Hostile bloggers facing fines, jail?

[catzmeow]

http://www.isafe.org/imgs/pdf/news_articles/San_Luis_Obispo_article.pdf

Pew Internet & American Life Project
About one third (32%) of all teenagers who use the internet say they have been targets of a range of annoying and potentially menacing online activities – such as receiving threatening messages; having their private emails or text messages forwarded without consent; having an embarrassing picture posted without permission; or having rumors about them spread online.

Also, I think that it's likely that this law is a result of this working-group's efforts:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/ISTTF_Final_Report.pdf

IV. LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION
PRINCIPLE: Social networking site operators and law enforcement officials must work
together to deter and prosecute criminals misusing the Internet.
● MySpace and the Attorneys General will work together to support initiatives that will enhance the ability of law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute Internet crimes.
● MySpace and the Attorneys General will continue to work together to make sure that law enforcement officials can act quickly to investigate and prosecute criminal conduct identified on MySpace.

 

[KittenKoder]

So only if a harrasser lives within 50 miles of you, or whatever, is there laws to protect against repeated electronic harrassment?

That seems pretty arbitary.

I thought you were rock solid certain that everyone was protected legally from electronic harrassment? I myself plead ignorance, I freely admit that I don't know if someone who lives in rhode island has legal protections from electronic harassment from somebody who lives 5 miles away across the border in connecticut.

Explain, how is electronic harassment actually harassment? Is there some strange technique to avoid spam filtering that I don't know about? Is there also a way to prevent someone from just deleting or ignoring a message? Tell me, because from what I know all you have to do is set your email system to filter an address as spam and it never shows up in your inbox again, I also have it on good authority you can delete anything you want in your email and that you don't have to read everything sent to you.

I don't see why people should be able to use the anonymity of the interwebs, to do things they would never be allowed to do in person, by telephone, or by the postal servcie.

If some whacked out ex boyfriend harasses his ex girlfriend 50 times a day by phone, with gratuitous or violent threats, what's the difference between that and electronic communication?

There isn't, and the phone calls can only be used as evidence, they are not the crime, just as email and any other messages can be used as evidence. You are putting the cart before the horse here. The methods of harassment are not what is being prosecuted, it's the harassment. Messages and calls are all just evidence. You are trying to make the internet different, but it's not as different, nor is anyone truly anonymous. Everything you send across it is tracked, mostly by your ISP, but even if they didn't there are ways to track it through legal channels. Many small claims cases are decided because of email evidence these days, just flip on the TV and watch the court shows. To quote one of my favorite judges "never assume you are anonymous when sending a message in any form, there is always a trail to follow." In reality snail mail is far less traceable and less admissible in court now.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wow! Just had a flashback to when they were trying to claim TV made kids more violent.

 

[manifold]

Just another example of the pussification of a generation.

 

[KittenKoder]

Just another example of the pussification of a generation.

At this point I have to agree with that assertion.

 

[DiveCon]

No offense, Kitten, but that is one of your more retarded statements.

I don't know, I thought the part about sticks/stones was pretty damn stupid, too. The fact of the matter is that using the internet to promulgate false and malicious information about vulnerable minors should be punishable by more than slander/libel laws.

face it, the internet is FILLED with FAKE pages that have no resemblance to the truth

the sooner people learn that the better off everyone will be

 

[eots]

No offense, Kitten, but that is one of your more retarded statements.

I don't know, I thought the part about sticks/stones was pretty damn stupid, too. The fact of the matter is that using the internet to promulgate false and malicious information about vulnerable minors should be punishable by more than slander/libel laws.

face it, the internet is FILLED with FAKE pages that have no resemblance to the truth

the sooner people learn that the better off everyone will be

and those with any common sense and those that understand the difference between editorial opinion and direct quotes.. can tell a legitimate web site form a bogus one


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[DiveCon]

Just another example of the pussification of a generation.

At this point I have to agree with that assertion.

Mani has made some very good points on this thread

 

[DiveCon]

I don't know, I thought the part about sticks/stones was pretty damn stupid, too. The fact of the matter is that using the internet to promulgate false and malicious information about vulnerable minors should be punishable by more than slander/libel laws.

face it, the internet is FILLED with FAKE pages that have no resemblance to the truth

the sooner people learn that the better off everyone will be

and those with any common sense and those that understand the difference between editorial opinion and direct quotes.. can tell a legitimate web site form a bogus one


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

ROFLMAO
right on cue


and thanks for making my point even more relevant

 

[eots]

face it, the internet is FILLED with FAKE pages that have no resemblance to the truth

the sooner people learn that the better off everyone will be

and those with any common sense and those that understand the difference between editorial opinion and direct quotes.. can tell a legitimate web site form a bogus one


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

ROFLMAO
right on cue


and thanks for making my point even more relevant

you must mean the one on the top of your head...the head that does not believe slander laws exsist on the Internet and direct quotes images and likeness of top level U.s military can freely be used ..direct quotes attributed to them and donations collected in their name for years unabated by anyone or any law....you mean that point ?

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[Ravi]

Just another example of the pussification of a generation.

At this point I have to agree with that assertion.

Mani has made some very good points on this thread

Really? I must have missed them.

 

[manifold]

At this point I have to agree with that assertion.

Mani has made some very good points on this thread

Really? I must have missed them.

What else is new?

 

[DiveCon]

Mani has made some very good points on this thread

Really? I must have missed them.

What else is new?

damn, you beat me to it

 

[oreo]

There goes freedom of speech. "hostile speech" can be defined a million different ways. What--in the future do we all get arrested for disagreeing with our incompetent government? If you don't want to see the hostile speech--don't look at it. GEEZ!

 

[Gunny]

There goes freedom of speech. "hostile speech" can be defined a million different ways. What--in the future do we all get arrested for disagreeing with our incompetent government? If you don't want to see the hostile speech--don't look at it. GEEZ!

Is this a question? Democrats are in control. YO uonly have freedom of speech if it agrees with their leftist worldview. Look fof legislation to silence their opposition.

The American people fucked up giving Democrats this much power and we will pay for it.

 

[DiveCon]

There goes freedom of speech. "hostile speech" can be defined a million different ways. What--in the future do we all get arrested for disagreeing with our incompetent government? If you don't want to see the hostile speech--don't look at it. GEEZ!

Is this a question? Democrats are in control. YO uonly have freedom of speech if it agrees with their leftist worldview. Look fof legislation to silence their opposition.

The American people fucked up giving Democrats this much power and we will pay for it.

it can change in 2010

 

[Ravi]

You all should join the ACLU and support their fight against this legislation and many others under the FCC's umbrella.

btw, I still fail to see how anyone's first amendment rights are being violated by making it a crime to bully someone on the internet. Since when are you granted the right to bully?

 

[KittenKoder]

You all should join the ACLU and support their fight against this legislation and many others under the FCC's umbrella.

btw, I still fail to see how anyone's first amendment rights are being violated by making it a crime to bully someone on the internet. Since when are you granted the right to bully?

Twos things:

Where would the line be drawn?

... and ...

How does it protect anyone?

 

[Immanuel]

You all should join the ACLU and support their fight against this legislation and many others under the FCC's umbrella.

btw, I still fail to see how anyone's first amendment rights are being violated by making it a crime to bully someone on the internet. Since when are you granted the right to bully?

Sorry, not interested in joining the ACLU even if they do some good things. Joining something like that only means giving them money every time they ask and endless phone calls (most of which don't get answered thanks to Caller Id) from them asking for more money.

As for making it a crime to bully someone on the internet, come on. Harassment of anyone is already a crime. Why do we need another non-prosecutable law on the books just to make people happy? That would be like passing a law making it illegal to drive a car while being high on Marijuana. First, being high on Marijuana is already a crime. Second, driving under the influence of any controlled substance is already a crime. Why make it a crime to commit two crimes?

Immie

 

[Ravi]

You all should join the ACLU and support their fight against this legislation and many others under the FCC's umbrella.

btw, I still fail to see how anyone's first amendment rights are being violated by making it a crime to bully someone on the internet. Since when are you granted the right to bully?

Sorry, not interested in joining the ACLU even if they do some good things. Joining something like that only means giving them money every time they ask and endless phone calls (most of which don't get answered thanks to Caller Id) from them asking for more money.

As for making it a crime to bully someone on the internet, come on. Harassment of anyone is already a crime. Why do we need another non-prosecutable law on the books just to make people happy? That would be like passing a law making it illegal to drive a car while being high on Marijuana. First, being high on Marijuana is already a crime. Second, driving under the influence of any controlled substance is already a crime. Why make it a crime to commit two crimes?

Immie

As I stated up the thread, I think this is a silly law. But I fail to understand the mass hysteria over it...it violates no one's first amendment rights as far as I can tell.