An important element to how that law is phrased is the word "repeated". That poor girl was repeatedly and maliciously coerced and manipulated with the vial actions of an immature, selfish, ignorant mother.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
I'm not denying that this law would adaquately punish the offender in this case.
But would it prevent it from happening in the first place?
More importantly, would it prevent it without creating more innocent victims of the law?
The Count Rob
· 1 year ago
The part that really stood out was "emotional distress". Very, very easy to abuse vague, bullshit terminology like that.
So does this mean no more Mashable troll contests?
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Heh. Not if this law passes.
Or at least if we hold them, we must disclaim them thoroughly.
"Butthurt authors may press charges resulting in up to two years imprisonment, if you win. But you might get an iPod to listen to while serving your term!"
Ling
· 1 year ago
Any law is only as good, or as bad, as its implementation. Point is, the internet is a bad, bad place, but if you your kid can't take the heat on the net, then you have a problem child. No amount of lawmaking is going to correct that.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
I couldn't agree more.
Tikatu
· 1 year ago
Interesting this, seeing as there's a case of racist cyberbullying here in South Carolina. A mom with biracial kids has been getting text messages on her phone with images and songs about the KKK. Her elementary age kids have heard the messages and are now too scared to sleep in their own home.
Would this bill make some creep think twice before doing something like this? Probably not. It needs some tweaking to make it truly effective against the kind of cyberbullying that Lori Drew and this racist caller indulge in. But at least it codifies such actions as a crime, and something that can get a person arrested, tried, and convicted.
William
· 1 year ago
I'm a big fan of freedom in general, but there's a point you're missing.
Freedom of speech isn't a license to threaten. You can say what you want ... until you cause harm to other people, then THEIR right to be free from threat or intimidation trumps your right of free speech.
Sometimes rights are a zero sum game, where increasing *your* freedom unfairly makes *me* subject to seriously malicious behavior. Do you disagree with the principle that one's rights don't extend to the right to intentionally harm somebody else? There are borders of behavior where it's a zero sum, one side wins and the other loses, and then a line has to be drawn between them. You'd like to have no lines, but you haven't thought about the consequences of that to your own freedom to be free of intimidation. Should stalking be legal? It's tricky to define, but it's a needed tool to protect the vulnerable - women, often, but not always - from the terror that a vicious bully can create.
The line shouldn't benefit the timid and fearful at the expense of merely brash and offensive people, but you'd probably admit that the line should be drawn to prohibit behavior as vicious as Lori Drew's, where a full grown woman used all of her advantages, especially including fraud, to abuse a 13 year old child. I agree that you don't want a line that innocent people will run afoul of, even self-proclaimed asshats, but you need a line that will catch the Lori Drews of the world.
What I'm saying is: argue for the line to be drawn carefully and correctly, but don't just take the simplistic position that any line is a bad line. And the Internet is just a new way to do both good and bad things; it doesn't change the need to define what a civilized society will and won't permit people to do. Harms caused by physical assaults are more difficult over the internet, but harms caused by fraud are actually easier.
The internet doesn't change the need to balance rights. Rather than blithely asserting there should be no lines/laws about behavior, work to make sure the needed lines are drawn on the side of catching only the truly guilty, not the blundering asshat.
Don't be so knee-jerk in your defense of freedom that you simply cede people the right to be demonstrably, unequivocally evil.
All Comments
But would it prevent it from happening in the first place?
More importantly, would it prevent it without creating more innocent victims of the law?
So does this mean no more Mashable troll contests?
Or at least if we hold them, we must disclaim them thoroughly.
"Butthurt authors may press charges resulting in up to two years imprisonment, if you win. But you might get an iPod to listen to while serving your term!"
Would this bill make some creep think twice before doing something like this? Probably not. It needs some tweaking to make it truly effective against the kind of cyberbullying that Lori Drew and this racist caller indulge in. But at least it codifies such actions as a crime, and something that can get a person arrested, tried, and convicted.
Freedom of speech isn't a license to threaten. You can say what you want ... until you cause harm to other people, then THEIR right to be free from threat or intimidation trumps your right of free speech.
Sometimes rights are a zero sum game, where increasing *your* freedom unfairly makes *me* subject to seriously malicious behavior. Do you disagree with the principle that one's rights don't extend to the right to intentionally harm somebody else? There are borders of behavior where it's a zero sum, one side wins and the other loses, and then a line has to be drawn between them. You'd like to have no lines, but you haven't thought about the consequences of that to your own freedom to be free of intimidation. Should stalking be legal? It's tricky to define, but it's a needed tool to protect the vulnerable - women, often, but not always - from the terror that a vicious bully can create.
The line shouldn't benefit the timid and fearful at the expense of merely brash and offensive people, but you'd probably admit that the line should be drawn to prohibit behavior as vicious as Lori Drew's, where a full grown woman used all of her advantages, especially including fraud, to abuse a 13 year old child. I agree that you don't want a line that innocent people will run afoul of, even self-proclaimed asshats, but you need a line that will catch the Lori Drews of the world.
What I'm saying is: argue for the line to be drawn carefully and correctly, but don't just take the simplistic position that any line is a bad line. And the Internet is just a new way to do both good and bad things; it doesn't change the need to define what a civilized society will and won't permit people to do. Harms caused by physical assaults are more difficult over the internet, but harms caused by fraud are actually easier.
The internet doesn't change the need to balance rights. Rather than blithely asserting there should be no lines/laws about behavior, work to make sure the needed lines are drawn on the side of catching only the truly guilty, not the blundering asshat.
Don't be so knee-jerk in your defense of freedom that you simply cede people the right to be demonstrably, unequivocally evil.