Posted on 10/16/2009 9:58:23 AM PDT by TChris
SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- Somerset Police arrested a 16-year-old girl on charges of online harassment. She was arrested under a new law that took effect September 1.
The new Texas law criminalizes online harassment on social networking sites and through e-mail or text messaging. H.B. 2003 states a person commits a third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person.
(Emphasis added)
(Excerpt) Read more at khou.com ...
"Intimidating" or "threatening" someone (whatever you want THOSE to mean) online is a FELONY!!??
Is FR a social site?
Whoa what?
This does not bode well for the occasional throw-downs that occur on this forum.
>>> the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person <<<<
Good. No Texas Freepers can tell me to “Go to hell!” anymore.
~~Ayn Rand
How is “intent to harm” defined? This could be a first amendment issue.
Just end ever post with XOXOXO
[[”Intimidating” or “threatening” someone (whatever you want THOSE to mean) online is a FELONY!!??]]
It’s only a felony for the little people- those in the govenrment can ‘threaten and intimidate’ people by threatening them with imprisonment for excersizing hteir RIGHT to FREE SPEECH
[[It’s a crime to hurt some body’s perceived feelings.]]
Yep- the govenrment has thrown out the constitution which is supposed to protect our RIGHTS and is now in the business of makign sure noone gets their precious little feelings hurt- I hope the teen that was arrested sues the crap out of the government for VIOLATING her RIGHTS
What the heck did she say? Was she “cyber-bullying” anyone??
You’re right. It’s alright for the White House to threaten and intimidate the CEOs of AIG and Bank of America, it’s alright for them to invalidate employment and bonus contracts, it’s alright to bus thugs from the city to surround the houses of AIG executives, but it’s not alright for little people to say “f-off” to anybody.
H.B. No. 2003
AN ACT
relating to the creation of the offense of online harassment.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 33, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 33.07 to read as follows:
Sec. 33.07. ONLINE HARASSMENT. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person uses the name or persona of another person to
create a web page on or to post one or more messages on a commercial
social networking site:
(1) without obtaining the other person’s consent; and
(2) with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or
threaten any person.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person sends an
electronic mail, instant message, text message, or similar
communication that references a name, domain address, phone number,
or other item of identifying information belonging to any person:
(1) without obtaining the other person’s consent;
(2) with the intent to cause a recipient of the
communication to reasonably believe that the other person
authorized or transmitted the communication; and
(3) with the intent to harm or defraud any person.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a) is a felony of the third
degree. An offense under Subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor,
except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the actor
commits the offense with the intent to solicit a response by
emergency personnel.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor
may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor is any of the following entities or that the actor’s
conduct consisted solely of action taken as an employee of any of
the following entities:
(1) a commercial social networking site;
(2) an Internet service provider;
(3) an interactive computer service, as defined by 47
U.S.C. Section 230;
(4) a telecommunications provider, as defined by
Section 51.002, Utilities Code; or
(5) a video service provider or cable service
provider, as defined by Section 66.002, Utilities Code.
(f) In this section:
(1) “Commercial social networking site” means any
business, organization, or other similar entity operating a website
that permits persons to become registered users for the purpose of
establishing personal relationships with other users through
direct or real-time communication with other users or the creation
of web pages or profiles available to the public or to other users.
The term does not include an electronic mail program or a message
board program.
(2) “Identifying information” has the meaning
assigned by Section 32.51.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2009.
When it comes to “threats” I was kicked off a “non-partisan” message board for the following statement.
In effect it was something along the lines of, “You don’t seem to realize, the anger out there isn’t just a protest. It’s a potential revolution complete with hanging elected officials from lamp posts for tyranny.” in regards to the Town Hall Meetings of August.
Most likely it could be considered that way depending on the judge.
I should hope so.
ping
Online harassment is a form of stalking someone using the Internet to do it. Usually is involves a long and sustained campaign of bullying which causes emotional distress in the bullied and even sets them up to be harmed (i.e. posting ads with pictures of the victim soliciting sex). There is no getting away from the bully by simply switching schools.
I believe in free speech rights, but not when people abuse those rights and call it "a prank." It's not and the law is specific about intent.
A friend of mine was targeted by her vindictive ex who used online harassment tactics. He was never charged, but his actions (putting photoshopped pictures of her on someone else's nude body and posting them) caused her to lose her job. This is a grown woman who had to deal with this, I couldn't imagine what it would be like to be a teenager in high school having someone hell-bent on making me a cyberslut.
The American way to solve personal problems is the personal approach.
Put them is a proverbial ring and get it over with.
This is also a moderated site, so anything the moderators deem unsuitable gets zapped.
Not to worry about the troll question: the intent is to point, laufgh, and humiliate the troll; not to intimidate, threaten, harm, or defraud them.
At least that will be my lawyer’s line of defense. *<];-^)
[Just end ever post with XOXOXO]
Or, for us Texans, we just start every post with “Bless his little heart, but.....”
The odds that this law is remotely Constitutional are about ZERO.
Here's the key missing part, thanks to Kolb in 18: "A person commits an offense if the person uses the name or persona of another person..."
That's a whole different issue! As far as I know, the Constitution doesn't protect the right to PRETEND TO BE SOME ELSE IN ORDER TO HARM THEM!
OK, on to the next topic...
Playing devil’s advocate liberal lawyer who wanted to take down FR on a case like this, I would argue that FR is different from just a message board because:
1. Each user can set up a personal profile page.
2. Users can interact personally with other users through ‘ping lists’ and state boards.
3. Users interact socially, not just from messages but through events like conventions, tea parties, etc.
4. Users are given profile tools like mailboxes, link lists, etc.
5. Users essential join groups with ping lists.
6. Users can customize the view for the topics and items they wish to see.
All these items make FR more than just a place you post messages, it is, by most definitions, a social networking website. One could say we were one of the first of the kind.
“Pranking” is only valid if you give it reasonable possibility. So, if she lost her job over this, then she has a very good lawsuit on her hands!
Since it can be proven that she did not post these, then her old company overstepped their bounds and let her personal life reflect upon her professional life. THAT is illegal! Is it hurtful, yes.
BUT, when you get into “intent” it leaves too large an opening for abuse. Like RICO laws. The problem with RICO is that is has been used to prosecute people for their “intent” even though there was no other evidence other than the fact that this group of crooks all knew each other. Now, am I glad that bad people are off the streets, YES - but I am not willing to forgo my principles of fairness and justice.
Especially when you have groups like ACORN that are OBVIOUSLY violating RICO laws, and nothing happens!
THAT is what scares me and many others when laws like this are written. Again, it isn’t their intent, it’s the negative results that bother us!
Remember in Hustler vx=s. Falwell, the Supreme Court ruled in the past that pranks and satire, which although can be hurtful, is still protected speech, because there is reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the claim.
It is a VERY thin line.
Although that's a slam dunk, Ohio and California run a close second.
BUAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha!!!!
This is about using a legal tool (in this case, the Internet) to run someone down--specifically to cause harm to their name, reputation, employment or job prospects or encourage other people to do them physical harm. Since it's illegal to literally run someone down using your car, it's just as illegal to use the Internet to do it.
You’re right. But what you’re looking at is “selective enforcement” of the law (in this case RICO) and yes that is worrisome, but it comes down to whoever is in office and their causes, doesn’t it? That does not mean the law itself is bad...it’s the abuse of it from people with their own agenda, whatever that might be.
[Read the statute.]
Again, how the statute is written, or how it reads is seldom the problem.
However, how the statute is APPLIED that creates problems.
For your comfort, ALL laws are selectively enforced. All of them. When a survivor gets justice these days, it’s an event, not the norm.
It's a shame that legislation like this is necessary at all because of the depraved actions of vindictive, nasty rotten people who get a power rush ruining somebody without consequences.
So we should just give up? We should open the door for more abuse?
Quick question: do you like the new “no texting while driving” laws that many states are implementing?
Doesn't apply. The Admin moderator removes those comments, or blocks the thread.
Who's doing the texting? The driver or the passenger? I don't know what is more idiotic....people doing stupid things or the laws being written to stop them.
It is anti-texting laws for drivers.
You’re forgetting that driving itself is a privilege and not a right, unlike free speech.
Please stop avoiding the question. It is a simply question: do you think new laws should be written that specifically address and specify “no texting while operating a motor vehicle”?
Unfortunately laws are written to mandate common sense. There must have been fatalities in order for this law to be written.
My neighbor got in a serious accident over the summer because the teenage driver was texting his friend and dropped his phone. When he picked it up to retrieve it he ran head-on into my neighbor's car. He is the father of six children and was nearly killed.
I don't think you'd want that happening to you, and if someone was idiot enough to be texting his friend instead of focusing on the road, you'd have his head yourself, guaranteed.
It's shame that laws like this have to be written because people have no common sense and think they can just do what they want when they want with no sense of accountability at all.
Yes. Unless the driver has four arms.
“Yes. Unless the driver has four arms.”
And an extra set of eyes.
You see, there is good intent to writing these laws, but there is no need to write them most of the time! Just like the “cyber stalking” laws. They are not worth the paper they are written upon, because it is already AGAINST the law to slander and libel and stalk people.
It is against the law to “unsafely operate” a motor vehicle. THIS is a vague law; however, it is rarely used. Would that law not suffice in the “texting while driving” argument? Writing laws like this actually “water-down” the other laws on the books.
Used to it was against the law to kill someone. Then someone said, we need harsher punishment for someone killing with a gun. So, they open the door for someone to argue that it doesn’t say not to use a knife and other stupid arguments.
You want things spelled out in exacting details (not vague), but that creates MORE problems than it fixes! For example, let’s add more years to a murderers sentence because a prosecutor thinks he hates the victim. I figure if he killed him, he probably hated him (at least at that moment)!
Writing laws on top of laws does not correct the problems! Enforcing the laws and ensuring the laws are applied is the problem. The American people have fallen down in their civil duties to care about their community, city, state and country. This failure to connect has led to the election of a Marxist through democratic means! If we don’t wake up and start applying COMMON SENSE (the first rule of law), then we will continue to backslide down the rocky road we currently find our bare-butts bumping!
It did just happen to me! My two youngest daughters were riding to school at the beginning of this school year on the school bus, when the driver in the truck following was busy texting. She ran into the back of the bus sending both my daughters to the ER via ambulance, as well as six other students!
I did not call my state rep and ask for a law to be written, I spoke with the seven cops and three ambulance crews and demanded that the driver be given tickets for unsafe operation in a school zone! And she was given three tickets that day (including unsafe operation of a motor vehicle)!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.