New Trolling law passed

By b mitchell
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mentor

n30w1n

Posted
Posted

I am considering retiring from this thread now... This law sounds like a great baby step to me, towards making the internet a safer place, where John Doe cannot turn into Jill X with the change of a chat program setting. But too many people on this forum are just trying to be funny by pretending they don't understand the reasoning behind this law, with comments like "what if my thread annoys one person but not the other?"

If you honestly don't know the answer to your own question, I pitty you. Mr. Bush has done many a stupid things during his term(s), but this is not one of them. The internet is way too loose, stalking is way too easy, crime is way too unpunishable. A few countries like China and Italy are taking steps towards solving this, by forcing internet cafes to submit logs, by not allowing various chat rooms, etc. Other countries, such as in the Middle East, even block certain news sites around the world. Now blocking news sites (or even porn) is just plain censorship and taking it a step too far, but as far as abuse and exposure to abuse on the internet, something does have to be done.

And unfortunately, since the internet "belongs" to the USA, they will have to be the one to ultimately crack down on it. This law is an indication they intend to do so, at least some day. Too bad Western society is so damn uncontrolled and rabid loose (and thinks that anyone who doesn't is not living in the free world) that they don't understand the greater good behind this law.

Mentor

n30w1n

Posted
Posted

Do you know anything about civil liberty laws? How about basic freedoms?

How about basic responsibilities? How about basic criminal laws? You're not allowed to harass anyone in the real world, you're not allowed to stalk anyone in the real world, or steal merchandice in the real world, or use a fake ID in the real world. Remind me why any of this should be allowed on the internet?

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

The internet is way too loose, stalking is way too easy, crime is way too unpunishable.

We understand that, but this law is too loose, annoying people (without disclosing your personal info) is now an offence, you don't see any problem with that?

Mentor

n30w1n

Posted
Posted

We understand that, but this law is too loose, annoying people (without disclosing your personal info) is now an offence, you don't see any problem with that?

That is a valid point, but this is the first form of any sort of law like this in our society, and I'm sure it did not even receive due attention yet, since it's not an issue the US is focusing on with the more critical things going on. Eventually it will be smoothed out. In the mean time, if you're trying to figure out what is allowed and what isn't, imagine a real world situation. You're up on stage and everyone on this forum is in the audience.

Is launching a personal attack on an audience member an offence? Yes, even if most people find it funny.

Is launching a general attack on "cars," "bees," "the weather" an offence? No, even if one fruit cake has dedicated his life to bees and is offended by it.

Is launching a general attack against a "family value," or a "religious view" an offence? Most likely, yes. Depands on the audience. To put it simply, there are diffrent threshholds to what what is allowed to be said about black crime in KKK meetings vs. Bill Cosby's speeches to university students.

In short, this law wants you to act no different on the internet than you would face to face with a person.

Veteran

Black Hawk

Posted
Posted

Text of the section in the act:

SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) IN GENERAL.?Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications

Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended?

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ??and?? at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the

end and inserting ??; and??; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

??© in the case of subparagraph © of subsection

(a)(1), 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 of

the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).??.

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.?This section and the amendment

made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning

given the term ??telecommunications device?? in section 223(h)(1)

of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date

of the enactment of this section.

SEC. 114. CRIMINAL PROVISION RELATING TO STALKING.

(a) INTERSTATE STALKING.?Section 2261A of title 18, United

States Code, is amended to read as follows:

??? 2261A. Stalking

??Whoever?

??(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within

the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United

States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent

to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent

to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in

the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person

in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury

to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person,

a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115)

of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person;

or

??(2) with the intent?

??(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance

with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause

substantial emotional distress to a person in another State

or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and

territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or

H. R. 3402?29

??(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction,

or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction

of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death

of, or serious bodily injury to?

??(i) that person;

??(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined

in section 115 of that person; or

??(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;

uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any

facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a

course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress

to that person or places that person in reasonable fear

of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the

persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph

(B);

shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.??.

(b) ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR STALKING.?Section 2261(b) of

title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end

the following:

??(6) Whoever commits the crime of stalking in violation

of a temporary or permanent civil or criminal injunction,

restraining order, no-contact order, or other order described

in section 2266 of title 18, United States Code, shall be punished

by imprisonment for not less than 1 year.??.

Grand Master

forster

Posted
Posted

This news report sounds so bogus.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

You're all 'tards :)

Have a nice day (Y)

Grand Master

forster

Posted
Posted

Thanks, but I said it sounded bogus, not that it was.

Still, it's hardly an upholdable law, people aren't going to submit their personal data after slagging someone off, that's what makes the internet so great, its anonymity.

Mentor

leovanham

Posted
Posted

not to start a "USA vs [input country here]" debate... but god damn..

bush has soooo much more to worry about then whether a couple of e-thugs are bullying someone over the internet... there ARE real wars going on.. jesus

You anoy me, in the justice book title 18 i find you guilty of trolling, your sentence to jail a maximum of 2 years!

Mentor

ScottKin

Posted
Posted

Folks - take a moment and read the actual US Code posted previously in the thread - this is a law having to do with Cyberstalking and harrassment with intent to do physical or emotional harm...not Trolling. It's a logical extention to the existing Telecommuncations Laws related to phone harrassment, and IMHO it's long overdue.

If people would just take a few minutes and actually read the article and the section of the new law, most of the "heat-without-light" posts in here would...well...not be here.

:yes:

--ScottKin

edited 01/09/06 11:32am

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.