tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post5471446658922659320..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: "Telecommunications Device"Susan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-58346247798624272032010-05-21T04:06:37.222-04:002010-05-21T04:06:37.222-04:00Please note that an exact phrase search for my nam...Please note that an <b><i>exact phrase search</i></b> for my name in the search engines yields the harassing results, which have linked to anything from hard-core porn or XXX dating sites to malware downloads.<br /><br />Without going into specific details, the individual(s) doing this made it clear that the harassment was directed at me and not another person with the same name.<br /><br />Based upon what I've read, trying to counter defamatory statements at bulletin boards may simply cause the situation to escalate; and if the defamatory statements are not on a bulletin board, but simply included on a web page, you can't respond to it.<br /><br />After 18 months, an FBI agent expressed concern about the obsessive nature of this individual. The length of time devoted to harassing me, the voluminous amount of material being prepared for the Internet, references made under my name in the search engines to large caliber handguns and other weapons and an e-mail I received that described in the subject line what I'd worn to a function earlier in the evening caused the agent to 1) advise me not to go out alone; and 2) not put up a website from which to run my business. But that is as far as the agent would go.<br /><br />My husband and I had hoped that the authorities would assist us, but we realize now that that will never happen. Now that my husband has been diagnosed with cancer, he realizes that this needs to be resolved, just in case...so we have decided to retain an internet attorney. Hopefully, the attorney can help.<br /><br />I appreciate the fact that you took the time to write this column. I'll stop back at some time in the future to let you know how things go.<br /><br />Thank you. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-7502217742507260022010-05-04T04:22:47.558-04:002010-05-04T04:22:47.558-04:00I would also like to make this other point with re...I would also like to make this other point with regards to what was said in the original article as well as address the points above with regards to postings on the internet:<br /><br />anyone who doesn't like what is written about him on a blog or message board has a simple remedy: reach the same audience by writing your own comment, correcting anything you think is untrue.<br /><br />I wish I could take credit for the following words, but I cannot.<br /><br /><br />"The advent of the internet dramatically changed the nature of public discourse by allowing more and diverse people to engage in public debate. Unlike thirty years ago, when “many citizens [were] barred from meaningful participation in public discourse by financial or status inequalities and a relatively small number of powerful speakers [could] dominate the marketplace of ideas” the internet now allows anyone with a phone line to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” Through the internet, speakers can bypass mainstream media to speak directly to “an audience larger and more diverse than any the Framers could have imagined.” Moreover, speakers on internet chat rooms and blogs can speak directly to other people with similar interests. A person in Alaska can have a conversation with a person in Japan about beekeeping in Bangladesh, just as easily as several Smyrna residents can have a conversation about Smyrna politics.<br />Internet speech is often anonymous. “Many participants in cyberspace discussions employ pseudonymous identities, and, even when a speaker chooses to reveal her real name, she may still be anonymous for all practical purposes.” For better or worse, then, “the audience must evaluate [a] speaker’s ideas based on her words alone.” “This unique feature of [the internet] promises to make public debate in cyberspace less hierarchical and discriminatory” than in the real world because it disguises status indicators such as race, class, and age.<br /><br />It is clear that speech over the internet is entitled to First Amendment protection. This protection extends to anonymous internet speech. Anonymous internet speech in blogs or chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. As the United States Supreme Court recently noted, “anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent.”<br /><br />Chief Justice Steele, Supreme Court of Delaware. Doe No. 1 v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-50679782066159495422010-05-04T04:02:32.796-04:002010-05-04T04:02:32.796-04:00The United States was basically founded upon anony...The United States was basically founded upon anonymous speech. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), the US Supreme Court reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech. Anonymity, the court reasoned, helps speech stay free.<br /><br />Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States voided a Los Angeles city ordinance which forbade the distribution of any handbills in any place under any circumstances if the handbills did not contain the name and address of the person for whom it was prepared, distributed, or sponsored.<br /><br />Talley is often cited for the proposition that identification requirements burden speech.<br /><br />But that is besides the point. (As an aside I don't have a clue as to what "posting things online that link her name with rape porn” means. I know that Google makes links when you type words into its search engine. So does that mean that if you type this woman's name into Google that links to rape web sites pop up?) If someone defames you then you have recourse via a lawsuit. Of course that is of little help if the person is out of the country or in another state.<br /><br />But if you say that it should be a criminal offense for a person to make webpages that are directed at the population as a whole and not to any one specific person all because one person feels bullied, I think you are wrong.<br /><br />If I can go into YOUR neighborhood and stick anonymous plamphlets under the windshields of all your neighbors in the middle of the night saying or doing all the nasty stuff complained of in the article, then why can't I do the same thing online?<br /><br />The point I was trying to make is why make something criminal just because it happens online when the very same thing is not criminal when done in person or via a written pamphlet / letter?<br /><br />I don't like speech for the KKK or illegal immigrants or 9/11 conspiracy theorists or speech that criticises the Republican Party and G.W. Bush. But that is part of free speech. Of course it is terrible that someone has to put up with 4 years worth of garbage from some fool trying to hassle her.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-8012482888415844022010-05-02T10:12:28.281-04:002010-05-02T10:12:28.281-04:00"Being harassed, annoyed, bullied, etc., is j..."Being harassed, annoyed, bullied, etc., is just a part of life and you have to learn to deal with it...I can sit and cry like a girl or man up and just ignore it all."<br /><br />Do you think it is appropriate for someone to <b>anonymously</b> put up webpages that make it appear as if a doctor was writing illegal prescriptions for controlled substances?<br /><br />Do you think it is appropriate for someone to <b>anonymously</b> put up webpages that make it appear as if a lawyer was engaging in jury tampering?<br /><br />Do you think it is appropriate for someone to <b>anonymously</b> put up webpages that make it appear as if a teacher was a pedophile?<br /><br />I could go on ad infinitum, but I think I've made my point.<br /><br />When the harassment and bullying interferes with one's ability to conduct business, when it causes the individual being harassed to feel unsafe, and when it is done in such a way that the victim cannot defend themselves against damaging webpages because the perp has taken steps to hide his/her identity, then I have a problem with that.<br /><br />Perhaps the <b>anonymous</b> individual should "man up", stop being a coward and accept responsibility for their handiwork.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-40009066924822569402010-04-28T22:12:44.784-04:002010-04-28T22:12:44.784-04:00I think this kind of law is terrible. If I can sa...I think this kind of law is terrible. If I can say it to your face then why should I also not be able to say it to you via email, phone, or whatever? i would think that it would be much worse face to face.<br /><br />Putting something on the webpage or post is no different than something printed in the newspaper. So I don't see how this kind of conduct should be a crime. The communication is not being directed to you. It's more like a guy hollering into a megaphone on a street corner.<br /><br />Being harassed, annoyed, bullied, etc., is just a part of life and you have to learn to deal with it. Everytime a commercial interupts my TV show I get annoyed. I feel harassed by the spam in my inbox. And i don't like it when my big brother picks on me. But that's life. I can sit and cry like a girl or man up and just ignore it all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-45264087771517751812010-04-26T11:12:24.552-04:002010-04-26T11:12:24.552-04:00That's a really good question. I looked at th...That's a really good question. I looked at the Comcast v. FCC decision, and they rely on and in making that statement the court relied on the FCC's decision in In re Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access, 17 F.C.C.R. 4798 (2002), which is apparently still valid.<br /><br />As you note, in that decision the FCC was interpreting the meaning of the term "telecommunications service" as used in a different section of Title 17 of the U.S. Code: 47 U.S. Code section 153(46). Section 153(46) defines "telecommunications service" as "the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used". <br /><br />From briefly reviewing the Comcast and In re Inquiry decisions, it looks to me like they're primarily concerned with whether something is a SERVICE. If that's true, then I don't think eithee decision is directly helpful in parsing the term telecommunication device as it's used in section 233. <br /><br />Now, under the principle of statutory interpretation known as in pari materia (which you can read about if you follow the statutory construction link in the post itself), when a word in a statute is ambiguous you can consider how the word is used elsewhere in that legislation to help you figure out what the legislature meant. <br /><br />Since both the section 153(46) definition of telecommunications service and the definition of telecommunications device used in the CDA were added by the same legislation, we could probably consider how the FCC and courts have parsed the definition of telecommunications service in deciding how to interpret the term telecommunications device.<br /><br />I'm not sure that would really be helpful . . . since the two provisions are dealing with very different issues. As I noted in my post, section 223 is a criminal statute that was amended to update the former provision which made telephone harassment (only) a crime. Since the goal was to expand the type of technology that could be used to inflict this distinct criminal "harm," I'm dubious that the 153(46) definition will be dispositive of the issue.<br /><br />But, of course, I could be wrong.<br /><br />Thanks again for pointing this out.Susan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-25893069814884786102010-04-26T09:31:12.674-04:002010-04-26T09:31:12.674-04:00In the Comcast v FCC case the court cited orders t...In the Comcast v FCC case the court cited orders that said the cable internet is not a telecommunications service. Since many people post to the Internet via cable Internet service, I wonder if that would affect the analysis?sburch79http://blog.lawdeveloper.comnoreply@blogger.com