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.
Maybe if her threat was directed towards the minimum wage worker, they’ll let her go then.
Inb4 nuremburg
Freedom of speech, as long as it’s completely meaningless.
Let’s free her
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
That seems impossible to manage… you would cripple google by running a botnet tainting millions of IPs that will get cycled to legitmate users.
This will definitely ease tensions among the masses and rouse support for the Healthcare execs lmao
Won’t someone think of the CEOs.
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not protect speech that threatens or incites violence.
Without the means to do it it’s not a threat.
Is it really a threat though? Idk. She’s repeating some words and saying “you’re next”, but not what they’re next for.
It seems pretty obvious what she was implying, but that’s what a trial is for. She may not have meant it, but it is clearly a threat of violence.
In all honesty it can be perceived as them being next in getting their claim denied and not only as the threat it as well be perceived.
It’s so very close to Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It that it could as well be a misunderstanding as a threat.
If she were a parrot yeah sure, but there she is, and yet, featherless
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.
“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.
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.
yes, of course
“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.
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.
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
Agreed, and I never said otherwise.
Context means everything. It’s obviously a threat.
I’m not a sue happy individual but I would for sure sue in this situation.
Nothing like jail time to radicalized someone more. Judge is playing 5d cheese by providing motivation.
Getting her in touch with the people that can get the job done.
From the article’s source article:
“She’s been in this world long enough that she certainly should know better that you can’t make threats like that in the current environment that we live in and think that we’re not going to follow up and put you in jail,” said Lakeland Police Chief Sam Taylor.
I thought we had a legal definition of a real threat, and this isn’t it.
This man on the other hand was released after his EIGHTH stalking arrest in three years.
https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/plano-man-8th-arrest-stalking-harassing-smu-students/
But someone who is stalking their ex and threatens to kill them the cops won’t do anything about.
Well is the ex a CEO?
Remember this the next time the cops tell someone they can’t do anything about a stalker or angry ex threatening to kill them until they actually act. They can do something. They choose not to.
Judges too! He set her bail at 100K. Rapists get less than that.
The whole fucking system is as crooked as a $3 bill
She said “Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next,” according to the article.
Funny part is insurance companies hear worse than this all day long however this is their trigger.
L O L
previously it was at some poor customer support agent in a 3rd world country, now the danger is to the mega donors oligarchy club members.
won’t be tolerated.
I hope she’s right
You people are next
Yea this part is not gonna look good in court.
Just those 3 words without adding more would sound less bad, might not have gotten out of the arrest, but adding “You people are next” just ensured the arrest and charges.
Yet, if some citizen tells another citizen directly, “I’m going to kill you until you are dead,” and that second citizen then goes to the police to report it, the police will respond, “we have no proof other than your hearsay, person one has to actually commit some act of violence before we can even issue a restraining order (worthless) let alone do any ‘police work.’”
This is how it acts in citizen-to-citizen interaction in the real world. A business gets special treatment versus a citizen, yet again.
(Regardless of how crass or inappropriate her angry comment was. Remember: America lets Nazis exist because “free speech” - it’s a huge hypocrisy.)
Because police exist to protect capital, not people.
If you have a recording of someone threatening to kill you, the police can absolutely act.
Threatening to kill someone unless they give you what you want is not protected speech. Otherwise, you could walk into a bank, demand they give you money under threat of violence, then walk out having committed no crimes.
I’m sorry to say, but that’s not necessarily true. It would need to be a police recording or record of someone threatening you for them to actually have to do anything. You could walk into a precinct with a bona fide video of someone making a serious threat to your life and the police typically won’t do anything about it. That same person could make a clip about murdering you and post it online with a clear plan to kill you and the police still wouldn’t have to act. All of that is hearsay, regardless of how serious the intent is and the police can choose to ignore it. Unless it’s someone worth helping, someone who might be able to make a sizable donation.
The police doesn’t have to act if a person drags another person into the precinct and murders them in front of all the cops according stupid US courts (Warren v. District of Columbia).
That’s why 2a and self-defense are such important rights. You want to be safe? Better take care of it yourself (or elect a 3rd party that will change the status quo, but fantasy solutions don’t count).
Remember the time Lemmy was so outraged at the elections that they, un ironically, became Unabomber stans
Outraged at elections or outraged that despite decades of the football being tossed around each election, that nothing changes, and the only way to make change is via violence at this point?
I wish.
In the Article:
According to the affidavit, 42-year-old Briana Boston used the phrase during a call with BlueCross BlueShield about a denied claim.
Her problem is that she said it over the phone, every company records all phone calls, they always have an automatic voice saying “this call will be recorded for quality and training purposes” that makes anything you say after implied to have given consent for the recording, bypassing any two-party comsent laws.
I don’t dispute the fact that corporations and rich people have preferrential treatment, but having evidence like a phone call recording is what’s ultimately gonna get law enforcement to act.
If you have a video of someone saying “I’m gonna get my gun and shoot you until your’re dead” to your face, that would probably have higher chances of getting law enforcement to act rather than just a “he said she said” heresay. No guarantees that they’ll act (cops are mostly lazy and don’t wanna do their jobs), but its much much better than just you claiming they threatened you without providing any evidence.
that makes anything you say after implied to have given consent for the recording, bypassing any two-party comsent laws.
That… doesn’t sound like two party consent to me. Are you saying that I can tell someone “I’m recording this call” and they don’t have to actually consent, they just have to not mention it?
Legally, the fact that you didn’t hang up the phone after that disclaimer means you consented.
Some states you don’t even need that. I live in a one-party state, so I wouldn’t need to tell someone they’re being recorded, as long as I knew they were.
They consent by continuing the call. They can otherwise hang up
And if you hang up you can’t deal with the claim denial. So really, wouldn’t that start to tread the line of coercion? If you don’t consent to being recorded we’ll continue to deny healthcare.
You can’t secretly record phone calls in two party consent states. But you can say “Just so you know, this phone call is being recorded” and if they continue to talk, they are implicitly giving consent. At least that’s how it always have worked, otherwise it would’ve been illegal for basically every company to record phone calls. Every called customer service for any reason? Notice how they all tell you that the call is recorded? Its been like this since I ever learned about phone calls. If it’s illegal, you’d be hearing about lawsuits all the time.
But you can say “Just so you know, this phone call is being recorded” and if they continue to talk, they are implicitly giving consent
Which makes it kind of bullshit and not two-party, since in many cases this is effectively the only means of communicating with these companies. There is no real option to not consent, especially in the case of healthcare companies, since it’s not like a person can just choose to not have a body with real medical concerns (and in the US you legally can’t even go uninsured without penalty). Calling this “two party” at this point is a fucking joke.
You can literally choose to not say anything about threatening or murdering someone over a recorded call.
Makes sense. I don’t usually call customer service - I tend to use email or social media where possible, so that I have everything in writing with timestamps, just in case I need to refer back to it or use it as evidence.
Does that mean I can also record them?
You can. I’d also say “Just letting you know, I’m recording this phone call” just to be on the safe side.
I mean you could always make illegal recordings and you won’t get arrested, its just that it might not be admissible in court.
And if you live in a one-party consent state, its always legal to record, even when the other person is in a two-party consent state, even without informing or getting consent.
She didn’t say she was going to be involved in whatever the “next” thing ment. Might have been a heart-felt warning against vigilantes.Also, the “next” thing might well have been “…to get much needed care denied”.
Legally this is so flimsy it’s a waste of time. Looking at wording from politicians there’s way more direct calls to violence which will never be prosecuted. In practice it shows the pull of big corporations with cops, and inconveniences the life of an already inconvenienced person.
It’s weird, because I took it to mean that the people she’s talking to are going to be denied insurance in some way next.
I mean we can assume, and it’s fairly likely, that it was a reference to the assassination, but American court is fucked if this is enough.
Proof that the justice system only serves the wealthy.
One dead cop, no more donut shop. More dead cops, the hurting stops
Clown world we living in
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.
Thank goodness for that freedom of speech we have …
Just dont say what I dont wanna hear
Well, she actually said “Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next,”
That’s a pretty direct threat. The headline is misleading.
Where is the actual threat? You people are next, to get delayed, denied, or deposed.
Pointing out that what someone is doing puts a target on their back isn’t necessarily you threatening them.
For responding with the catchphrase insurance companies themselves created and live by. This isn’t the suspect’s catchphrase, but apparently even uttering these words back at health insurance companies is too much for them.
Well, “depose” isn’t pat of it. The killer added that part.
The status of our country? What does that mean exactly?
The plebians are uppity
Delay, deny, and depose the FBI. The FBI isn’t acting like this during a Trump presidency, this is the most lenient it gets at, during a democratic presidency. With a Trump presidency, Americans should familiarize themselves with current Russian society to know what they should expect for its future. Fuck your messed up police state, Americans, and fuck a constitution that only seems to be propaganda bullshit that is too much for the FBI to live by.
They’re determined aren’t they? To just completely make Luigi a martyr.
I’m surprised they aren’t just burying the news completely.
Doing this shit is just throwing gasoline on the fire
Lol, catch phrase or actual corporate practice? Because quoting a company memo to said company is apparently a threat.
