It Is a FELONY to Harass, Stalk, or Even Annoy Someone Online - Behave

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of36
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
LillyAndGish

Reynoldsburg, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 31, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Unless you use your REAL name. If you harass, stalk, or annoy anonymously, then you can go to prison for up to two years, so behave people.

My husband and I are going to file police reports against the MacD. people in the morning and post the link to the online report as soon as the police put it online, which they do here.

http://news.cnet.com/Create-an-e-annoyance,-g ...

<<<It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes 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... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.">>>
LillyAndGish

Reynoldsburg, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 31, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Use your REAL names or don't harass.
LillyAndGish

Reynoldsburg, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 31, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liab ...

<<<Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. In certain circumstances, such as when the defendant cannot be identified, a plaintiff can have more time to file a claim. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published.>>>

The person need not be stated by name to be defamed:

<<<To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name—the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable. So if you defame the "government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," it is still reasonably identifiable as the president.>>>

Just labeling something as "opinion" does not make it so:

<<<No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact.(A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").>>>

The MacD. posters are asserting all sorts of wild things about me and my husband as fact when they are not fact. That is why we're filing a police report, then we'll let a lawyer take it from there.
CommonSense

Buna, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 31, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

LillyAndGish wrote:
Unless you use your REAL name. If you harass, stalk, or annoy anonymously, then you can go to prison for up to two years, so behave people.
>>>
Sorry, but you are free to leave at any time, so no one here can be charged with harrassing you or anyone else. It's called "freedom of speech". Maybe you better learn some law before you post things like this.

Now, maybe the lawmakers have gone insane, or more insane than usual. I suppose it's possible. So if they did pass a law prohibiting people from posting certain comments (other than threats), it's time for a violent, bloody revolution!
CommonSense

Buna, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 31, 2010
 
LillyAndGish wrote:
Unless you use your REAL name. If you harass, stalk, or annoy anonymously, then you can go to prison for up to two years, so behave people.
My husband and I are going to file police reports against the MacD. people in the morning and post the link to the online report as soon as the police put it online, which they do here.
http://news.cnet.com/Create-an-e-annoyance,-g ...
<<<It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes 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... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.">>>
This must pertain to emails, not public forums.
CommonSense

Buna, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 31, 2010
 
LillyAndGish wrote:
Use your REAL names or don't harass.
That law does not apply to public forums. Sorry.
LillyAndGish

Reynoldsburg, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 31, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

CommonSense wrote:
<quoted text>
That law does not apply to public forums. Sorry.
Did you read the article? Yes, it pertains to blogs and public forums as well as email.

However, what you do, the name calling is more a form of hyperbole and opinion. To be illegal, it has to be something that can be verified or not verified as fact, like the MacDonald posters are doing. Calling someone a nutjob or a psycho isn't going to get anyone in trouble. Neither is telling someone to go "efh" himself, or however you spell it.

The people who have to worry are the ones on the MacDonald thread. Name calling is just unverifiable hyperbole.
LillyAndGish

Reynoldsburg, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Mar 31, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

See? It pertains to blogs and public forums:

<<<What is "Libel Per Se"?
When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:

A statement that falsely:

* Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
* Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
* Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
* Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.

Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant slut," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact.>>>
LillyAndGish

Reynoldsburg, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 31, 2010
 

Judged:

1

What you do, CS, is just hyperbole. You're safe and can carry on.
LillyAndGish

Reynoldsburg, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 31, 2010
 
You just call people names, CS. What the MacDonald posters are doing is deliberately misstating verifiable facts. Big difference. I don't care who calls me a dumb a** on here.

<<<A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":

A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition.... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.>>>

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 31, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

LillyAndGish wrote:
What you do, CS, is just hyperbole. You're safe and can carry on.
You are a straight up BOOTY HOLE. Kill yourself.
CommonSense

Sun City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 1, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LillyAndGish wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read the article? Yes, it pertains to blogs and public forums as well as email.
No, I did not read it. But I will now.

I suppose what I meant wa that the law could not possibly apply to public forums, but let me qualify that.

On these public forums we do not use our real names, theoretically. Everyone is anonymous here, theoretically, and everyone is here on this forum voluntarily, theoretically, Thus, this is a voluntary discussion between consenting individuals.

If there is a law such as you are suggesting, it isblantantly unconstitutional. Of course, I suppose laws prohibiting threats, libel, slander, whatever, might apply as in any other situation, but since it is not against the law to intentionally "annoy" someone anywhere else in any other situation, it can't be illegal on the Internet.
CommonSense

Sun City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 1, 2010
 

Judged:

3

1

LillyAndGish wrote:
I clicked on your post and got "Page not found."
cody

Mount Clemens, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 1, 2010
 
CommonSense wrote:
<quoted text>
I clicked on your post and got "Page not found."
Me to. Nothing for either site ?
I'd like to know ?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
May 2, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LillyAndGish wrote:
Unless you use your REAL name. If you harass, stalk, or annoy anonymously, then you can go to prison for up to two years, so behave people.
My husband and I are going to file police reports against the MacD. people in the morning and post the link to the online report as soon as the police put it online, which they do here.
http://news.cnet.com/Create-an-e-annoyance,-g ...
<<<It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes 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... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.">>>
I am glad you brought up federal laws. It is also against the law to threaten anyone over the telephone. You should have told your son that BEFORE he called me. While I have charges pending against you for filing a false police report and him about the telephone call, I forgot to file federal charges, I will be doing that tomorrow.

Thanks for the tip.
MOON JACK

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
May 2, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ransom note, you have a good chance? or you stand a chance? as well as? 99% or 100% chance, Hmmmmmmmmm moon jack

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
May 2, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MOON JACK wrote:
ransom note, you have a good chance? or you stand a chance? as well as? 99% or 100% chance, Hmmmmmmmmm moon jack
Gabrielle, I don't think the insanity plea is going to work for you. You are in a legal mess created by yourself.
MOON JACK

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
May 2, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

legal mess is my bussiness,and so is this murder, OWC do you like larrys watch more than the zodiacs watch? do you have a clue what the zodiac meant when he/she wrote zodiac 12 and cops zero. moon jack.
MOON JACK

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
May 2, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

i new a woman once who pooped and fell back in it, her theory was that she could fall on her ass! moon jack.now try and do something constructive and post the jonbenet ballad. so it can be examined.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
May 2, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MOON JACK wrote:
legal mess is my bussiness,and so is this murder, OWC do you like larrys watch more than the zodiacs watch? do you have a clue what the zodiac meant when he/she wrote zodiac 12 and cops zero. moon jack.
I don't like anything about you, Gabrielle. I don't even feel sorry you.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of36
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

30 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Boulder Police to take over Ramsey case (Feb '09) 2 hr Lovely 9
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 6 hr JTF 7,396
Boulder in the 70s Apr 16 gotgum 7
Similarities between the Ramseys and Jeffrey Da... Apr 16 smashmk 1
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) Apr 15 updates 1,595
Hair Apr 12 JimmyWells 5
Undisclosed crime scene images. Apr 11 candy 5
•••
•••
•••
•••