OT E-Trolling

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Joe, Jan 10, 2006.

  1. Joe

    Joe Guest

    Tags:


  2. BJ in Texas

    BJ in Texas Guest

    Joe <[email protected]> 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
     
  3. BJ in Texas wrote:
    > 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.

    > 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.

    > 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.
     
  4. Hannah Gruen

    Hannah Gruen Guest

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

    > 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
     
Loading...