Freedom of Speech On the Internet Is Under Attack, Again

[Greg Bernhardt]

Two stories I heard on the news in the last 24 hours makes me wonder if I accidentally mistook my Hyundai for a souped up DeLorean and drove it to 88 mph. Why the time machine references? Because two proposed … Continue reading →http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=virtualnavigator.wordpress.com&blog=11498882&post=904&subd=virtualnavigator&ref=&feed=1

Read More...

 

[Drakkith]

That is ridiculous...

 

[SHISHKABOB]

it's bonkers, there's no way that's getting anywhere

if it does then I give up

 

[nitsuj]

How is this not an extension of the laws that stop me from following Greg around annoying him and threating his personal property, or whatever else the law covers. Should I be allowed to do the same over the internet because... i can't think of a reason.


The law is fine, no one is going to prosecuted for saying something like; "My intent is to annoy, Greg you're a jerk."

The verbage of the law is the foundation, the effetiveness of the law is determined by it's application isn't? I don't think judges would be moronic in it's application.

Through out the quoted text is "Person", "personal". I may be wrong but I don't think freedom of speech includes personal "attacks".

I think it may go a long way in stoping "internet bullying". But I'm not well read on US laws.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

How is this not an extension of the laws that stop me from following Greg around annoying him and threating his personal property, or whatever else the law covers.

Should I be allowed to do the same over the internet because... i can't think of a reason.

The law is fine, no one is going to prosecuted for saying something like; "My intent is to annoy, Greg you're a jerk."

I think it may go a long way in stoping "internet bullying". But I'm not well read on US laws.

did you read the article? The law is *incredibly* vague

 

[nitsuj]

It has to be losely worded, which should imply to you that it's initial applications would be a strict case by case basis, properly developing the case law.

I am sure (most) judges would be skilled enough to consider any precedence their ruling sets.

Which would be a scary thing if judges (an interesting appointment in the US) were all idiots and didn't understand intent of the law.

The intent of the law is not to spoil freedom of speech, that's a big stretch.

No I didn't read the bill, just the parts Greg quoted in the link (and just the first quote).

Recently, a dissatisfied customer complained to some video game controller supplier. The customer service rep (who was also the business owner/ heavily involved in the video game industry) basically shrugged off the disatisfied customers complaint in a rude way.

The disatisfied customer has effictively destroyed the persons chance of doing any business within the industry. The customer brought this issue to the attention of some big names in the business, including publishing the email exchanges on the internet, and they (industry business') publically said they will not do business with person xyz.

Threats / internet slander even threats to his family were/are all over the internet. Pretty sure I read he had to change their home phone # too.

The rude business man with poor customer service skills has had his career destroyed because he shrugged off one customers complaint. The rude business man has no recourse. Only a lesson learned that the internet can "ruin you", even if it's because you slighted somebody.

He has appologized profusely & has begged for mercy publicaly; literaly.

This is an extreme example, but is an example of what has happened.

not every one wants to be a celebrity, let alone an perpetual internet celebrity for nearly meaningless reasons (like hurting a customers feelings).

 

[SHISHKABOB]

well, it's my opinion that laws MUST be extremely well worded and specific, otherwise they can be taken advantage of. It shouldn't be left 100% to the judges to determine when a charge is ridiculous and when it isn't.

 

[nitsuj]

lol, that's six of one half a dozen the other, same shnit different pile.

So who writes the very specific law, you?

leave it to the professionals, even the state (government) does this.

And it's not 100% the judges decision. There is immense peer/media/political/public review, stupid rulings do happen; often enough there is an avenue available, called an appeal.

generally speaking, and without knowing much about the legal system, I'd say it is the lawyers who try and take advantage of these types of laws. Law Practices are businesses.

Judges probably love squashing these lawyers laughing them out the court room. (note the benefit to networking a few judges on your friends list if you're a slimy lawyer)

 

[SHISHKABOB]

lol, that's six of one half a dozen the other, same shnit different pile.

So who writes the very specific law, you?

leave it to the professionals, even the state (government) does this.

if this is the best that the "professionals" can do, then I'd like some new ones