• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    405 months ago

    May the first amendment suit she files after this gain her the money she needs for her healthcare. And may whatever insurance company this is be dissolved.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    8
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Stephen Bonczyk of Lakeland Florida is a tyrant and fascist who doesn’t respect our right to free speech in the US. In my opinion.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    425 months ago

    They think they’re making an example. That this will have a chilling effect.

    They’re wrong. All this is going to do is radicalize even more people. As it should.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        35 months 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    495 months ago

    This will definitely ease tensions among the masses and rouse support for the Healthcare execs lmao

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3765 months ago

    Threatening the hospital that was denying my father care, leaving him to die, was the only way I got into the literal board room to reason with them. I got them to resume treatment after they dicked around for a month and he refused to leave because he was going to die if he left.

    He still died because he was so sick at that point that they couldn’t do the procedure he needed when he first arrived.

    So I threatened them in 2010, and I’d fucking do it again now for my child. We are supposed to stand up for our loved ones.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1375 months ago

      It’s disgusting. There needs to be legal recognition of all that is at stake for patients and their families. The denial of necessary care is structural violence and should be treated as such by everyone.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      475 months ago

      got them to resume treatment after they dicked around for a month and he refused to leave because he was going to die if he left.

      I had to play this card once, too. I was in the cardiac unit for 28 days, and they were going to send me home because they couldn’t figure out what was wrong, and the insurance decided I wasn’t worth the expense anymore.

      I refused to leave until they gave me a diagnosis, because i would have just died otherwise.

      Pretty sure the healthcare system still wants that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        75 months ago

        Financial extermination. But threat of violence would’ve been my next step in trial and error. It’s my family… I’d do anything for them. People even told me I should’ve. It was a tough situation and I was young. A little younger than Luigi.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    365 months ago

    Jesus fucking Christ we are so damn cooked. It’s actually joever.
    signed, a floridian

  • Ebby
    link
    fedilink
    1975 months 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      55 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        45 months ago

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

    • Sippy Cup
      link
      fedilink
      55 months ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1215 months 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        15 months ago

        Were their threats recorded? The fact that people have said worse doesn’t change the fact that it was a threat.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        15
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Oops, I completely misinterpreted your comment. Not sure what etiquette says, but I feel silly and am removing mine.

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          16
          edit-2
          5 months 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.

          Edit: on some reflection that might be a rude reply if you don’t already know that domestic violence threats in the US are largely ignored.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12
            edit-2
            5 months 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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          35 months ago

          For something really embarrassing -

          Original embarrassing comment:

          I hate Star Trek

          Newly edited comment:

          edit: removed opinion I reconsidered

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          45 months 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

      • Capt. Wolf
        link
        fedilink
        445 months 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.

        • frustrated_phagocytosis
          link
          fedilink
          625 months 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            5 months 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.

            E: Apparently some ignorant idealists don’t like making a distinction. Tough shit. From a legal standpoint, that’s how it works.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              95 months 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.

            • Lemminary
              link
              fedilink
              55 months 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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                55 months 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.

        • Cethin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          195 months 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14
          edit-2
          5 months ago

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

    • frustrated_phagocytosis
      link
      fedilink
      505 months 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2905 months 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        55 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        685 months ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        75 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        16
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Not saying you are wrong about the marginalized, but in this case she made, 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          185 months 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      205 months 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.

      • Ebby
        link
        fedilink
        35 months ago

        Ohh good point. Have a call center friend; heard stories…

  • ɔiƚoxɘup
    link
    fedilink
    1615 months ago

    She said “Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next,” according to the article.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1195 months ago

      Funny part is insurance companies hear worse than this all day long however this is their trigger.

      L O L

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        295 months ago

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        35 months ago

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        235 months ago

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        935 months ago

        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.)

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            75 months ago

            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?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                35 months ago

                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.

            • _cryptagion [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              55 months ago

              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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              95 months ago

              Legally, the fact that you didn’t hang up the phone after that disclaimer means you consented.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                55 months ago

                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?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                6
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  45 months ago

                  You can literally choose to not say anything about threatening or murdering someone over a recorded call.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          135 months ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            85 months ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              4
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              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).

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            35 months ago

            Remember the time Lemmy was so outraged at the elections that they, un ironically, became Unabomber stans

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              25 months ago

              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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I was literally told by some dude that “if I see you again, I’ll fucking kill you” while I was walking my dog at night around my town’s library. I told the police and they didn’t do jack shit. Whereas this lady gets a hit by a $100,000 bond?

  • Queen HawlSera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    36
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    They’re determined aren’t they? To just completely make Luigi a martyr.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      35 months ago

      I’m surprised they aren’t just burying the news completely.
      Doing this shit is just throwing gasoline on the fire

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    315 months ago

    According to the affidavit, 42-year-old Briana Boston used the phrase during a call with BlueCross BlueShield about a denied claim.

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

    The “You people are next” line certainly adds some context to this story.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      23
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      A bit, but it still doesn’t explain how this warrants terrorism charges and $100,000 bail. A visit from the police and probation or anger management courses? OK I still don’t really agree but it makes some sense. But not prison time. She’s getting punished harder than many rapists and child molesters.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15 months ago

        Why wouldn’t an insinuation of terrorism warrant a terrorism charge and a lot of bail money? That doesn’t make sense.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        85 months ago

        MAGA paraded with more direct threats of violence on signs, after Jan 6th, with no accountability.

    • wagesj45
      link
      fedilink
      105 months ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        35 months ago

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

        • wagesj45
          link
          fedilink
          15 months ago

          I didn’t think that holds muster either. It could mean many different things, even in context. The bar for true threats in the US is very high, as it should be. They clearly wanted to make an example of her to nip this class consciousness in the bud, and our legal system is certainly prone to bad decisions and practices, but in theory I can’t see this passing that high bar.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      135 months ago

      You need the credible threat cheat code. We should vote to make it legal to kill health insurance CEOs.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      335 months ago

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