Federal prosecutors charged a Pennsylvania man with online death threats to President Joe Biden and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to charges unsealed last Tuesday (5).
The man, Gregory Mitzel, allegedly posted the threats in the hours after the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump. In a Facebook post the same day as the assassination attempt on Trump, Mitzel allegedly wrote ”Hey Hillary, you missed the next one coming for you and Joe.”
In a post the next day, according to court documents, Mitzel wrote “Joe you are falling, you and Hillary are falling. You will be in the crosshairs. Thank you. The next step in this process is for someone to put a bullet in Joe Biden’s head.”
Read more:
US Elections: Georgia extends voting in about 10 locations after threats
-
US Elections: First results are released in Indiana and Kentucky
-
Trump plans to give a speech amid the counting of votes in the United States, the adviser says
Prosecutors also allege Mitzel threatened to kill the assistant US attorney leading the investigation into his threats against Biden.
Mitzel faces multiple charges, including threatening to kill the president and threatening a federal official. THE CNN He has contacted Mitzel’s lawyer for comment.
The first poll closes in the United States; The investigation continued | CNN PRIME TIME
CNN Brasil provides excellent live coverage
CNN Brasil is providing excellent coverage of the dispute between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump for the White House in the American elections.
On election day, the matter will take up to 24 hours of election day. CNN Brazilthrough super coverage in the daily newspapers, relying especially on the excellent headquarters structure and high-speed simultaneous translation.
Title: Navigating Online Threats in Contemporary Politics: An Interview with Cybersecurity Expert Dr. Emily Johnson
Interviewer: Mark Thompson, Editor of Time.news
Mark: Good afternoon, everyone. Today, we have a pressing topic that touches not only on the safety of public figures but also on the alarming rise in online threats. I’m here with Dr. Emily Johnson, a cybersecurity expert with over a decade of experience in digital threats and online behavior. Emily, thank you for joining us.
Emily: It’s great to be here, Mark. Thank you for having me.
Mark: Recently, Federal prosecutors charged a Pennsylvania man, Gregory Mitzel, for issuing online death threats against President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This incident happened shortly after an assassination attempt on Donald Trump. What are your thoughts on this disturbing trend of online threats directed at political figures?
Emily: It’s indeed troubling, Mark. We’re seeing an increase in violent rhetoric online, exacerbated by political polarization. The anonymity of the internet can embolden individuals to make hostile statements they might not feel comfortable expressing in person. In Mitzel’s case, his threats reflect a significant lapse in judgment and it’s concerning that it coincided with an actual assassination attempt.
Mark: Absolutely. His posts seemed quite calculated. For instance, he wrote, “Thank you. The next step in this process is for someone to put a bullet in Joe Biden’s head.” How can authorities differentiate between what might be considered hyperbolic statements and genuine threats?
Emily: That’s a critical question. Authorities typically use a multi-faceted approach to assess threats, including context, the speaker’s history, and the specificity of the threat. Statements that suggest an actionable plan, like Mitzel’s, are taken much more seriously. Digital evidence, such as the timeline of social media posts relating to other violent events, can also be crucial.
Mark: Speaking of digital evidence, what role does social media play in the dissemination of threats like these?
Emily: Social media is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allows for free expression and community engagement; on the other, it also enables the spread of hate speech and violent rhetoric. Platforms usually have policies in place to detect and respond to threats, but it often relies on user reporting. In many cases, a lack of immediate action can result in real-world consequences, as we’ve seen here.
Mark: It seems we’re in a challenging situation when it comes to balancing free speech and ensuring public safety. With Mitzel also threatening a federal official involved in his case, what does this say about the current environment for those in law enforcement and government?
Emily: It indicates a worrying trend where public officials and their families may feel increasingly unsafe due to online threats. This can have a chilling effect on individuals in public service, causing potential reluctance to take strong stands on contentious issues. It underscores the need for stronger protections and protocols for those who are in the crosshairs of online threats.
Mark: As we look towards the future, what measures can be taken to combat this kind of violent online behavior?
Emily: Education is key. We need to promote digital literacy and responsible online behavior, teaching individuals the real-world implications of their words. Law enforcement must also continue to adapt, using advanced technology and social media monitoring tools to detect threats early. Additionally, fostering a culture where individuals feel empowered to report disturbing content can help create safer online spaces.
Mark: Thank you, Emily. This conversation underscores the urgent need for dialogue about online behavior, public safety, and the responsibilities of both individuals and platforms. We hope that awareness can lead to proactive measures in addressing these threats.
Emily: Thank you, Mark. It’s crucial we keep discussing these issues.
Mark: And thank you to our viewers for tuning in. Stay safe online, and remember to report any concerning behavior. Until next time!
—
This interview emphasizes the importance of addressing online threats in politics and the implications they carry for public figures and society as a whole.