Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Brat Camp
SAY HELLO TO OUR STRUGGLING TEENS TROLL
Anonymous:
"You really don't know who you are messing with, do you? I don't know about the other posters here, but I'd love to take you on. You see, I no longer have anything else to lose. Do you?"
Several posts back someone directed this statement to Karen....
Gee, I wonder if someone said that to me, would I take it as threatening?? Would most people? Would it be a "threat" under the law due to its implications---which go to intent just like words do? I ask the questions---leave it to you to mull over the answers.
Troll Control:
--- Quote ---On 2005-08-03 12:59:00, Anonymous wrote:
"In that last re-post of Karen Austins' info you knew enough to have xxx'ed out part of the phone number---that shows you are learning that you can't go around transmitting other people's info falsely.
Listen, it doesn't make any difference if there are lots of question marks or the way the original anon poster tried to be clever in how it was phrased: this, in the law, is just trying to "veil" his intent.
Any reasonable person on a jury who saw that post would conclude that the anon's intent (which is what matters here) was to make angry people call that number: hence he would be screwed because he was taking action to bring harassment to an innocent person.
"
--- End quote ---
You people are tripping. I can tell you, from first-hand knowledge, that a case like this will never be brought by a prosecutor.
I've been stalked and harassed DIRECTLY. I've had emails sent to me containing death threats. I've had my personal information put out on the web, even on sites maintained by the perpetrator.
The newest and latest laws simply don't cover this kind of behavior, and likely won't in the future. Also, the burden of proof is so high that you just won't make a case.
I'm an information technologist and when I thought I REALLY HAD THE GOODS, including IP addresses and MAC adresses, along with ISP trace logs, it took the DA about 30 seconds to tell me to forget about about it. I've been pursuing the case for OVER TWO YEARS and haven't yet gotten any resolution.
New laws regarding the tort side of things have been RELAXED, not strengthened. One's first amendment right allows them to post their thoughts about anyone, good, bad or ugly. As long as it's just their opinion, you have no recourse. Just have a look at what's posted all over the net about George Bush, the most powerful man on earth. There's not been even a single case brought, much less won.
Aside form those facts, I believe this website is hosted in Canada. Good luck getting an international subpeona honored for what, at the VERY BEST, would be a class E misdemeanor, and damn near impossible to prove to boot.
In addition, if the offensive poster doesn't live in your state, then you have no recourse whatsoever at the state level.
You say that if "angry" callers contacted the person whose number was posted that the poster would be on the hook for "harassment." That's not true. It could only be considered "aggravated harassment" if and ONLY IF the person who was called had reasonable fear for his or her PHYSICAL SAFETY. No jury will ever hear this case anyway, so even that's moot.
Ask yourself this: What federal prosecutor is going to try an interstate/international case of what amounts to a pissing contest?
Your name and phone number are listed in the directory and that's public domain. Any information you revealed about your particulars on the internet, intentionally or not, is also public domain.
Please, give it a rest. You're not going to sue anyone. The cops aren't going to arrest anyone. You're just a blowhard who feels like you can push people around with "legalese."
It makes you feel weak that you were so thoroughly obliterated by an "angry teen" that you've gone into la-la land looking simply to control the dialogue. Good luck with that...
Anonymous:
What part of THIS IS NOT KAREN don't you get?
Troll Control:
Ok, so you're not Karen. You're a Karen-like troll. Who cares?
The argument is the same. What do you have to say about the principle, dummy? Your ARGUMENT DOESN'T HOLD WATER whoever you are. :roll:
Anonymous:
You seem to still think I'm Karen,---"obliterated by an angry teenager" as you put it. I am not Karen:though in point of fact I don't see why you think she's been obliterated by anyone---somebody pointed out that she posted here as well as at another site---oh well---it's hardly obliteration---in my books at least. Maybe I'm missing some nuance but that would be my view of it anyway
I happen, for reasons of my own employment, to be at the computer terminal a lot today, and because I watch this site sometimes, I thought I'd give my opinion on this very rude and intrusive thing that was done in posting the information of that poor woman whose name resembled the "Karen" that you folks are currently demonizing on this thread.
Dysfunction, you may be a nice enough person, but I don't think you know the law.
Of course, I'm not personally going to sue anyone as you state in your post---nothing's been done to me.
I am guessing that it upsets you if people here consider the possiblity that there are legal consequences to their actions here---perhaps that comes from your working in the information industry and seeing the law increasingly regulate you.
You say: look at what's posted about George Bush: good lord man, I know personally of a situation in which someone posted that they would like to (not that they would, but that they would like to) kill George Bush and the secret service were at that person's home in less than twelve hours.
That doesn't mean that everyone who says dangerous threatening things is going to get whacked. It's going to depend on the circumstances, where it happened, your own personal clout in terms of political/legal/law enforcement contacts. But you are making it way too simple in the way that you say the law is now. It's not that simple, it's a vast frontier of possible applications in many different federal/state juristicions.
As for foreign law, I don't know about Canada, but internet law--in terms of behavior, threats, etc--is even stricter in some countries than here---in the UK for example, existing laws are flexible enough to emcompass on-line stalking and email harrassment. In the UK, the Telecommunications Act of 1984, section 43, for example, makes it an offence to send by means of a "telecommunications systems" (which as defined includes computers) a message or other matter that is "grossly offensive or is of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character".
So I don't know about Canada---but your blanket statement about international law does suggest to me that you are getting outside of your area of expertise.
I repeat: if I were this poor woman and if I had been harrassed, I would go to a lawyer (not an IT type) and find out my rights and exercise them. Maybe bringing to the attention of certain members of the House in Washington who have an interest in a test case if necessary, just to be sure that I had that clout that always helps.
Sorry you were not able to get the courts to attend to your own stalking situation---don't know the details or where it happened of course, hope you can raise the heat on that DA (go to the right congressman, whatever) you may still be able to pull if off if you obtain good, I mean really expert, legal advice in this very new area of the law.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version