dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3
share rss forum feed


Lagz
Premium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock
reply to JALevinworth

Re: In our State's defense...

said by JALevinworth :

said by Frodo:

said by armed:

I point out to you AGAIN this law already exists almost verbatim but is limited to telephonic communications. This is nothing but an attempt to expand it to written electronic communications.

Unfortunately, that is not the case.

armed See Profile (and Snowy See Profile earlier) is correct that this is an amendment legislation to revise the current statutes (and is even codified that way). The above shows the original with the amendments proposed.

»www.scribd.com/doc/88008589/AZ-H···islature
said by Frodo:

In a telephone communication, the contact is one to one. But the proposed legislation does not limit the extension of the expansion to one to one communications.
[snip]

True, your point about 1-to-1 communication however I see nothing in the original legislation that made 1-to-1 communication clear other than use the singular "a person" as the target (which I believe is your point) that would need clarifying for this purpose.

-Jim

The problem with this amendment is that you can not equate telephone calls with internet service and separate legislation should be written. Modern telephone service by definition is 1-to-1 communication. This amendment is trying to equate apples to oranges.
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football.


JALevinworth

@embarqhsd.net

said by Lagz:

The problem with this amendment is that you can not equate telephone calls with internet service and separate legislation should be written. Modern telephone service by definition is 1-to-1 communication. This amendment is trying to equate apples to oranges.

Agree, but I believe the intention is criminalize a 1-to-1 behavior. If looking at the stalking portion of the bill the behavior is defined as towards, "a particular person", but the "harassment" part of the bill uses, "a person" which leaves that open to interpretation. If not a particular person then it's open to any or all (for example). I agree that the internet may not be 1-to-1 but it also can be. Email, txt'ing, postings to someones personal social space, etc. That's not clear, and I agree is also right at the crust of the problem.

"Harassment" is also not defined as a repeated, and targeted offense but that may be elsewhere legally defined.

I think I get what they are going for, but the implementation and end result could be very well be not as designed (or as designed for the paranoid folks, not you rawhide).

-Jim