02-06-2012, 10:06 AM
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.
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.