Regarding internet harrassment

[Anonymous]

Thought you all should know what exactly this bill Bush signed into law , and what is harrassment.


Cases that DO NOT constitute harassment:

Someone who simply disagrees with you, however strongly or unpleasantly.
Someone who sends you a single e-mail that is not blatantly threatening.
Spam, even though it is very annoying.
Messages posted to any open arena, such as newsgroups, message boards, or forums or chat rooms, unless they are forged to appear to have come from you or contain direct threats or libelous statements.
Information posted on a website.
 
Cases that DO constitute harassment:
 
Repeated communication via e-mail or an instant messaging program after the harasser has been clearly told to stop.


Artman seem to be the one that has brought this up and from the looks of it, it could have a 50/50 chance on back firing on Artman for his numerous threats he has made to the reporter and others.

[Anonymous]

Messages posted to any open arena, such as newsgroups, message boards, or forums or chat rooms, unless they are forged to appear to have come from you or contain direct threats or libelous statements.
Information posted on a website
 
I have seen this done to art a number of times.
I'd say he's got em. I have also been here a long time,never has Art done or even talked about any of the things that are written about him. I dont think art is frightened by "fecal boy(s)" He hasnt a reason to be.Good luck !

[Anonymous]

Here we go again with Art agreeing and talking to himself. Such a LOSER!

[Anonymous]

What really is the funny thing here is, Art is spending money and trying to pursue this. Poor artie, he is gonna be led to a false trail of bread crumbs if he even can get past the first step.

[Anonymous]

Do you knwo why all these (I'm taking legal action against you) is bullshit?
Because if someone were to truly take legal action, which by the way is not possible, they wouldn't be telling the other party that they plan on doing so.
To take legal action, truly, you must make sure that the intended defandant do not have any knowledge about it. You want to take them by surprise, and if they did have incriminating evidence, they have no chance of getting rid of it in time.
You people really have gotten to a point where there is nothing more to be used to attack each other. Let's just face it, you can only argue and insult each other for so long, now you are just repeating yourself from threats used months ago.
Time to end it and move on.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-02-21 06:41:00, Anonymous wrote:

To take legal action, truly, you must make sure that the intended defandant do not have any knowledge about it. You want to take them by surprise, and if they did have incriminating evidence, they have no chance of getting rid of it in time.

I don't know where you're getting your information but it's wrong.  The actions I think that are being talked about have already happened.  On an open forum.  The intended defendant couldn't get rid of it if he wanted to.  But, I have no clue whether or not this new law will really mean anything or have be practically enforcable.  Haven't looked into it at all.

You people really have gotten to a point where there is nothing more to be used to attack each other. Let's just face it, you can only argue and insult each other for so long, now you are just repeating yourself from threats used months ago.

Time to end it and move on.

"

I completely agree.  I don't give a shit what the outcome of this pissing contest is.  It's occasionally been entertaining but it's just boring now.

[Anonymous]

I know what this new law is for and its defination. I watched a segment on the news about it.
It is a law to protect people from threatening emails and what not. They talked about people in the past that were receiving threatening emails on a daily basis. I remember this artman person saying that he was receiving threatening emails from Jordan and his father.
Now the next thing is whether or not that any threatening emails can be linked to them. It's a long process to undergo, and also depends on what kind of threats were sent. Death threats however are taken very seriuosly, and can carry dire consquences along with them.
There is a mention of child porn being distributed here also, I guess that the porn was sent through email. I have not seen any porn at this board that depicts children in pornographic situations.
Persoanlly I think that this art person is backed up against a wall and is throwing what ever he can at the people that dislike him.
There are sides being taken against both advisaries and both have legitimate claims.
To sum everything up in a nut shell, both sides threats do not hold water, all this is, is a giant pissing contest that can't seem to end.