Posted on 10/16/2009 9:58:23 AM PDT by TChris
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?
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.