![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jan. 10th, 2006
http://news.com.com/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
i can see where it might make sense
to make the penalty for harrassing or threatening someone online or in email harsher,
but i don't think they are going about it in a way that will work,
based on how this new law is apparently worded.
it should be written very narrowly to apply to stalking and harrassment issues,
not in some broad over-aching way about "annoying" people.
i'm sure it is a crime to harrass or threaten people by using snail mail,
and i know it is by phone, whether the harrasser is trying to be anonymous or not,
and the same type of thing should apply to email or forums or chatrooms or whatever online -
and it probably does, so i don't see the practical purpose of this law the way it's apparently written.
having been stalked and harrassed and threatened a couple of times by demented freaks online
in the past 12 or 13 years or however long it's been now,
i think there does need to be a way to deal with it better legally.
of course most e-stalkers hide behind fake names because they are cowards,
and while no one is really anonymous online no matter if they think they are,
it just makes it more time-comsuming to track the person and get them to stop
or drop dead in the virtual sense, as the case may be.
some people think the illusion of anonymity is the best thing about the web,
but i think it's the worst aspect.
too many people are deluded into thinking they don't have to be accountable for their words or actions online,
and they really do, one way or another.
so slimy people do slimy things online
and they think using a fake name protects them
from having to be accountable.
this law doesn't sound like it's really directed at that kind of thing though -
it just sounds way too broad and ambiguous in the wording.
but maybe that's the way our so-called leaders want it to be -
so they can apply it to political dissent and parody and satire online
rather than just applying it to narrowly to harrassment issues.
heck, i am not a lawyer and i could write a much better law than those twits in congress apparently can...
but if their real intent was to be too broad and ambiguous, then they are masters at that game.
i can see where it might make sense
to make the penalty for harrassing or threatening someone online or in email harsher,
but i don't think they are going about it in a way that will work,
based on how this new law is apparently worded.
it should be written very narrowly to apply to stalking and harrassment issues,
not in some broad over-aching way about "annoying" people.
i'm sure it is a crime to harrass or threaten people by using snail mail,
and i know it is by phone, whether the harrasser is trying to be anonymous or not,
and the same type of thing should apply to email or forums or chatrooms or whatever online -
and it probably does, so i don't see the practical purpose of this law the way it's apparently written.
having been stalked and harrassed and threatened a couple of times by demented freaks online
in the past 12 or 13 years or however long it's been now,
i think there does need to be a way to deal with it better legally.
of course most e-stalkers hide behind fake names because they are cowards,
and while no one is really anonymous online no matter if they think they are,
it just makes it more time-comsuming to track the person and get them to stop
or drop dead in the virtual sense, as the case may be.
some people think the illusion of anonymity is the best thing about the web,
but i think it's the worst aspect.
too many people are deluded into thinking they don't have to be accountable for their words or actions online,
and they really do, one way or another.
so slimy people do slimy things online
and they think using a fake name protects them
from having to be accountable.
this law doesn't sound like it's really directed at that kind of thing though -
it just sounds way too broad and ambiguous in the wording.
but maybe that's the way our so-called leaders want it to be -
so they can apply it to political dissent and parody and satire online
rather than just applying it to narrowly to harrassment issues.
heck, i am not a lawyer and i could write a much better law than those twits in congress apparently can...
but if their real intent was to be too broad and ambiguous, then they are masters at that game.