between you and them, can you still plow right through the hostage and get them that way? Exhaust everyone they can possibly field to eventually break through to them? Sure, in principle. That can balloon to an absurdly high casualty count, though. Is it really all worth it?

        It’s a lot more efficient to, wherever possible, sidestep around the hostage, get behind them and strike directly at the problem. That’s exactly what Luigi Mangione did, and its effectiveness is exactly what’s being applauded.

        If your rebuttal is that what Luigi did is far more of a risky path to take, you don’t wish to take a risk like that, and you’d rather faff about kicking low level grunts instead because that’s an easier, lower-consequence option for you that theoretically makes progress, okay, I guess. I personally think you’re just wasting your time and energy pissing off only the wrong people. Only big stunts are gonna move the needle, in my opinion.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    Attorneys have said the insurance industry uses a “delay, deny, defend” tactic to withhold health care services.

    Jailed for using words to describe what insurance companies do?

    Judge is trying to fill their year-end quota.

    • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      “Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next,” she allegedly said near the end of the call.

      Let’s be real, the “You people are next” is probably the reason for jail.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        “You people are next…”

        “… to hear from my lawyer!”

        “… to get bad press once I go to the newspaper.”

        “… <insert anything that doesn’t mean physical violence.>”

        I hope we don’t jail people based on what we think they meant.

        • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          police jail people for even less than that, they will lie and frame innocent people to put them in jail

          She repeated the phrase written on the bullet casings used in the killing of an insurance CEO and then said “you people are next” on a phone call with her insurance - it’s clearly a threat given the context of the phrase and the killing. Denying that context is one of the less defensible positions here. What is more defensible is that her threat is clearly empty and the law has stricter requirements about what constitutes a crime.

          • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 days ago

            She repeated the phrase written on the bullet casings used in the killing of an insurance CEO and then said “you people are next” on a phone call with her insurance - it’s clearly a threat given the context of the phrase and the killing.

            Here’s the thing, at least this is how I view it:

            Is it reasonable to believe she can actually carry out this threat? If not, then jail is waaaaay overkill. Shit, we have violent offenders and drunk drivers around here who don’t see the inside of a cell at all.

            This woman, denied insurance for either a health matter that her or a loved one is going through. She’s a middle-aged woman who doesn’t own a firearm, and is likely very frustrated for being put in a health (or financial) crisis by the denial of her insurance provider.

            Did she say “you people are next” in reference to the putting down of another insurance company CEO? Of course. Do people say things like that all the time out of frustration with no way they could realistically or literally carry out the threat? ALL THE TIME.

            This is an example of the justice system taking the side of a business, and not a person. It’s shameful, and this judge likely hasn’t considered the harm caused by insurance companies - actual harm, that actually kills real life people!

            Anyway, I don’t agree that she should have been arrested and jailed. I can empathize with her frustration, because I have sick American friends who always get shit on by their insurance company, delaying treatment or arguing against their doctor’s recommendations.

            • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              12 days ago

              Did she say “you people are next” in reference to the putting down of another insurance company CEO? Of course.

              Right, so not what you said originally, which is that she meant something else and the sheriff who ordered her arrest was just jumping to conclusions, a conclusion you now agree with.

              Anyway, I agree with you that it is an injustice that she was jailed, and I think we are all empathizing with her right now. We would all like the police to take more seriously dangerous stalkers and protecting people, and not serving as the militant arm of the 1%. Unfortunately, the police are an institution that historically have been put in place by the 1% to protect their interests, and there is a long-standing legal ruling that the police are not there to “protect and serve” (the common citizen).

      • Oijkuij@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        Let’s say an elected official or candidate (bless em if any would actually do this) says this phrase in a speech. Would they be arrested? Or would they be given an interview for them to explain themselves, where they deftly state “obviously I’m not talking about doing it myself - but generally speaking these companies are heading in a concerning direction”. There would be debates over it, some people would be upset, but the story would fade and the politician would likely move on as well.

        Say that phrase with Trump’s voice in your head and it sounds like much of his political speech.

        Regular folks must be a lot more careful with their speech in the US, far less of it is free.

      • 4lan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        Sure that’s the reason but is it a justification?

        Do you know how many people are saying shit like this everyday all day?

        This is the police protecting corporate America over the working class.

        I guarantee they are taking orders from the oligarchs. Squash any talks of more execution

  • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    Nothing like jail time to radicalized someone more. Judge is playing 5d cheese by providing motivation.

  • Allonzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    Ah yes, more of that freedom we crow so much about as our brand.

    The company she spoke to is free to take her premium payments for years, then to kill her through claim denial, and she’s free say “thank you for taking my premiums all those years and now denying my claim” and then die quietly.

    Herp derp Freedom🇺🇸

    • orrk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      please, the free speech brigade only protects important speech, like calling for minority executions

    • wagesj45@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      Yes, actually, I am. This is nowhere near an actionable threat and arresting her over it is insanity and should be criminal itself.

      • doingthestuff@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        It was the, “You people are next”. If she had just used his catchphrase I doubt we’d be here.

      • AAA@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        No they don’t, and you know it. There will be less in person meetings tho. Or at least more often at retreat locations, not at the usual headquarters.

    • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      I’m not convinced it’s a threat. She didn’t say she was DOING anything, just that nobody is putting up with their shit anymore…

  • RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    “You people are next” does seem pretty threat-ish, however:

    After being charged with threats to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, a judge set Boston’s bond at $100,000.

    That is completely out of touch with what happened. “You people are next” not an act of terrorism.

    • na_th_an@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      It’s hard for me to agree this is a threat after media has spent years explaining why all of Trump’s language is actually never threatening or inciting violence, even after his language incited violence.