Bill would turn internet flamers into felons

[tyler811]

A little-noticed bill re-introduced in Congress last month would make the use of popular electronic communications a felony if ?the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.?

Given the free-wheeling exchanges that characterize everything from SMS text messages and instant messaging, to blogs and Web site comments, the broadly written bill potentially could turn a lot of flamers and bloggers into felons. If convicted, they would face fines (no amounts given) and prison sentences up to two years.

Text

 

[Lonyo]

If they are going to make it illegal on the internet, surely they should make it illegal in the real world as well?

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: tyler811

A little-noticed bill re-introduced in Congress last month would make the use of popular electronic communications a felony if ?the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.?

Given the free-wheeling exchanges that characterize everything from SMS text messages and instant messaging, to blogs and Web site comments, the broadly written bill potentially could turn a lot of flamers and bloggers into felons. If convicted, they would face fines (no amounts given) and prison sentences up to two years.

Text

Your post about this law causes me emotional distress.

You're going to jail because of this

 

[nakedfrog]

First Amendment to no longer apply to electronic messages! Get it while it's hot!

 

[Newbian]

Time to sue anandtech for getting picked on.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: tyler811

A little-noticed bill re-introduced in Congress last month would make the use of popular electronic communications a felony if ?the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.?

Given the free-wheeling exchanges that characterize everything from SMS text messages and instant messaging, to blogs and Web site comments, the broadly written bill potentially could turn a lot of flamers and bloggers into felons. If convicted, they would face fines (no amounts given) and prison sentences up to two years.

Text

Your post about this law causes me emotional distress.

You're going to jail because of this

You stuck your tongue out! Emotional Distress!!!!

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: tyler811

A little-noticed bill re-introduced in Congress last month would make the use of popular electronic communications a felony if ?the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.?

Given the free-wheeling exchanges that characterize everything from SMS text messages and instant messaging, to blogs and Web site comments, the broadly written bill potentially could turn a lot of flamers and bloggers into felons. If convicted, they would face fines (no amounts given) and prison sentences up to two years.

Text

Your post about this law causes me emotional distress.

You're going to jail because of this

Yay see this shit will not fly. OBTW My sincere apologizes for upsetting you. Please do not sue me.

 

[Deeko]

Well that seems like a gross abuse of the 1st amendment. There's no way this is upheld.

 

[TallBill]

This post has caused undue distress upon me. You're toast OP.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Well that seems like a gross abuse of the 1st amendment. There's no way this is upheld.

It's an effort to do something about "cyber bullying".

 

[ProfJohn]

I am sure this law is a direct response to the little girl that killed herself after a rivals mom created a fake internet account pretending to be a boy, befriended the girl over the net and then 'broke' up with said girl causing girl to kill herself.

The mom that created the fake account got of without even a slap on the wrist I believe because there are no laws to stop such behavior.

As long as the law is written correctly and only applied in the most egregious of cases then I see nothing wrong with it.

EDIT: read the story and it is indeed in response to the girl who killed herself.

 

[torpid]

Wouldn't the RIAA/MPAA no longer be able to send threatening letters about MP3s and Torrents under this rule?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Deeko
Well that seems like a gross abuse of the 1st amendment. There's no way this is upheld.

It's an effort to do something about "cyber bullying".

And we've already seen how horrible of an idea it is, as evinced by dmcowen wanting to get user personal information from admins so they could be prosecuted.
Can't any existing laws that handle this for phone calls be applied?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

So I can sue Anandtech now because switching to VB is causing me substantial emotional distress?

 

[Modelworks]

The catch is going to be what defines 'substantial'.

Conspiracy laws already cover things like plotting to harm someone over the internet. It just doesn't define harm as emotional distress but physical.

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am sure this law is a direct response to the little girl that killed herself after a rivals mom created a fake internet account pretending to be a boy, befriended the girl over the net and then 'broke' up with said girl causing girl to kill herself.

The mom that created the fake account got of without even a slap on the wrist I believe because there are no laws to stop such behavior.

As long as the law is written correctly and only applied in the most egregious of cases then I see nothing wrong with it.

AHAHAHAHA!!

I take it you have no knowledge of (a) the drafting skills of our statute-writers, and (b) the use of discretion by our law enforcement agencies. I mean, past performance is no guarantee of future results and all, but it sure gives us a pretty good idea.

 

[OCGuy]

I mean...I love you all very much.

 

[Modelworks]

From the law sites

To prove intentional emotional distress, the plaintiff must show: 1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. The definition of outrageous is subjective, but it should be more than mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions. It has been generally defined as conduct which would cause a reasonable person to exclaim "Outrageous!" An example would be falsely informing a person that a close family member had been killed.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Fuck you all.

:Q:Q:Q:Q

1-800-SUE-THEM

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: OCguy
Fuck you all.

:Q:Q:Q:Q

1-800-SUE-THEM

Crap...I better cover my tracks!

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
From the law sites

To prove intentional emotional distress, the plaintiff must show: 1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. The definition of outrageous is subjective, but it should be more than mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions. It has been generally defined as conduct which would cause a reasonable person to exclaim "Outrageous!" An example would be falsely informing a person that a close family member had been killed.

So a reasonable person would not find it outrageous to physically threaten someone?

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Modelworks
From the law sites

To prove intentional emotional distress, the plaintiff must show: 1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. The definition of outrageous is subjective, but it should be more than mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions. It has been generally defined as conduct which would cause a reasonable person to exclaim "Outrageous!" An example would be falsely informing a person that a close family member had been killed.

So a reasonable person would not find it outrageous to physically threaten someone?

Your post just made me (a reasonable person) exclaim "Outrageous!" It produced quite the look from my coworkers.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Modelworks
From the law sites

To prove intentional emotional distress, the plaintiff must show: 1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. The definition of outrageous is subjective, but it should be more than mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions. It has been generally defined as conduct which would cause a reasonable person to exclaim "Outrageous!" An example would be falsely informing a person that a close family member had been killed.

So a reasonable person would not find it outrageous to physically threaten someone?

If you are just telling someone in a forum that if you ever see them in person you would shoot them, you would probably be ok. If you told them you would shoot them, that you had their address and knew where they worked. That is totally different.


Its the intent or malice that makes the difference. If you are flaming someone in a forum just for the hell of it, that would be ok. If you were doing it with the intention of having them go out and kill themselves or others , that is totally different.

I think existing laws are enough though. Conspiracy laws cover it pretty well.

Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Malice is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being. Malice is implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

The girl that killed herself because of the mom and kids that did what they did is clearly a case where there was malice towards the girl and they got off way too easy.

It is like a kid who is bullied every day at school, doesn't know a way out or who to turn to so he kills himself. Should the bully be held responsible ?

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Modelworks
From the law sites

To prove intentional emotional distress, the plaintiff must show: 1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. The definition of outrageous is subjective, but it should be more than mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions. It has been generally defined as conduct which would cause a reasonable person to exclaim "Outrageous!" An example would be falsely informing a person that a close family member had been killed.

So a reasonable person would not find it outrageous to physically threaten someone?

If you are just telling someone in a forum that if you ever see them in person you would shoot them, you would probably be ok. If you told them you would shoot them, that you had their address and knew where they worked. That is totally different.

Aren't they both threats? One may be a believable threat and one isn't, but they seem to be "mere ... threats". Good thing I'm not a lawyer because to me the "mere...threats" part overrides any possibility of a threat being considered subject to this since it is excluded as something that "should" not be considered "outrageous"

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Deeko
Well that seems like a gross abuse of the 1st amendment. There's no way this is upheld.

It's an effort to do something about "cyber bullying".

And we've already seen how horrible of an idea it is, as evinced by dmcowen wanting to get user personal information from admins so they could be prosecuted.
Can't any existing laws that handle this for phone calls be applied?

Yes, and a lawyer pointed out every way that this lady is wrong. It's completely silly that we need to prosecute people because we don't like things they are saying about someone. We have harassment laws for when it does get out of hand.

Who really wants to post in ATOT if you can't say DIAF?