dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


JALevinworth

@embarqhsd.net
reply to Lagz

Re: In our State's defense...

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