[Vision2020] Beware, anonymous annoyers!

[Jennifer McFarland]

 Mr. Force, Mr. Hanson, et al.,

With all due respect, it seems to me that the new legislation considers that
we have a (relatively) new form of communication (relatively new, that is,
to telephones, telegraphs, etc.) which is being used to circumvent already
limited (or prohibited) speech.  Idaho Code addresses the use of telephones
("any device which provides transmission of messages, signals, facsimiles,
video images or other communication between persons who are physically
separated from each other by means of telephone, telegraph, cable, wire or
the projection of energy without physical connection" 18-6710(3)) to "annoy,
terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass or offend by lewd or profane language,
requests, suggestions or proposals--Threats of physical harm--Disturbing the
peace by repeated calls" (18-6710); and the use of the same to "terrify,
intimidate, harass or annoy by false statements" (18-6711).  The new
legislation, it seems to me, clarifies that use of the internet to affect
the same result (instilling fear, annoyance, etc.) should carry the same
punishment.  The definition of "telephone" in the code has been subject to
both broad and narrow interpretation, perhaps because of ever evolving
technology in how we transmit and receive information.  I imagine that those
states that have not yet revised their existing telephone harassment laws to
include transmissions using the Internet will in short order.

I reckon that the reason the new legislation was made in the first place
(instead of relying upon states to initiate changes--although I am unaware
whether or not other states adopted a similar adaptation of their existing
codes prior to the Federal law being made, and they might have) was (in
part) to address the needs of tribal law enforcement and of tribal members
(evidenced to me by the number of references to tribal jurisdiction within
the resolution).  In effect, it seems that the resolution is saying that
being threatened through emails and instant messaging is no less threatening
than being threatened by phone calls, etc.  These codes (18-6710 & 6711) are
generally used/charged when repeated calls are made that are threatening
and/or terrifying, annoying, etc. but where the calls so not amount to
"assault" (I.C. 18-901, which is not charged unless the threat creates a
"well founded fear . . . that such violence is imminent").  

Moreover, it seems that "imbedding" this addendum to existing law within the
context of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act (VAWA) is appropriate in addressing the needs of
battered and/or abused women.  Once a woman has left an abusive
relationship, it is quite common that the man she has left will continue to
contact her via phone, email, mail, etc, attempting to reestablish his
control over her and her life.  I think this law will give tribal police a
way to help women who are in these situations.  Previously, the internet has
been a loophole through which clever stalkers were able to pass to exert
control over their victims and to elude the spirit of existing laws.

As a side note: VAWA has bi-partisan support and co-sponsorship.

--Jennifer





PIO Jennifer L. McFarland
Latah County Sheriff's Office
Public Information Officer
PO Box 8068
Moscow, Idaho 83843
(208) 882-2216
Fax (208) 883-2281

Truth is the summit of being; justice is the application of it to affairs.
***Ralph Waldo Emerson

 


 
-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Ron Force
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 15:18
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Beware, anonymous annoyers!


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."

Declan McCullagh-
"...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."

Read the rest at:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6024695.html?tag=nl.e589

**********************************************
Ron Force          Moscow ID USA
rforce at moscow.com
**********************************************


_____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯