Judge Says Washington State Cyberstalking Law Violates Free Speech (engadget.com) 155
A federal judge has blocked Washington State's 2004 cyberstalking law after ruling that a key provision violated First Amendment protections for free speech due to vague terms. "Its prohibitions against speech meant to 'harass, intimidate, torment or embarrass' weren't clearly defined, according to the judge, and effectively criminalized a 'large range' of language guarded under the Constitution," reports Engadget. "You could theoretically face legal action just by criticizing a public figure." From the report: The ruling came after a retired Air Force Major, Richard Rynearson III, sued to have the law overturned. He claimed that Kitsap County threatened to prosecute him under the cyberstalking law for criticizing an activist involved with a memorial to Japanese victims of U.S. internment camps during World War II. While Rynearson would use "invective, ridicule, and harsh language," the judge said, his language was neither threatening nor obscene.
Officials had contended that the law held up because it targeted conduct, not the speech itself. They also maintained that Rynearson hadn't shown evidence of a serious threat -- just that the prosecutor's office would see how Rynearson behaved and take action if necessary. A county court had already tossed out the activist's restraining order against Rynearson over free speech. It's not clear whether Washington will appeal the decision. If the ruling stays, though, it could force legislators to significantly narrow the scope if it wants a cyberstalking law to remain in place. This might also set a precedent that could affect legislation elsewhere in the country. The Electronic Frontier Foundation praises the judge's decision, adding: "This is all valuable speech that is protected by the First Amendment, and no state law should be allowed to undermine these rights. We are pleased that the judge has agreed."
Officials had contended that the law held up because it targeted conduct, not the speech itself. They also maintained that Rynearson hadn't shown evidence of a serious threat -- just that the prosecutor's office would see how Rynearson behaved and take action if necessary. A county court had already tossed out the activist's restraining order against Rynearson over free speech. It's not clear whether Washington will appeal the decision. If the ruling stays, though, it could force legislators to significantly narrow the scope if it wants a cyberstalking law to remain in place. This might also set a precedent that could affect legislation elsewhere in the country. The Electronic Frontier Foundation praises the judge's decision, adding: "This is all valuable speech that is protected by the First Amendment, and no state law should be allowed to undermine these rights. We are pleased that the judge has agreed."
Intimidation is the Point (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The really sad thing with the Count Dankula thing was the judgment brought against him even said that they could only do it if they ignored context, so that's what they were going to do. The UK should be embarrassed by the state of their legal system.
And please idiots, don't bring up any whataboutisms, it's possible that a country should be embarrassed by their legal system even if others are doing worse and should also be embarrassed.
Re: (Score:2)
The court can't make the defence's argument for them. If the defence doesn't bring up the context, it has t be ignored.
This is yet another defect of the British/American adversarial legal system. Decisions should be based on evidence, not on the performance skills of the attorneys.
It is not always like that. In hearings before the US Supreme Court, the justices will directly question the attorneys, and often make a better case than the opposing attorney. Some US military courts allow the jurors to ask questions.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That whole case is fucked up. The law as it standards does in fact allow for freedom of speech as a defence, but his defence was exceptionally shitty and didn't really argue it. So now we have a situation where we have this bad ruling, desperate need of clarification, and Dankula with £100,000 that was donated to him looking for a judicial review.
It's important to understand that UK courts can only decide matters based on basis of the defence put forward. Unless the defence makes a decent legal
Re:Intimidation is the Point (Score:4, Interesting)
The UK could certainly do with some clear protections for freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is and will always be a problem. Some folks find that disagreement is harassing them. Some folks find that negative response to something they say or write is infringing on their free speech.
I've seen some pretty wild accusations over time, from people getting people kicked from AOL because of simple disagreement - just report them as spam - to whining about their free speech rights being trampled after making a threat against a public official.
To my thinking, we have a choice. We either grow a bit thicker skins, or prepare for the internet of no commentary.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the problems with people being harassed by criticism are to do with monetization, which is not a free speech issue. They aren't being silenced, they are just not being paid to speak.
I can't see any way to force people to pay for stuff they don't want, that isn't ridiculously evil. Do we really want a Sargon tax?
Re: (Score:1)
I can't see any way to force people to pay for stuff they don't want, that isn't ridiculously evil. Do we really want a Sargon tax?
That's not a very good example, because people wanted to pay Sargon but a minority of people despised him so much that not only did they get Patreon to boot him, they caused such a ruckus that everyone on SubscribeStar lost the ability to be paid for a time.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see any way to force people to pay for stuff they don't want, that isn't ridiculously evil.
Me either, that's why I oppose forced union dues.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the problems with people being harassed by criticism are to do with monetization, which is not a free speech issue. They aren't being silenced, they are just not being paid to speak.
I can't see any way to force people to pay for stuff they don't want, that isn't ridiculously evil. Do we really want a Sargon tax?
Demonetization indeed. The concept isn't so much removing the ability to make money for radical and violent content, it is simply disagreeing with someone, and it is pretty simple to get them demonetized. Just like the new ability to cut someone off via posts on their comments line.
As far as Sargon goes - it's just a good example of how unsustainable the YouTube model is. There is noting violent or radically abhorrent to his vids, unless the offended person is like I described, unable to withstand views
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear, the "perpetually offended" here are Patron, Visa and MasterCard being fine with a decade of his shit including harassing people, but who drew the line at using the N word repeatedly in an unironic way that clearly implied black people were inferior.
Just to give some context.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to give some context.
The problem is you just literally made everything up out of thin air.
That's not good context. That's you making shit up.
Sargon never used the N word to refer to Black people. He was refering to White Ethno-nationalists. You know, the people you are now defending against mean ol' Carl Benjamin. How dare he offend actual racists right ? My god you're a trainwreck.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You seriously don't understand what Sargon said was racist?
He told some white people stop acting like black people. He then went on to explain why the kind of bad behaviour they were exhibiting was the kind of thing that black people would do. Except he didn't say black people.
That's textbook dude. That's 1930s cartoon racism.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even listen to the original stream?
Sargon's use of that language was to use the racists own terms against them, by illustrating how their behavior matched the very definition of what they despised, and thus exposing their own hypocrisy. But disingenuous opportunists use that as an excuse to paint Sargon as the racist, for which you've provided a fine example.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that this isn't the first time he has done this, it's not the first time he has hung out with far right asshats for fun and profit, and it's not the first time he has used this excuse. At some point, after he has been spreading the same conspiracy theory bullshit as the far right, the same political philosophy with a slightly more acceptable veneer, you have to just conclude that it's not some kind of clever meta-argument or attempt to engage and draw them away from extremism...
He just believ
Re: (Score:2)
I'm frankly not much of a Sargon fan, but what I've seen of him, on Joe Rogan's show, some other interviews, and a few of his, is that he is clearly not a racist, despises identity politics from the left AND the alt-right, and is nothing but critical of white supremacists and people that actually promote racist views.
So what you're displaying, here, is exactly the problem with corporate censorship and de-platforming. It doesn't matter what ideas someone is actually discussing, if we can find some off-hand c
Re: (Score:2)
He pretends to be not racist by dressing it up, but eventually gets down to measuring skulls and ranting on about racial IQ and all that shit.
That's why they call him alt-lite. He puts a more acceptable veneer on all that supremacist stuff, playing the anti-identity politics line, but occasionally the mask slips.
Re: (Score:2)
He pretends to be not racist by dressing it up, but eventually gets down to measuring skulls and ranting on about racial IQ and all that shit.
That's why they call him alt-lite. He puts a more acceptable veneer on all that supremacist stuff, playing the anti-identity politics line, but occasionally the mask slips.
You've seen something he's done that I've never seen. Or you're just repeating something someone said he said.
Of course, there are differences in IQ on the averages between races, so it's actually okay to mention that. What doesn't make it okay is trying to turn some problem-solving test into a measure of racial superiority. But that nuance gets lost on some people.
Re: (Score:2)
So, no, you didn't listen to the original source material, and are likely just parroting someone else's narrative. Your position is to assume the worst possible motives, based only on the most topical understanding, and then shamelessly declare that he's the one who is being disingenuous as you go around repeating accusations of racism as fact.
Meanwhile Sargon is willing to have those debates, and stand up to defend free speech. If I had to guess, the real reason you vehemently despise him is because he m
Re: (Score:2)
It wasnâ(TM)t.
White ethno-nationalists have a warped perception of what a âoen-wordâ is. That is not Black people. Sargon told them they were acting exactly like they describe black people.
Ie he was calling them out on their hypocrisy.
Stop making shit up. You are just pushing a stupid narrative that has no basis in fact. Your a propagandist and your shit is tiring. And if you arenâ(TM)t gaslighting slashdot threads on purpose like I firmly believe you are, you must be the most brain
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the problems with people being harassed by criticism are to do with monetization, which is not a free speech issue. They aren't being silenced, they are just not being paid to speak.
I can't see any way to force people to pay for stuff they don't want, that isn't ridiculously evil. Do we really want a Sargon tax?
No one was forced to pay Sargon - they were doing it voluntarily. Until Patreon and Paypal decided they didn't like what he said and got in the way of voluntary payments by refusing to allow them. Do we want the banks to decide who can be paid to create content?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that Patreon and payment processors should be forced to provide services to him? It's not like being a racist is a protected class.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that Patreon and payment processors should be forced to provide services to him? It's not like being a racist is a protected class.
Well, he isn't a racist. In fact, he was kicked off of Patreon for criticizing the racism of some alt-right figures. They just didn't like the way he criticized them, or something. They really haven't been very forthcoming about reasons at all, but it looks like it was pressure from payment processors.
As far as Paypal and MasterCard, should they be able to arbitrarily deny services to anyone, for any reason or none at all? Should banks be allowed to ban a person from accessing any financial system on a whim
Re: (Score:2)
As far as Paypal and MasterCard, should they be able to arbitrarily deny services to anyone, for any reason or none at all?
Yes; it's their system and they have the right to decide the terms of service. They are not your slaves, to be forced to provide services on your terms. The right answer here is to ensure that there are alternative payment systems available which they don't control.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as Paypal and MasterCard, should they be able to arbitrarily deny services to anyone, for any reason or none at all?
Yes; it's their system and they have the right to decide the terms of service. They are not your slaves, to be forced to provide services on your terms. The right answer here is to ensure that there are alternative payment systems available which they don't control.
So, if they decided they don't like Jews, you're okay with them not providing any services to any of them? Maybe they don't like people that post on Slashdot, so suddenly JesseMcDonald's card doesn't work any more, he calls his bank and they say, "Yes, JesseMcDonald, your account has been closed due to our terms of service," so you're still okay with all that behavior, I assume.
And it doesn't matter to you, does it, that they don't need to tell you what terms you may have violated, how you can stay within t
Re: (Score:2)
On YT, just get some folks against what you say, even if not violent, or threatening, etc.....and they start getting strikes put on your channel, and you'll be silenced pretty quickly.
3 strikes and your out....and that's even for some pretty big YT "stars" with followings and actual people they can contact at YT..... You don't even get a fight at all if you're a small fry.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a different problem, to do with their broken copyright strike system and failure to properly investigate complaints. Classic example is trans women getting strikes for videos of them topless made back when they were male.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have an example of corporate censorship through demonetization is equivalent to government censorship?
Re: (Score:2)
When corporations like Visa and Mastercard pretty much control who can exchange money on the Internet, yes, we should absolutely consider them equivalent if not more dangerous than Government.
Left-wing ideology actually dictates that in such a scenario, Governement Regulation should be used to force them to "quit it" in regards to demonetization over speech.
Re: (Score:2)
That's your theory, but do you have actual examples of it happening so we can observe the results? Or is it purely hypothetical?
You said it was already the case, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Robert Spencer. Jihadwatch.
Gaslighting Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Robert Spencer was banned from the UK by the government... What does this have to do with corporate censorship?
He's still frequently on Fox News, right? He still has a Twitter account, his books are still on Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
That's your theory, but do you have actual examples of it happening so we can observe the results? Or is it purely hypothetical?
You said it was already the case, right?
It is. And here's one example of it that you keep claiming cannot possibly exist. So you can shut up, now.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, how is MasterCard acting like the government here?
Re: (Score:2)
Again, how is MasterCard acting like the government here?
By acting as a regulator, with a monopoly on the ability to allow interstate commerce or prohibit it for any entity, effectively shutting down any non-compliant actor.
The difference is that the government is forbidden from regulating the content of speech in its regulatory enforcement. So they are using companies and NGOs as proxies to do it for them. So, for instance aside from financial companies that are highly regulated, there are organizations such as the Atlantic Council, which is partnering with tec
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like there is a fundamental difference between not assisting someone with their interstate commerce and with the government putting a stop to it. Also, in this case there is no evidence that the government had anything to do with Mastercard's decision - indeed MC needs little encouragement.
Also a more general point - being funded by the government does not make someone an instrument of the government. There are many counter examples. It doesn't even apply to non-government funding arrangements, e.g.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like there is a fundamental difference between not assisting someone with their interstate commerce and with the government putting a stop to it.
There was no difference in the Patreon case, or Sargon's. And wouldn't be for lots of other businesses and individuals.
indeed MC needs little encouragement
I'm sure they received plenty of encouragement for this one. Government encouragement probably little to none. But that's kind of irrelevant.
Also a more general point - being funded by the government does not make someone an instrument of the government. There are many counter examples. It doesn't even apply to non-government funding arrangements, e.g. Mozilla is not some kind of Google stooge just because it gets substantial funding from Google.
I think you're being a bit disingenuous, here. I don't think you are truly naive enough to believe that those groups did not modify their behavior based on who is signing their checks. Government funding always comes with oversight, even if you assume
Re: (Score:2)
There was no difference in the Patreon case, or Sargon's.
Generally when the government decides to ban you, you can't just go to another payment provider. Sargon is on SubscribeStar now, for example. So I think there is a difference.
it still creates the appearance of government control and endorsement
Only among conspiracy theory aficionados. Or maybe it's different in the US, I don't know. But in Europe we have a long history of bodies funded by government but independent of it, and in cases where there is the slightest shred of evidence of interference it becomes a huge scandal.
I guess you could cite the Supreme Court as an exampl
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Dankula is a shitty person who hangs around with far right asshats like Tommy Robinson. What he did is worthy of criticism and condemnation.
It just shouldn't be illegal.
Re: Intimidation is the Point (Score:1)
He's literally a leftist in words and action, and describes himself as such.
I love seeing you mouth-breathing zombies turn on each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Tommy Robinson is a Union type, which is more commonly associated with the left.
Why do you falsely peg him as right wing ? What do you think Right-wing even means ?
Why do you just repeat stupid SJW talking points all the time instead of actually getting informed ? You're so predictable, you might as well just be an NPC at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Robinson used to run the far right EDL, and is now working for UKIP.
He hangs around with lots of other far right figures, is praised by them, and is supported by them. His strong anti-Islam stance is also associated with the far right.
The left protests against him regularly.
Did you even read his wiki entry?
Re: (Score:2)
UKIP on Social care for elderly and mental illness, more money :
https://www.ukip.org/ukip-manifesto-item.php?cat_id=2 [ukip.org]
UKIP on families, more money through taxes to help broken families :
https://www.ukip.org/ukip-manifesto-item.php?cat_id=7 [ukip.org]
Perusing their programme pretty much paints them as at least Centrist, if not Center Left. What the heck are you calling UKIP right-wing for ? Are you drunk or simply daft ?
His strong anti-Islam stance is also associated with the far right.
WTH does that have to do with "Far right" ?
Did you even read his wiki entry?
Because Wikipedia is known for being objective and not l
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't see that UKIP are on the far right then I can't really help you. Just having a few socialist policies that you know you will never actually have to deliver on doesn't make you left of centre, when the rest of your manifesto is hard right.
Look at it another way, why does UKIP attract so many neo-Nazis and other extremists?
Re: (Score:2)
This is more gaslighting.
By that line of thinking, Labor is also far right masquerading as leftist nut jobs.
Like at some point do you plan ever joining us in reality or are you a bot that just says inflammatory stuff ?
Re: (Score:2)
UKIP's policies are right-wing populism. They reject what they describe in their manifesto as the "cultural left", multiculturalism, the "islamification" of the UK and opposition to the progressive politics of the European Union (particularly freedom of movement). They want to repeal the Human Rights Act and reintroduce the death penalty, while being generally very conservative on crime, and are climate change sceptics.
An example of this would be their attitude towards he NHS, which is classic social conser
Anyone else come here now just for the trolls? (Score:2, Funny)
Does anyone else mainly come to /. now out of morbid curiosity to see whether or not the trolls have vandalized the comments?
Re: (Score:3)
Glad I'm not the only crazy here.
Because the Supreme Court said so (Score:5, Informative)
The court in this case I bound by precedent of the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS ruled that the state can regulate and prohibit obscenity.
One could argue that SCOTUS should reverse that ruling, but a local county court can't.
And "progressive" techie heads explode ... (Score:1, Insightful)
...like 60s sci fi robots caught in a contradiction.
I mean, free speech was all well and good when it was the man trying to keep us down, trying to stifle our potty mouths.
But now that we're the ma ... er ... the gender-less sentient vertebrate in charge, we'd really like that power to shut people up when we don't like them. But it's OK, because we're doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most progressives are broadly in favour of striking stuff like this down, e.g. the EFF and Stephen Fry.
More generally censorship has been used to repress and maintain the taboo status of certain topics, e.g. same sex relationships, so is opposed by progressives.
Re: (Score:2)
"Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed c
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just unironically quote the Unabomber in an attempt to make a credible point?
Re: (Score:2)
The messenger may be a lunatic. But it was 100% correct.
Re: (Score:1)
If he was correct you would think that there would be a better source for basically the same thing.
To be honest anyone who rants about "leftists" is probably a crank.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more the fact that "leftists" are a batshit conspiracy theory that only batshit people tend to believe in. The guy *did* commit acts of terrorism in support of his delusion. Maybe that is an ad hominem, but it's still a legitimate criticism of his position.
Re: (Score:2)
So are you calling yourself batshit crazy? Because you have referred to yourself as a leftist before.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I have... At least not seriously, maybe as a joke.
I guess a link is too much to ask for.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you post way too much shit for me to dig through your history. But you've said plenty of batshit crazy things so it was kindof rethorical anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He was a math prodigy at one time, but maybe he also a prophet. Perhaps Kaczynski had a vision of those approved by the leftist establishment with their blue checkmarks spreading messages portraying children being fed face first into woodchippers, for the crime of wearing the attire of their ideological enemies. Perhaps he became aware of how ordinary people would have their livelihood and reputations destroyed at the hands of leftist hate mobs, for the crime of having the wrong opinions. Perhaps he envisi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A slightly less batshit raving crazy analysis of the memo in question: https://www.theverge.com/2018/... [theverge.com]
TL;DR Google is trying to fully understand the topic in order to make better decision. Brietbart tried to shut down the conversation and censor all discussion by screaming "censorship!!".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Troll
That's a slur, not an argument. Every time, it's never trying to refute the argument. Every time, it's the same old game of "I discredit the speaker, therefore your entire worldview is invalid!" At no point did you address the Left's war on free speech, nor the fascist tendencies that led to this war in the first place. All you do is try to discredit the speaker - me - instead of address the issues. You neither engaged with nor refuted Google's position that speech should be suppressed if Google
Re: (Score:2)
As a conservative, I agree with most of your comment up until you tied in the PACs. PACs are organizations, not people. And just like companies, they wield an excessive amount of influence to the point that physical people are unable to be heard. Until we get the money out of politics, we are on the path to ruin.
I'll await the RINO accusations.
Re: (Score:2)
The EM spectrum is a limited resource, and so radio stations can be regulated. Fiber is not a limited resource, and the FCC can't regulate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Free Speech vs Stalking doesn't really sound like it's the same thing so the bill must have been very poorly worded. I mean there is a difference between Stalking your ex-girlfriend online and the right to post an apposing opinion to an activist.
I'm proud to be American (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why I love my country. We can speak opinions that are offensive to others. We can hurt the feelings of people who don't agree with our opinions. On the flip side, we tolerate other people who hurt our feelings and who don't agree without our opinions. We can criticize our government. We may not always be able to hold our government accountable, but we can talk about what we don't like. We worship God the way that we want to worship God. We can choose not to worship God.
We are free!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We can speak opinions that are offensive to others. We can hurt the feelings of people who don't agree with our opinions. On the flip side, we tolerate other people who hurt our feelings and who don't agree without our opinions.
That sure as hell isn't recognizable as a description of America today.
Re: (Score:2)
Up yours you backwoods hillbilly!
There, did that help?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually bothered to learn anything about other countries, freedom of speech isn't unique to the US [wikipedia.org].
Can you please point out where the poster mentioned or even hinted that freedom of speech is unique to the US? The story is about the US, the poster obviously is from the US and is extolling the protections for free speech in the US. You've created a strawman in an attempt to justify (in your mind at least) being a condescending prick.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be as if the original poster had said that he loves his country because they have free water fountains in parks where you can drink the water (or not) for free. While it's certainly true, it's also so common as not to need pointing out since lots of countries have free water fountains in parks. The only reason one would point it out is if one thought it either unique or rare.
He could have just
Aren't there more pressing things to worry about.. (Score:1, Insightful)
"It is my RIGHT as an AMERICAN CITIZEN to harass and threaten people online!!" is a really weird hill to die on but ok
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"I want the government to spy every single conversation on the internet to be sure no one is being harassed" is a weird hill to die on but ok
Re: (Score:1)
"It is my RIGHT as an AMERICAN CITIZEN to harass and threaten people online!!" is a really weird hill to die on but ok
The problem, of course, being the definition of "harass".
When we get to ban "harass", suddenly the stuff people we don't like does magically becomes "harass".
Re: (Score:2)
Legal matters around speech are often not clear cut.
Personally I am being sued in Massachusetts for statements that I made related to a fellow student back in 2011. The lawsuit was filed originally in 2014 and we are just wrapping up the second round of discovery (the Plaintiff is asking to extended discovery again).
The amended complaint can be found at:
https://www.scribd.com/documen... [scribd.com]
The best that I can tell, my participation in the activities for the suit are that I referred to the Plaintiff as an "ass",
Re: (Score:2)
Harass? Yes
Threaten? No
If you can't handle a little harassment, get the hell off of social media.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bill of Rights is not a bad hill to die on. If I support freedom of speech, I have to accept that people will say obnoxious and hateful things. If I don't support freedom of speech, I have less standing to object if someone tries to shut me up. Therefore, I think that Nazi propaganda should be legal, if not moral.
Whether something should be done and whether it should be legal are two separate related concepts.
3rd world country law? (Score:1)
"You could theoretically face legal action just by criticizing a public figure."
Sounded like dictator dream.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is a moron! Clinton is a misandrist! Oh, and the prosecutor in this case is a dick who doesn't understand the frickin' Constitution!
Waiting on the black helicopters to take me to Gitmo.
Re: (Score:2)
Speech codes (Score:3)
just that the prosecutor's office would see how Rynearson behaved and take action if necessary
This reminds me of Patreon's excuses for their selective enforcement of policies and subjective policing of creators. They called it "Manifest Observable Behavior." (really) So, the MOB rules.
Harassment and Stalking suck (Score:4, Informative)
How is interacting with ones and zeros on a screen someone else a hundred miles away voluntarily posted stalking them in any meaningful sense? I guess directly sending threats back at them is bad but I don't think I'd use the word 'stalk' for that. Sounds like an oxymoron everybody just accepts to make something sound worse than it usually is like giant ant or honest lawyer.
1. What you or I would use the word for doesn't matter a lot. They write a law which uses the word, so then that's what the word means, for legal purposes, within the jurisdiction. Kind of like how grenades and IED's are included in "weapons of mass destruction" under federal law, even though they're not. It doesn't make sense but isn't worth getting upset over 99.99999% of the time.
2. It's pretty bad. Lots of people (MANY disfunctional people who form unhealthy bonds) harass and stalk like crazy from hundreds of miles away. Sometimes with spyware, but also crap like calling someone's boss or place of work repeatedly for decades whenever you find out where they work. Calling relatives. Calling friends. Emailing. Harassing on social media. Contacting friends about people through social media. While the in-person is more immediately terrifying, the remote is still not ok and can be terrifying depending on the behavior. This stuff causes more harm than almost anything you see discussed on the nightly news or in the press.
Re:Harassment and Stalking suck (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no question that the behavior you describe is what the Washington legislature was trying to address. But, as is typical of politicians, they tried to grab too much power for themselves. This is evidenced by the fact that Clarence Moriwaki was able to actually obtain a restraining order, and, worse, that investigators recommended that Rynearson be charged with cyberstalking! Because of a political disagreement. On Facebook.
That's not a solution to the cyberstalking problem. It's a source of greater problems (censoring the speech of your political opponents). Because that's how the law was used in this case. If Rynearson had not initiated his lawsuit, the government would have continued to silence him. In fact, they are still threatening him in this case, the prosecutor's office saying they would wait to see how Rynearson behaved in the future (they're monitoring him).
Pretty blatant overreach.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, he should be openly and frequently criticizing the prosecutor. When you hold political office, you don't get to push back on political protest.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like how grenades and IED's are included in "weapons of mass destruction" under federal law, even though they're not. It doesn't make sense but isn't worth getting upset over 99.99999% of the time.
So Saddam did have WMD...see!!! /sarcasm