As someone who has been stalked / harassed on the internet by a crazed, profane, potentially dangerous and oftentimes quite drunk former professor, I can sympathize with legislation intended to supply police some sort of recourse to stop unwanted online molestations; after all, victims of such crimes shouldn’t be forced to shut down all their emails, get new cellphones, or shutter their sites just because a trolling moron has a working knowledge of IP anonymizers, etc.
Having said that, I do think the language of the legislation is far too broad — mostly because I don’t really trust government not to abuse the latitude of speech such subjective language covers, and because I don’t believe (for reasons you regular readers know so well) that the receiver of a message should have so much power over determining what comes to count as “annoying” or “offensive.” Should the legislators wish to specify the conditions for what is considered the new legal standard for “annoying” or “offensive” speech — along with some calculus that takes into account the frequency, etc., — I’d be willing to listen. Because having gone through the legal system in an attempt to beat back one particularly vicious piece of work, I can testify to the hurdles victims have to overcome just to find plausible remedies to protect themselves — most of which still don’t punish the behavior that led them to contact law enforcement in the first place.
But it is wrong and dangerous to give legal cover to a knee-jerk reaction toward the other extreme, where a law as written could chill heated speech simply because the power to wield that kind of control winds up in the hands of someone who either thoroughly misunderstands (or else intentionally re-imagines) “tolerance,” or who finds “hate” in places where others find mere criticism. And, pace Rep Williams, I don’t believe one need be a “crackpot” or “conspiracy theorist” to recognize that. In fact, one need look no further than the contemporary academy. Just reviewing the cases F.I.R.E. highlights on a daily basis should be enough to convince lawmakers that any over-broad language will in the long run create more victims at the hands of overzealous nannies than it will ever protect from online stalkers.
Vigilance concerning governmental attempts to regulate speech — particularly when that vigilance is deployed to guarantee that laws won’t pass that can later be used to abuse free speech rights by those with different agendas than Mr Williams — is not “extremism.” It is the governed keeping a close eye on those who presume to govern.
If Rep Williams can’t see that, he needs to be reminded.
What do you think of using unsolicited communication as a criterion in this calculus? It’s one thing for someone like SWMNBN to publish something on media space she owns, but quite another to spam your inbox/phone/blog/twitter with communication from a person you don’t want to hear from, especially if you’ve made your wishes known. To me, some critical components of this are 1) who initiates the communication and 2) is the communication channel considered public, private, community-oriented (like a blog or public meeting) or individually-oriented (like a phone call, email address, or conversation at a small table with two chairs).
With normal people, hearing something like, “I don’t want to hear from you. Please stop calling/emailing/etc” is enough. But with abnormal people of the variety we’re familiar with, a polite or even impolite request isn’t enough to modify behavior. At that point, some legal or other means are needed. And while I have ideas on what might be good rules to enact in King Darth’s world, perhaps Emperor Jeff G. has other and better ideas.
I haven’t given this problem the amount of thought it deserves. The solution is certainly not the extreme that Darleen discussed and rejected. That way provides way too many opportunities for abuse, as noted here.
I think the situation is another symptom of an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the people who know the aggressor. I’m not speaking about childish antics, taunts, or tempers flaring briefly, but systematic abuse perpetrated by someone who at a minimum has “issues” and ultimately may be mentally ill. Except in very few instances, the abuser’s problems are known by others who could do something about it, and those problems are ignored.
I’m not sure if that is due to the notion (furthered by government intrusion into all aspects our lives) that it’s somebody else’s problem, but I don’t think that’s a bad first approximation. The thing is, the government is generally woefully inadequate in dealing with such problems, as we saw played out here a while ago.
The only people who are really equipped to deal with truly problem humans are those who know them.
That’s where harassment/stalking statutes come into play. And restraining orders.
I haven’t really thought on it much myself cranky, other than when it’s been an issue here.
My off the cuff reaction is, don’t we already have laws on the books for this kind of thing? Jeff had to wade through all kinds of shit, but ultimately, through legal means, was able to have the person restrained. That it was a pain in the ass was unfortunate, but that wasn’t because there needed to be a new law, but that there are total assholes that will be assholes regardless the law.
I kinda relate it to using tragic shootings to excuse regulating guns. 15 day waiting periods aren’t going to stop a criminal from stealing a gun and using it criminally. It only hinders the honest man. In the same way, regulating certain forms of speech isn’t going to deter a crazy stalker.
It will get some enforcement agency all up in our business though, ever patrolling for the outlawed words.
Part of Jeff’s problem was the failure of YouJean law enforcement/courts. The law was on his side. Getting it enforced was another matter.
That was kind of my point, in that said assholes need to be restrained by someone, and often the law is inadequate. That’s where family and friends should be active.
I’m not suggesting a solution. I wish I had one.
OT, but Holder’s reply to 5th Circuit here.
“The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.”
So, as expected, still lying.
The difference is that between being harassed, and being offended. It is possible to find something offensive in the most innocent of actions or utterances, if one isn’t excessively niggardly in one’s quest to find it.
It is not so easy to find harassment — unless one completely redefines it. Which, now that I bring it up…
It’s not like a “compulsory media regulator” hasn’t been thought of already…
Should the legislators wish to specify the conditions for what is considered the new legal standard for “annoying” or “offensive” speech — along with some calculus that takes into account the frequency, etc., — I’d be willing to listen.
First thing I thought, just as Pablo did, is “we’ve already got harassment laws on the books.” They might be unwieldy, as Jeff unfortunately found out, but the legal concept does already exist.
but systematic abuse perpetrated by someone who at a minimum has “issues” and ultimately may be mentally ill.
Don’t forget malicious campaigns to browbeat someone into silence, such as those launched by a Soros-funded outfits, which spend all their time putting strategies and assets into place to immediately and intensely harass the next hapless soul who trips their wire.
We need to bring back dueling. And that’s not just because of the ridiculous advantage we’d enjoy under any “pistols at dawn” scenario.
…but systematic abuse perpetrated by someone who at a minimum has “issues” and ultimately may be mentally ill.
Friend, families and employers may well know that someone has issues or is mentally ill, but they are helpless to do anything about it. Unless someone is demonstrably a threat to themselves or others, the state has no recourse but to let them be. And that goes doubly so for friends and family. I suspect friends and family of SWMNBN would love for her to get help, but since they can’t force it, have reluctantly washed their hands of the mess.