Hostile bloggers facing fines, jail?

[Ravi]

You can't torment someone to death you silly person.

Remember, that girl killed herself. It was her CHOICE.

She was a minor, the tormentor was an adult. You don't think people that don't have full citizenship rights should be protected from predators?

Also, you most certainly can torment someone into killing themself.

Even more of a reason to punish the parents for child neglect.

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

 

[catzmeow]

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.

 

[manifold]

For tormenting someone to death? Not.

Also, you most certainly can torment someone into killing themself.

Not exactly the same thing now is it?

She was a minor, the tormentor was an adult. You don't think people that don't have full citizenship rights should be protected from predators?

Define predator.

 

[KittenKoder]

Aah, so then you are proposing that they censor everything.

Wrong. Strawman. I'm proposing that online harassment of people, using their real information, be treated the same way that harassment in the real world is handled.

But, making fun of anonymous stupid people should still be allowed.

Hope that helps to clarify (though I find it odd that you have such difficulty understanding the difference).

No, it still shows no difference. It's still child neglect to not teach kids how to deal with it. Come on, even the writers of South Park know what public schools are good for, social experience, if they don't learn how to deal with these issues when they are young they are fucked when they become adults. Protecting them through censorship has only proven to make matters worse, and again I remind you, give the assholes in the government an inch and they WILL take a mile.

 

[catzmeow]

No, it still shows no difference. It's still child neglect to not teach kids how to deal with it. Come on, even the writers of South Park know what public schools are good for, social experience, if they don't learn how to deal with these issues when they are young they are fucked when they become adults. Protecting them through censorship has only proven to make matters worse, and again I remind you, give the assholes in the government an inch and they WILL take a mile.

I think you're hopelessly naive. Have you actually encountered a myspace or facebook war before? These kids are spreading rumors that a girl fucked an entire football team, or gave a teacher a blowjob. And the rumors are through the entire school within hours. We aren't talking about calling someone fatty McFatterson here. We are talking about harassment that is no less legitimate or serious than the types of harassment that are ALREADY chargeable offenses. Harassment that makes it impossible for a student to continue to attend a particular school.


Get a grip on yourself, here. I get that you have overcome significant personal difficulties, but these activities in many cases transcend simple name-calling.

 

[Ravi]

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.

I think so as well, but I don't see a need for this law. Unless there are no laws covering this type of behavior, and it amazes me that there are not. I know it is a crime to do it through the mail, for instance.

It seems kind of silly that the method of transmission is the crime and not the act itself.

 

[catzmeow]

I think so as well, but I don't see a need for this law. Unless there are no laws covering this type of behavior, and it amazes me that there are not. I know it is a crime to do it through the mail, for instance.

It seems kind of silly that the method of transmission is the crime and not the act itself.

I think it is actually prosecutors who have suggested the need for the law.

 

[KittenKoder]

Explain, why is it different? How are they actually hurting these kids? What "personal" information are they using and how?

What is different between calling someone a dipshit online or offline?

 

[Ravi]

For tormenting someone to death? Not.

Also, you most certainly can torment someone into killing themself.

Not exactly the same thing now is it?

She was a minor, the tormentor was an adult. You don't think people that don't have full citizenship rights should be protected from predators?

Define predator.

Yes, it is the same thing if the tormentor is the causal agent. I don't know a lot about this case but it sounds as if the girl had some personality issues that were pushed over the limit by what this woman did. If the woman had left her alone chances are she'd still be alive and would have worked out her issues. The fact that the girl was a minor and not an adult makes a difference, imo.

Predator - someone that purposely sets out to cause someone debilitating mental, physical, or financial harm.

 

[Ravi]

Kitten, South Park??? Seriously, your world view and philosophy is shaped by South Park?

 

[KittenKoder]

Kitten, South Park??? Seriously, your world view and philosophy is shaped by South Park?

Don't confuse shared with shaped.

 

[Red Dawn]

Is there a current law on the books that protects women and children from electronic stalking, electronic death threats, and repeated electronic sexual harassment?

If there is, I'd like somebody to post it.

If there isn't, I'd say there's a viable reason to have a law like that.

 

[KittenKoder]

So then since you won't point out exactly how it's worse or different, answer this:

When do you expect people to learn how to handle taunting and verbal "offense"?

 

[KittenKoder]

Is there a current law on the books that protects women and children from electronic stalking, electronic death threats, and repeated electronic sexual harassment?

If there is, I'd like somebody to post it.

If there isn't, I'd say there's a viable reason to have a law like that.

They are the same as any other form of those. Electronic evidence is just as admissible in court as written, audio, or video evidence. Actually, it is even more damning than written because of all the trails it leaves.

 

[Red Dawn]

Is there a current law on the books that protects women and children from electronic stalking, electronic death threats, and repeated electronic sexual harassment?

If there is, I'd like somebody to post it.

If there isn't, I'd say there's a viable reason to have a law like that.

They are the same as any other form of those. Electronic evidence is just as admissible in court as written, audio, or video evidence. Actually, it is even more damning than written because of all the trails it leaves.

Yeah, but is there a federal law against electronic harrasment and death threats? States don't have any jurisdication against interstate crimes, and electronic harrassment can cross state jurisdictions.

Can you cite the federal law, that protects children and women from repeated electronic harrassment?

 

[KittenKoder]

Is there a current law on the books that protects women and children from electronic stalking, electronic death threats, and repeated electronic sexual harassment?

If there is, I'd like somebody to post it.

If there isn't, I'd say there's a viable reason to have a law like that.

They are the same as any other form of those. Electronic evidence is just as admissible in court as written, audio, or video evidence. Actually, it is even more damning than written because of all the trails it leaves.

Yeah, but is there a federal law against electronic harrasment and death threats? States don't have any jurisdication against interstate crimes, and electronic harrassment can cross state jurisdictions.

Can you cite the federal law, that protects children and women from repeated electronic harrassment?

Most people are smart enough to just turn off the computer, so does there really need to be any? Unless it's local then there is no real threat.

 

[Philobeado]

Rep. Linda Sanchez, Democrat of California, has proposed a bill that would make it a federal felony to use blogs, text messages, and Internet messaging ("electronic means") to harass someone and cause them "emotional distress." Eugene Volokh pulls these snippets out of H.R. 1966:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both....

["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; ...

["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.


Blogging Could Cause a Two-Year Jail Term? | NewsBusters.org

 

[Red Dawn]

They are the same as any other form of those. Electronic evidence is just as admissible in court as written, audio, or video evidence. Actually, it is even more damning than written because of all the trails it leaves.

Yeah, but is there a federal law against electronic harrasment and death threats? States don't have any jurisdication against interstate crimes, and electronic harrassment can cross state jurisdictions.

Can you cite the federal law, that protects children and women from repeated electronic harrassment?

Most people are smart enough to just turn off the computer, so does there really need to be any? Unless it's local then there is no real threat.

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.

 

[KittenKoder]

Yeah, but is there a federal law against electronic harrasment and death threats? States don't have any jurisdication against interstate crimes, and electronic harrassment can cross state jurisdictions.

Can you cite the federal law, that protects children and women from repeated electronic harrassment?

Most people are smart enough to just turn off the computer, so does there really need to be any? Unless it's local then there is no real threat.

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.

 

[Red Dawn]

Most people are smart enough to just turn off the computer, so does there really need to be any? Unless it's local then there is no real threat.

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?