The definition of "harassment" must meet the criterion that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.(source: Wikipedia)
The current US Federal Anti-Cyber-Stalking law is found at 47 USC sec. 223
This includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 (!1) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).
The term "interactive computer service" has the meaning provided in section 230(f)(2) of this title. makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy,abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
If you use fake names (hide your real identity) and then post harassing blogs on USENET directed toward a certain person, for whatever reason, good, bad, right, wrong, you are in violation of this new cyberstalking statute.
Some that do this kind of stalking and harassment have tried to dismiss this new law - but the experts below clearly disagree with some of the smear merchants from in regards to this issue.
Moreover, harassment, defamation, forgeries, obloquy, false accusations, and establishing different web sites for that purpose is annoying, and such does not represent the "free exchange of ideas and commentary in USENET." The statute is clear = no anonymous posts that harass or annoy.
Moreover, Section_230 of the Communications Decency Act (amended) reads like this:
The smear merchant's claim that anyone can anonymously post harassing,
threatening, or annoying posts on USENET directed at a specific person, and never be held accountable under this statute is beyond ridiculous.
Because anonymous blogging with the intent to annoy or harass is a crime, "common purpose" and "conspiracy" laws could also apply.
Those laws could mean each gang member could be held equally responsible for the acts of the other. I should also mention that violating this criminal statute while infringing on my copyrights cannot possibly be held as "Fair Use" under Title 17.
Where has any court held that committing a crime in conjunction with a
copyright infringement is "Fair Use?" That claim is preposterous.
Some Bottom line opinions in respect to this statute:
1. Don't anonymously harass and annoy people on USENET or anywhere
else, and don't participate with an on-line cabal or gang that does.
2. If you already have demonstrated a pattern of anonymous USENET posts that were intended to harass, annoy or defame someone, and your victim has retained a copy of those posts ( I always do) then you are already in big trouble - you of course can compound your trouble and add counts to your indictment by ignoring this law and continuing your harassment or smear campaign.
YES - some people are *that* stupid! Let's see - two years in jail for each count - is anyone THAT twisted to flaunt these laws and still use anonymous harassment AFTER they learn about these statutes? Of course, ignorance of the
law is not a defense.
3. Make sure you reveal your real name to anyone that you wish to harass, stalk, annoy, or defame. And then get your head examined for doing it. In my opinion the people that intentionally harass, annoy and defame others on USENET are crackpots with child like minds, and need serious medical attention, or a lesson from the courts. Here are some references in that respect that all should read if they are addicted to intentionally harassing, annoying or defaming others on
USENET:
Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., & Ferron, J. M. (2002). Emerging risks
of violence in the digital age: Lessons for educators from an online
study of adolescent girls in the United States. Journal of School
Violence, 1(2), 51-71.
Keith, S. & Martin, M. E. (2005). Cyber-bullying: Creating a Culture
of Respect in a Cyber World. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 13(4),
224-228.
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2007). Cyberbullying: An Exploratory
Analysis of Factors Related to Offending and Victimization. Deviant
Behavior. In Print.
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2007). Offline Consequences of Online
Victimization: School Violence and Delinquency. Journal of School
Violence. In Print.
Patchin, J. & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies Move beyond the Schoolyard:
A Preliminary Look at Cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 4 (2), 148-169.
Tettegah, S. Y. , Betout, D., & Taylor, K. R. (2006). Cyber-bullying
and schools in an electronic era. In S. Tettegah & R. Hunter (Eds.)
Technology and Education: Issues in administration, policy and
appications in k12 school. PP. 17-28. London: Elsevier.
Wolak, J. Mitchell, K.J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization
of youth: 5 years later. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing &
Exploited Children. Available: http://www.unh.edu/ccrc
Ybarra, M. L. & Mitchell, J. K. (2004). Online aggressor/targets,
aggressors and targets: A comparison of associated youth
characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45,
1308-1316.
Ybarra ML (2004). Linkages between depressive symptomatology and
Internet harassment among young regular Internet users. Cyberpsychol
and Behavior. Apr;7(2):247-57.
Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment:
associations with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and
personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence. Jun;27(3):319-36.
Ybarra M, Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D, & Janis Wolak (in press).
Examining characteristics and associated distress related to Internet
harassment: Findings from the Second Youth Internet Safety Survey.
Pediatrics.
Ybarra M, Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D, Janis Wolak (in press). Internet
prevention messages: Are we targeting the right online behaviors?
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
References for Title 47 USC 223 (h) (1) Sec. 113 as amended.
First, 1. go to the text of the legislation and search for Sec. 113.
Note how Sec. 113. amends existing law by changing the definitions in
47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1).
Before the new law took effect last Thursday, 47 U.S.C. 223 explicitly
said it "does not include an interactive computer service." The
changes override that for the "to annoy" section and now say it
applies to the "Internet."
Q: So what does the rewritten law now say?
President Signs New Cyberbullying Law: http://tinyurl.com/8luss
On Thursday, President Bush signed into law a must-pass
see http://tinyurl.com/288yhe
1. A DOJ appropriations bill which contained a little gotcha for the internet. For decades, making anonymous abusive phone calls has been a federal crime, good for up to two years behind bars -- and the term "abusive" has included threats, harassment, and the much weaker "intent to annoy." Now, that telecommunications law has been extended to include the Internet, so when you post an anonymous troll to wind up your least-favorite blogger, you may break the law.
sources:
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam, alt.military, alt.military.retired, alt.politics, alt.news-media
Some that do this kind of stalking and harassment have tried to dismiss this new law - but the experts below clearly disagree with some of the smear merchants from in regards to this issue.
Moreover, harassment, defamation, forgeries, obloquy, false accusations, and establishing different web sites for that purpose is annoying, and such does not represent the "free exchange of ideas and commentary in USENET." The statute is clear = no anonymous posts that harass or annoy.
Moreover, Section_230 of the Communications Decency Act (amended) reads like this:
Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
The smear merchant's claim that anyone can anonymously post harassing,
threatening, or annoying posts on USENET directed at a specific person, and never be held accountable under this statute is beyond ridiculous.
Because anonymous blogging with the intent to annoy or harass is a crime, "common purpose" and "conspiracy" laws could also apply.
Those laws could mean each gang member could be held equally responsible for the acts of the other. I should also mention that violating this criminal statute while infringing on my copyrights cannot possibly be held as "Fair Use" under Title 17.
Where has any court held that committing a crime in conjunction with a
copyright infringement is "Fair Use?" That claim is preposterous.
Rightardia checked out the references on this article and reorganized some of the information. The author, DGVREIMAN, is correct: cyberbullling and cyberstalking is illegal.
Some Bottom line opinions in respect to this statute:
1. Don't anonymously harass and annoy people on USENET or anywhere
else, and don't participate with an on-line cabal or gang that does.
2. If you already have demonstrated a pattern of anonymous USENET posts that were intended to harass, annoy or defame someone, and your victim has retained a copy of those posts ( I always do) then you are already in big trouble - you of course can compound your trouble and add counts to your indictment by ignoring this law and continuing your harassment or smear campaign.
YES - some people are *that* stupid! Let's see - two years in jail for each count - is anyone THAT twisted to flaunt these laws and still use anonymous harassment AFTER they learn about these statutes? Of course, ignorance of the
law is not a defense.
3. Make sure you reveal your real name to anyone that you wish to harass, stalk, annoy, or defame. And then get your head examined for doing it. In my opinion the people that intentionally harass, annoy and defame others on USENET are crackpots with child like minds, and need serious medical attention, or a lesson from the courts. Here are some references in that respect that all should read if they are addicted to intentionally harassing, annoying or defaming others on
USENET:
Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., & Ferron, J. M. (2002). Emerging risks
of violence in the digital age: Lessons for educators from an online
study of adolescent girls in the United States. Journal of School
Violence, 1(2), 51-71.
Keith, S. & Martin, M. E. (2005). Cyber-bullying: Creating a Culture
of Respect in a Cyber World. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 13(4),
224-228.
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2007). Cyberbullying: An Exploratory
Analysis of Factors Related to Offending and Victimization. Deviant
Behavior. In Print.
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2007). Offline Consequences of Online
Victimization: School Violence and Delinquency. Journal of School
Violence. In Print.
Patchin, J. & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies Move beyond the Schoolyard:
A Preliminary Look at Cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 4 (2), 148-169.
Tettegah, S. Y. , Betout, D., & Taylor, K. R. (2006). Cyber-bullying
and schools in an electronic era. In S. Tettegah & R. Hunter (Eds.)
Technology and Education: Issues in administration, policy and
appications in k12 school. PP. 17-28. London: Elsevier.
Wolak, J. Mitchell, K.J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization
of youth: 5 years later. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing &
Exploited Children. Available: http://www.unh.edu/ccrc
Ybarra, M. L. & Mitchell, J. K. (2004). Online aggressor/targets,
aggressors and targets: A comparison of associated youth
characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45,
1308-1316.
Ybarra ML (2004). Linkages between depressive symptomatology and
Internet harassment among young regular Internet users. Cyberpsychol
and Behavior. Apr;7(2):247-57.
Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment:
associations with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and
personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence. Jun;27(3):319-36.
Ybarra M, Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D, & Janis Wolak (in press).
Examining characteristics and associated distress related to Internet
harassment: Findings from the Second Youth Internet Safety Survey.
Pediatrics.
Ybarra M, Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D, Janis Wolak (in press). Internet
prevention messages: Are we targeting the right online behaviors?
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
References for Title 47 USC 223 (h) (1) Sec. 113 as amended.
First, 1. go to the text of the legislation and search for Sec. 113.
Note how Sec. 113. amends existing law by changing the definitions in
47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1).
Before the new law took effect last Thursday, 47 U.S.C. 223 explicitly
said it "does not include an interactive computer service." The
changes override that for the "to annoy" section and now say it
applies to the "Internet."
Q: So what does the rewritten law now say?
The section as amended reads like this: "Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to
annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
President Signs New Cyberbullying Law: http://tinyurl.com/8luss
On Thursday, President Bush signed into law a must-pass
see http://tinyurl.com/288yhe
1. A DOJ appropriations bill which contained a little gotcha for the internet. For decades, making anonymous abusive phone calls has been a federal crime, good for up to two years behind bars -- and the term "abusive" has included threats, harassment, and the much weaker "intent to annoy." Now, that telecommunications law has been extended to include the Internet, so when you post an anonymous troll to wind up your least-favorite blogger, you may break the law.
sources:
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam, alt.military, alt.military.retired, alt.politics, alt.news-media
From: "DGVREIMAN" ...@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 03:20:50 -0700
Local: Thurs, Sep 2 2010 6:20 am
Subject: ANONYMOUS CYBERSTALKING STATUTES
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Acts
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Acts
Netcraft rank: 9157
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment