Re: First Amendment takes a hit
On 2/22/07, Max Battcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, why do people chase these sort of scapegoats? People scapegoat what they fear, and people fear what they don't understand. So parents who don't understand IMs and UseNet would rather make them scapegoats than to learn about them. -- Mauro Diotallevi Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god of jello now. -- Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: First Amendment takes a hit
On 2/21/07, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:17 PM Wednesday 2/21/2007, Gary Nunn wrote: Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. Arguably it may be in response to such events as those described in the following article from CNN today: quote Ryan Patrick Halligan was bullied for months online. Classmates sent the 13-year-old boy instant messages calling him gay. He was threatened, taunted and insulted incessantly by so-called cyberbullies. In 2003, Ryan killed himself. /quote Full article at http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/02/21/cyberbullying.ap/index.html. I hate to sound insensitive, but this is one of the stupidest things I think I've read in a few days. A) There's a real failure to do root cause analysis by these parents involved. B) There's a real failure to focus on pro-active *parent* education on this there intarweb. First of all, bullying is bullying is bullying and stopping insulting instant messages isn't going to stop bullying, it's just going to cause amazing enforcement issues. Second of all, the parents should be informed that their kids bring this stuff on themselves. If a kid is worried about cyberbullying (which is a term I hope to never use or see again, but figure it'll stick unfortunately), the parents should realize that there are plugs to be killed. Myspace and Instant Messenger applications are *opt-in*. Shut it down, close it out, start a different account, find a better Instant Messenger that allows you to screen who messages you (Jabber servers require explicit permissions), whatever... Honestly, why do people chase these sort of scapegoats? -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ All progress is based upon a universal innate desire on the part of every organism to live beyond its income. --Samuel Butler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
First Amendment takes a hit
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess. This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison. Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals. In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.) http://tinyurl.com/a2kqp ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: First Amendment takes a hit
At 10:17 PM Wednesday 2/21/2007, Gary Nunn wrote: Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess. This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison. Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals. In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.) http://tinyurl.com/a2kqp Arguably it may be in response to such events as those described in the following article from CNN today: quote Ryan Patrick Halligan was bullied for months online. Classmates sent the 13-year-old boy instant messages calling him gay. He was threatened, taunted and insulted incessantly by so-called cyberbullies. In 2003, Ryan killed himself. /quote Full article at http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/02/21/cyberbullying.ap/index.html. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
