i love the points they made about very legitimate things like citizens expressing outrage at actions taken by politicians. under this idiotic bullshit, that would be considered a federal charge, and a felony. wtf, people?
as an argument in favor of the proposed legislation i'd argue against it.
here's a metaphor....i am very strongly opposed to so-called "hate crimes" being their own coded crimes. a homicide isn't more or less of a murder simply because someone arbitrarily applies "hate crime" to it. that murder didn't happen from love. ditto, a bombing, an arson, or whatever other violent felony someone attaches that, imho, utterly retarded qualifier to. the original crime is a valid and legitimate crime all on its own.
people are asshats. people are more asshat-ish on the internet. a competent attorney should be just as able to articulate a case if the harassment takes place on the internet as if the harassment took place in person or by written communication, or by skywriting for that matter. harassment is harassment is harassment. get evidence and make your argument.
the proposed legislation could very easily, and i mean very easily be used against someone not committing a crime, simply because the recipient doesn't like it, or their feelings got hurt.
at the link i provided, Eugene Volokh, a law professor, makes several hypotheticals in his post; all are legitimate.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2009-04-30 10:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-30 10:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-30 10:41 pm (UTC)Pretty much for the same reason that this idea sucks. I mean really, wtf?
no subject
Date: 2009-04-30 10:48 pm (UTC)i vote we all go back to kindergarten rules; don't tattle, don't tell lies, suck it up, and my personal fave, stop being a baby.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-30 11:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-01 03:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-01 03:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-01 07:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-01 10:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-04 03:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-05 07:12 pm (UTC)here's a metaphor....i am very strongly opposed to so-called "hate crimes" being their own coded crimes. a homicide isn't more or less of a murder simply because someone arbitrarily applies "hate crime" to it. that murder didn't happen from love. ditto, a bombing, an arson, or whatever other violent felony someone attaches that, imho, utterly retarded qualifier to. the original crime is a valid and legitimate crime all on its own.
people are asshats. people are more asshat-ish on the internet. a competent attorney should be just as able to articulate a case if the harassment takes place on the internet as if the harassment took place in person or by written communication, or by skywriting for that matter. harassment is harassment is harassment. get evidence and make your argument.
the proposed legislation could very easily, and i mean very easily be used against someone not committing a crime, simply because the recipient doesn't like it, or their feelings got hurt.
at the link i provided, Eugene Volokh, a law professor, makes several hypotheticals in his post; all are legitimate.
ymmocv