Hooligans Sportsbook

Internet Laws.......

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    18 Replies •
  • Views 1,946 Views
Follow
Archie

Archie

SP Nation and I Ruin things
Since
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
24,471
Score
2,398
Tokens
50
FYI for any stalkers

Sending threatening emails or messages through the internet using instant messages or other means, is a federal crime in the United States.

18 U.S.C. 875 : US Code - Section 875: Interstate communications
Search 18 U.S.C. 875 : US Code - Section 875: Interstate communications

(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or
reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm,
association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value,
transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication
containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure
the person of another, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any
threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm,
association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value,
transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication
containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the
addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or
any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two
years, or both.
 
I know nothing about internet laws.

These laws might be unconstitutional. Traditionally a crime requires the act (threat) and the mental state (intent to comit the crime). Threats often lack the second element and thus are not actionable. Many states have shifted the mental state element to the victim. In other words, did the victim reasonably believe the threat.

Interesting stuff.

BTW Archie, im gonna come to Chi town and slap you.
 
Boner, you gotta think this stuff is gonna blow up over the next 25 years.....

I know I've heard of litigation and such on big cases like this on national news.... like the kids that harrassed a gay kid on myspace and he killed himself ect....

gonna be a lot of big decisions to come down from the high courts in the next few decades.... but right now its gotta be a pretty big crapshoot... and I wonder if that make Judges scared to create a precedent...or eager to set a precedent (attention whore judges)

Boner you can't scare me with your threats... my mental state does not believe that your threat is reasonable.... you are one of those 5'5-5'8 gamelive posters

I know your bark is worse than your bite, you little napoleon complex little guy
 
I don't doubt that cycber stalking laws are valid and actionable. But those laws encompass action that rises WELL above simple threats. Does the SA ever file them as stand alone charges? I doubt it, prob a tack on/leverage offense. Most cases would be very easy to defend unless coupled with other offenses.
 
Boner_18
I don't doubt that cycber stalking laws are valid and actionable. But those laws encompass action that rises WELL above simple threats. Does the SA ever file them as stand alone charges? I doubt it, prob a tack on/leverage offense. Most cases would be very easy to defend unless coupled with other offenses.
Click to expand...


Just a random example of what the SA would file on as a stand alone charge:


Victim has 60 saved emails from the defendant in which the harassment is intentional and against her will. Victim also has email where he/she requests that he/she no longer be contacted, the defendant acknowledges this yet continues to contact the victim.

I think you may be overstating the amount of threat that is necessary to file/get a conviction on cyber stalking.

I've handled cases where the defendant was not making overt threats but he was a scorned lover who just refused to accept the fact that his ex-gf had moved on.
 
Perhaps I am. Like I said, I really don't know much about internet laws such as cyber-stalking.

However, in almost all the cases I have read (just today browsing around) and heard about from y'all here, the victim has had some personal contact with the defendant/accused prior to the stalking. This has the effect of making electronic threats more credible, or using my previous interpretation more reasonable belief/aphrension of harm.

Obviously each of these is a fact inquiry made by the finder of fact (judge or jury) as to the legitimacy of the threat and more importantly the legitimacy of the fear/belief of harm in the victim. I would like to see the fact scenario where two previously unacquainted internet users, perhaps on a forum just like this, were engaged in "threat-slinging." I'd be willing to bet, absent egregious threat (i.e. extensive personal information, etc) those are non-actionable.

Unfortunately my LexisNexis access has been cut off, or I'd do the research myself right now... and of course maybe I am just being a lawyer mind, making a potential case out of any set of circumstances... that's why they pay me the big bucks.
 
Boner, hypothetically speaking of course


Let's say there was a female poster at predominately male forum. Now, she likes the attention. She is a cute girl. In moments that did not show off her smarts, she might have posted her email and phone number on said forum. Please keep in mind that this hypothetical forum is a public one. Then one day she starts getting emails from a poster who just showed up. These emails are directed to her work email which was not posted on said hypothetical forum. Random poster's emails allegely contain material such as wanting to get together with her and oh, I don't know...maybe do a few drugs and just hang out, just to give us a scenerio. She replies that she isn't interested. Random poster continues to send emails and they grow in their intensity. Random poster does not take the word no well. Random poster's alleged emails start saying either do this with me or I will get you fired from your job.

Now in this hypothetical, totally made up scenerio wouldn't you say that female poster has a case of at least harassing communications?
 
Not Boner but....


In Florida, the above hypothetical would fly with the State Attorney's Office if there was documentation that the harassment:

A) was over a sustained period of time (at least 14 days) and

B) several emails/contacts were received (ie: it wasn't just one or two emails)

B) the victim advised the offender that the emails were not wanted and requested that they cease
 
Daft
Not Boner but....


In Florida, the above hypothetical would fly with the State Attorney's Office if there was documentation that the harassment:

A) was over a sustained period of time (at least 14 days) and

B) several emails/contacts were received (ie: it wasn't just one or two emails)

B) the victim advised the offender that the emails were not wanted and requested that they cease
Click to expand...

hypothetically speaking of course. :winkwink:
 
Potentially a case for harassment. Which would be much different than the federal crime outlined by Archie. For example, hypothetically, harassment in the state of NJ is merely a petty offense, like a traffic ticket, below a misdemeanor. Certainly actionable, but not a slam dunk conviction IMO.

Let's suffice it to say that these cases are VERY fact intensive. Interesting stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.