+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Puna Politics (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Thread: Proposed bills re cyber-harassment & impersonation (/showthread.php?tid=9825)
Proposed bills re cyber-harassment & impersonation - Guest - 01-26-2012
Report Title:
Harassment; Electronic Communications
Description:
Provides that the making of an electronic communication, as defined in section 711-1111(2), Hawaii Revised Statutes, that is directed at a specific person and causes that person emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose, together with the required specific intent, is harassment.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2012/Bills/
SB2104 Harassment
SECTION 1. Section 711-1106,Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by amending subsection (1) to read as follows:
"(1) A person commits the offense of harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm any other person, that person:
© (existing statute covering cyber-harassment)
Repeatedly makes telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, or any form of electronic communication as defined in section 711-1111(2), including electronic mail transmissions, without purpose of legitimate communication.
Proposed addition:
(g) Makes any form of electronic communication, as defined in section 711-1111(2), including electronic mail transmissions, that is directed at a specific person and causes emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose."
There is also a cyber-related proposed bill in the House:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2012/Bills/HB1709_.PDF
HB1709
Report Title: Aggravated Harassment by Impersonation
Description: Creates a new class C felony offense, aggravated harassment by impersonation. Clarifies that Òelectronic communication,Ó when used to commit the offense of harassment by impersonation, includes: online chat, instant messaging, and postings; web pages; and social networking web sites.
"Electronic communicationÓ has the same meaning as defined
in section 711Ñ1111(2) and includes: online chat, instant 10 messaging, and postings; web pages; and social networking web
sites."
RE: Proposed bills re cyber-harassment & impersonation - missydog1 - 01-29-2012
I forgot to link the correct pages for the measures:
SB2104--Harassment
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2104
HTML version of the proposed bill:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2012/bills/SB2104_.htm
HB1709 -- Cyber Impersonation
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1709
SB237 from 2011 session, held over:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=237
BILL SB237'S amended form makes it clear that "electronic communication" as defined by the harassment statutes covers the Internet. The existing definition may have been meant to include the internet, but it's not specific as to its intent.
"Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system[.], including the Internet, cell phone, personal digital assistance device, or any wireless hand-held device. (bold text is to be added)
RE: Proposed bills re cyber-harassment & impersonation - missydog1 - 01-29-2012
A little about the wording of this bill:
I was honored last fall to be asked to review the cyber-harassment statutes of other states and give input on how to make Hawai'i's statute more effective. In the process, I was involved in quite a bit of discussion with those who have crafted the bill.
Re the First Amendment and Cyber-Harassment laws:
The phrase "serves no legitimate purpose" is one that a number of states have adopted. This is the phrase that assures that speech protected by the First Amendment is still protected. A discussion of issues and opinions that is First Amendment protected serves a "legitimate purpose" in our society. This bill does not strike at First Amendment rights.
The First Amendment does not protect speech that is used to attack specific persons rather than attacking ideas. For example, people are free to say they disapprove of a gay and lesbian lifestyle, but when they attack someone specific for having such a lifestyle, in a hateful distressing manner, and cause harm to someone specific in the process, that is where it crosses over into unprotected hate speech.
Defamation (libel, slander) is also not protected speech except for certain higher bars applied with public figures, but defamation is a civil offense, whereas the deliberate causation of emotional distress can be both a civil tort and criminal offense.
In most states, emotional distress must meet the reasonable person standard. There is already a Hawai'i statute that applies to a course of conduct that causes emotional distress: ¤604-10.5 Power to enjoin and temporarily restrain harassment, subsection 2:
(2) An intentional or knowing course of conduct directed at an individual that seriously alarms or disturbs consistently or continually bothers the individual and serves no legitimate purpose; provided that such course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress.
This statute includes the "reasonable person" standard. I am not in the know about why that standard doesn't appear in the new proposal for 711-1106. I know that Deputy Prosecutor Mitch Roth originated this bill, and his original proposal was to add the "course of conduct" clause such as is found in 604-10.5 and that of various other states' cyber-legislation.
I personally think this bill could use some refining, and that it should adopt the course of conduct language rather than allowing a single incident to suffice. I intend to submit testimony to that effect.
I think that part of the issue is that 711-1106 deals overall with a single incident, whereas ¤711-1106.5, Harassment by stalking, already deals with repeated offenses:
(1) A person commits the offense of harassment by stalking if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, or in reckless disregard of the risk thereof, that person engages in a course of conduct involving pursuit, surveillance, or nonconsensual contact upon the other person on more than one occasion without legitimate purpose. ...
Act 90, Session Laws 2009, amended subsection (3), clarifying the definition of "nonconsensual contact" to include contact by means of any form of electronic communication. The legislature found that harassing or insulting electronic communications are a form of harassment that can be just as severe or punishing as other verbal communications or offensive contacts. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 1242.
Both of these harassment statutes have already been broadened to include electronic communications as of 2009; however, the specific language has not yet been added as a subsection, rather the clarification re e-communications was left in the commentary to the statutes.
Most of what is proposed here is simply cleaning up and clarifying what was already in Hawai'i law, but not spelled out as it needed to be.
RE: Proposed bills re cyber-harassment & impersonation - mdd7000 - 02-05-2012
Wow. 1/4th of the posters on punaweb would probably be in violation of this at some time.
Does this mean that all of your "friends" who claim that they showed up and took pictures of The Lack while he parked his vehicle, drove down the streets of Pahoa, etc. (legally, I might add) are possibly guilty of non-consensual harassment and stalking?
just waiting.... 4/13/2012
RE: Proposed bills re cyber-harassment & impersonation - missydog1 - 02-06-2012
I guess you are talking to me, mdd, but I'm not sure what you mean by all my "friends" -- and I think you are treading on an area that Rob doesn't want discussed here, which I did not bring up in my posts, kept them to the proposed law, not personal history.
I submitted testimony that the proposed bill lacks a "reasonable person" clause. It should also read "substantial" emotional distress. Most states have a clause in the law that imposes an objective standard, not purely subjective.
It is not exactly new to the legal system to take on the merits of defamation cases and emotional distress cases. There are precedents. Keep in mind that any case is going to be taken in context of existing case law on comparable situations. I don't think anyone has to fear that a minor case of exchanging flames will land them in jail. It's not going to happen.
If you are referring to what I think you are, attending a trial is the right of any citizen and cannot be called stalking. Taking photos of someone violating the law is not stalking either.
I'm sure that a lot of people would like to be able to impose a "no photos" rule while they commit legal infractions. [
]mdd, you don't seem to be factoring in the statutory wording "serves no legitimate purpose." Taking an interest in a public judicial proceeding absolutely serves a legitimate civic purpose. Documenting that someone is abusing a handicapped placard by using one not issued to that person is a legitimate purpose. People trying to get a person driving with a revoked license off our roads serves a legitimate civic purpose.
Depicting a person as a child molester or as condoning child molestation to the larger community, when there is absolutely no truth to the matter, as a way of annoying and humiliating someone who tangled with you on a message board, serves no legitimate purpose.
Engaging a person in discourse about topics of public policy, ideology, and other topics that further debate of ideas in our society -- legitimate purpose.
Calling someone obscenities and tearing them down as a person, for no legitimate reason, that is where the harassment comes in.
If 1/4 of the Punawebbers are indeed behaving that way, it's probably time for them to wake up and rethink the way they use the internet, but I don't see that as the case.
RE: Proposed bills re cyber-harassment & impersonation - missydog1 - 02-06-2012
quote:PS. What is the significance of 4/13/2012?
Originally posted by mdd7000
Wow. 1/4th of the posters on punaweb would probably be in violation of this at some time.
Does this mean that all of your "friends" who claim that they showed up and took pictures of The Lack while he parked his vehicle, drove down the streets of Pahoa, etc. (legally, I might add) are possibly guilty of non-consensual harassment and stalking?
just waiting.... 4/13/2012
RE: Proposed bills re cyber-harassment & impersonation - Morningstar - 02-07-2012
Good for you KathyH I can see from a little experience we need such a bill you go girl!
Morningstar Wolf
RE: Proposed bills re cyber-harassment & impersonation - missydog1 - 02-08-2012
Thanks for the encouragement, Morningstar!
Hundreds of bills are introduced every session, far fewer make into law, but I can hope. The committee is meeting on it today, IIRC.
RE: Proposed bills re cyber-harassment & impersonation - missydog1 - 02-10-2012
Big Island Chronicle post on supporting the bill, by Tiffany Edwards Hunt, with a copy of her letter of support:
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2012/02/10/politics-support-cyberharassment-legislation/
Decision-making is now Monday the 13th, and Tiffany's post urges people to write to Carol Fukunaga, Committee Chair senfukunaga@capitol.hawaii.gov
and to c.c. the legislators who introduced the bill:
sengreen@capitol.hawaii.gov
senespero@capitol.hawaii.gov
senchunoakland@capitol.hawaii.gov
senihara@capitol.hawaii.gov
[
]RE: Proposed bills re cyber-harassment & impersonation - Guest - 02-10-2012
Its unfortunate that you think getting the government involved in the internet is going to help anything. You think people would have learned after the SOPA debacle. This is the type of thing that really angers people. Very stupid to associate yourself with internet regulation.
“Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.”
-Ron Paul