OT E-Trolling

Joe <[email hidden]> wrote:
|| Check out this link.
||
|| http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6024695.html
||
||

Doesn't effect Usenet trolling or anonymos posting. I pertains
to one individual sending another a harassing email anonymously.
It is an extension of an existing telephone law that has been in
effect for quite a while covering anonymous harassing telephone
calls. The idiot,Declan McCullagh , that wrote the article that
everyone is so fond of citing pulled one section of a law out of
context and misrepresented it. Obviously a journalist, NOT.

BJ

--
"I intend to live forever - so far, so good." -- Steven Wright

BJ in Texas said:

Joe wrote:

|| Check out this link.
|| http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6024695.html

It is widely discussed in several newsgroups. news.groups
which is about running UseNet servers has an extensive
and detailed discussions. And some groups that have
trolls that leave Chung and JC in the dust have extensive
discussions. If Chung is the worst troll you've seen
consider yourself luckily sheltered, and JC doesn't even
get unanymous agreement that he's a troll.

Quoted message said:

Doesn't effect Usenet trolling or anonymos posting. I pertains
to one individual sending another a harassing email anonymously.

Maybe. At least trolling an entire group would not be caught
in this law as far as I can tell. On ASDLC the two worst liked
posters are Chung and JC. Neither of them run extended
campaigns attacking individuals. Other newsgroups do have
people who do exactly that. Heck, there's even a newsgroup
about abuse of UseNet groups that have people who run
extended campaigns attacking individuals who are trolls (or
who run servers that host trolls or various other indirect
associations).

Also note that a one-off driveby by someone trashing Dr Atkins
wont qualify since Dr A is dead. Those ones where a troll
posts disruptive messages one each to hundreds of newsgroups
and each one is a cross-post to some attacked group, since
the troll is never around long enough to attack a specific person
they won't qualify either.

It has to be personal, and it even has to be personal against
a specific person within the US. An anonymous personal
attack that spends years calling a New Zealander a criminal
won't trigger the law. And I've seen exactly that happen
elsewhere on UseNet.

What this law appears to do is take a civil case of slander or
libel, and make it criminal if the harasser uses anonymous
accounts. Or something like that sense harassment has long
been a criminal offense.

Quoted message said:

It is an extension of an existing telephone law that has been in
effect for quite a while covering anonymous harassing telephone
calls. The idiot,Declan McCullagh , that wrote the article that
everyone is so fond of citing pulled one section of a law out of
context and misrepresented it. Obviously a journalist, NOT.

It comes from a telephone harrassment law that's older than
Caller-ID. Farther back than that it looks like it started as a
harrassment law dealing with domestic abuse. Now it is being
extended to on-line. IF it doesn't get over turned and IF anyone
is ever sucessfully prosecuted over it. Those are two huge
if's.

"Doug Freyburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What this law appears to do is take a civil case of slander or
libel, and make it criminal if the harasser uses anonymous
accounts. Or something like that sense harassment has long
been a criminal offense.

Well, you generally need to do something a lot more onerous than "annoying"
someone to make a slander or libel suit. And you do need to demonstrate
actual damages for any kind of defamation. The language that was quoted
seemed to criminalize behavior that would not normally make someone liable
at civil law, or subject to criminal prosecution if it were done via phone.
First Amendment freedom of speech rights should be a good defense, though.

HG