General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Ping: Sheldon, new Internet law

Started by OmManiPadmeOmelet · · Last activity · 1 post · 176 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
11 January 2006
Last activity
11 January 2006
Original author
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Posts
1
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
176
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–1 of 1
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Just thought I'd warn ya babe!
    Forwarded from Tx.guns:

    HeyBubJan 9, 9:41 pm   show options
    Newsgroups: tx.guns
    From: "HeyBub" <[email hidden]> - Find messages by this author
    Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:41:32 -0600
    Local: Mon, Jan 9 2006 9:41 pm
    Subject: Assault: New Definition (long)
    Reply |Reply to Author| Forward| Print| View Thread| Show original|
    Report Abuse

    (You can skip all this yakety-yak by jumping to the "Good Parts"
    version)

    As some may recall in a recent thread I defined "Assault" as "A serious
    threat to inflict death or serious bodily injury, coupled with the
    present
    ability to carry out that threat." This is the classic definition I
    learned
    in law school.

    A consequence of that definition is that the threat must be, in the mind
    of
    the potential victim, able to be carried out almost immediately.
    Therefore,
    one presumes, an "assault" cannot be made by long distance, i.e., by
    telephone, postal mail, an email, or a newsgroup.

    Others (well, one other) claimed an assault CAN be made by long
    distance,
    such as a telephone.

    All that changed today.

    The president signed into law the "Violence Against Women and DOJ
    Reauthorization Act."

    I call your attention to Section 113* which reads, in part:

    --- begin quote ---

    Whoever, ...

    with the intent
    (B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within
    the
    special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in
    reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--
    (i) that person;
    (ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 of that
    person; or
    (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;

    uses the mail, any INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE (emphasis added), or any
    facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of
    conduct
    that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that
    person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to,
    any
    of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph
    (B);
    shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.

    --- end quote

    After some digging, I find the punishment in 2261(b) to be:

    --- begin quote
    (b) Penalties.- A person who violates this section or section 2261A
    shall be
    fined under this title, imprisoned-
    (1) for life or any term of years, if death of the victim results;
    (2) for not more than 20 years if permanent disfigurement or life
    threatening bodily injury to the victim results;
    (3) for not more than 10 years, if serious bodily injury to the victim
    results or if the offender uses a dangerous weapon during the offense;
    (4) as provided for the applicable conduct under chapter 109A if the
    offense
    would constitute an offense under chapter 109A (without regard to
    whether
    the offense was committed in the special maritime and territorial
    jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison); and
    (5) for not more than 5 years, in any other case,
    or both fined and imprisoned.

    --- end quote

    I assume since we're talking about a mere threat that, death, permanent
    disfigurement, did not actually take place, or a dangerous weapon was
    not
    used in the issuance of the threat, the penalty for "cyberstalking" is 5
    years in a federal pen, plus a potential fine.

    Further, 47 USC 223 was amended by the new law such that it now reads
    (in
    part)

    Whoever...

    (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device,
    whether
    or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his
    identity
    and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the
    called number or who receives the communications;

    (C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any
    device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or
    other
    types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by
    the
    Internet ...

    Shall be fined or imprisoned for two years or both.

    GOOD PARTS VERSION
    ===================

    If you threaten someone via email or a newsgroup posting such that the
    object of your threat is placed in fear of his or her life or limb, you
    have
    committed the offense of "Cyberstalking" and, upon conviction, may be
    confined in a federal lock-up for up to five years or fined or both.

    Bottom line, you cannot issue a credible threat.

    You can't even insult someone if you do so anonymously.

    Further, if you use the internet, anonymously - such as a "HeyBub"
    handle -
    to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass, you get a fine or slammer time up
    to
    two years.

    Let's all thank President Bush for helping to bring needed civility to
    this
    newsgroup.

    * "Thomas" links are not persistent. Go to www.thomas.gov  and search
    for
    cyberstalking   ]
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.