babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » USA   » It is now Illigal to troll in the U.S.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: It is now Illigal to troll in the U.S.
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 09 January 2006 07:29 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How are they going to find the net heads who are guilty of this crime? This law is stupid.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 January 2006 07:36 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your link isn't working, I don't think.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bits of J
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11582

posted 09 January 2006 07:38 PM      Profile for Bits of J     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Try clicking here.

[ 09 January 2006: Message edited by: Bits of J ]


From: Toronto, Ont. | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Maritimesea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8953

posted 09 January 2006 07:47 PM      Profile for Maritimesea     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well all I can say is Bush must be the most annoyed person on earth, maybe this law was intended to curb all the chimp references.

Oh, and you need to take out http// between // and news in order to make the link work.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 09 January 2006 07:50 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
How are they going to find the net heads who are guilty of this crime?
I find it rather amusing that my browser redirects me to the Microsoft site.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 09 January 2006 07:53 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now that's completely fucked.

There's laws against stalking, there's laws against libel, so the only reason I can see to pass such a law is to suppress anti-establishment speech.

One more brick in the wall.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 January 2006 08:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's for sure. I think this sentence sums it up:

quote:
He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

If web sites (like say, this one) wish to complain to Internet Service Providers of people who repeatedly harrass or spam web sites, in order to get those people to stop doing so, that's one thing. But people certainly shouldn't be criminally liable for it unless they are actually harassing or stalking or libelling someone in a serious way. And that's already covered by stalking and libel laws. "Annoying" someone is not a good enough reason to put them in jail, or even to criminally prosecute someone if you ask me.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
donf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11615

posted 09 January 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for donf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The likely application of this law will require the recipient to identify to the sender that the material in question, or all material from the sender is considdered annoying by the recipient.

It is just like sexual harassment, if the victim does not indicate that the actions are seen as harassment, the victim would have to demonstrate that any reasonable person would consider it harassment.

I doubt it could be applied to a public chat room unless the person in control of the chat room objects, directly to the perp, or as part of room rules, but a large number of complaints might allow a conviction.

I tend to think it might fail miserably in controlling annoyance crossing a border.


From: Middlesex Ontario Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sandy47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10648

posted 10 January 2006 11:39 AM      Profile for Sandy47     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since trolling is specifically intended to obstruct the free exchange of ideas, you'd think its use would be considered de rigeur by the propaganda arm of the bu$h administration.

Personally, I think this is what comes of privatising prisons, but what do I know? I'm a secular socio-liberal humanist. I should have been born either a Swede or a Jamaican...


From: Southwest of Niagara - 43.0° N 81.2° W | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
skeptikool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11389

posted 10 January 2006 02:07 PM      Profile for skeptikool        Edit/Delete Post
It's warfare against whistle blowing and more assault against the awesome medium that this is - and that some powerful interests would like to throttle.

Sandy47, you wrote:

"Since trolling is specifically intended to obstruct the free exchange of ideas, you'd think its use would be considered de rigeur by the propaganda arm of the bu$h administration."

We're probably in much agreement, but I'm puzzled by your reference to trolling - a reference often used by chronic, scroll-challenged complainers to attempt to gag other posters.

Had you said "harassment" I would have better understood your point.


From: Delta BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 January 2006 02:25 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think we should all be incredibly leery of any law that criminalizes behaviour based on the emotional reaction it (purportedly) induces in others.

According to the link, a previous incarnation of the bill was set to criminalize behaviour that used an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

Lemme guess: we'll be taking someone's word for it that they've been "harmed emotionally", because nobody could ever lie about something like that, eh? Not even if, say, it meant someone they didn't like being punished by the law! Some things are just too sacred.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 10 January 2006 05:27 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the other hand, whenever a Bush-loving FDer comes to troll on our site, we can call them hypocrites. Not that there are not enough negitive things to say about them anyway.

Wait! I'm going to test this new law by saying that George Bush sucks.

Get ready people, the US government is going to put an arrest warrent out for my actions, the Canadian government (under american pressure) is going to have me extridited to the US, where I will be arrested under the Patriot Act for being a threat to national security, inciting hate and all. Eventually, I may be exported to Libya.

Anyway, if I abruptly stopped posting, and you see a story about a British Columbian being moved to an American and then a Canadian Prision, you'll know where I am.

[ 10 January 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 10 January 2006 05:40 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But the law dosen't apply in canada, right?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 10 January 2006 05:54 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is just like sexual harassment, if the victim does not indicate that the actions are seen as harassment, the victim would have to demonstrate that any reasonable person would consider it harassment.


I'm confused. If a person dosen't feel that the've been harrased, why would they want to prove that they have been?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 10 January 2006 05:56 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
But the law dosen't apply in canada, right?

Ah, that hasn't exactly stopped them lately.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 10 January 2006 06:36 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What are you saying?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 10 January 2006 10:29 PM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Regarding freedom of speech, in Britain:

"On 7 December, Maya Evans, a vegan chef aged 25, was convicted of breaching the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act by reading aloud at the Cenotaph the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq. So serious was her crime that it required 14 policemen in two vans to arrest her. She was fined and given a criminal record for the rest of her life. Freedom is dying."

Article

[ 10 January 2006: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]


From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 11 January 2006 11:08 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
"Annoying" someone is not a good enough reason to put them in jail, or even to criminally prosecute someone if you ask me.

But it is enough to cut off their freedom of speech on this web site.

From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 11 January 2006 11:11 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:

But it is enough to cut off their freedom of speech on this web site.

Posting on any discussion forum is a priviledge. That priviledge can be revoked if the rules are broken. This is not a freedom of speech issue, never has been, never will be.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca