Congress to outlaw flaming

[Dominus Atheos]

New bill just introduced to congress:

‘‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

‘‘(b) As used in this section—

‘‘(1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the in
formation as sent and received; and

‘‘(2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’’.

*polishes Onion Router*

[Admiral Valdemar]

The entire US justice system will grind to a halt from USENET's daily flow alone. This is the latest in a long line of retarded legal bills recently. I guess suing OPEC wasn't dumb enough.

[Zablorg]

This would have somewhat amusing consequences for the America-folk of this board.

The statement "cause emotional distress to a person" sounds stupidly vague. If this bill were passed, you'd have assholes left and right trying to sue people because they have received "emotional distress".

And fuck, think of the legal traffic celebrities could feasibly create through gossip blogs alone!

[Solauren]

Boy, could someone have fun with this bill with a website hosted outside of the United States, with a very careful and detailed disclaimer and rules page.

[Patrick Degan]

Unenforceable, and quite possibly unconstitutional as well.

[Stuart]

This would have somewhat amusing consequences for the America-folk of this board. The statement "cause emotional distress to a person" sounds stupidly vague. If this bill were passed, you'd have assholes left and right trying to sue people because they have received "emotional distress". And think of the legal traffic celebrities could feasibly create through gossip blogs alone!

There's a case going down in Thailand at the moment which is directly on point for this whole affair (its being tried in Nakhon Phanom of all places). What basically happened is that a guy who runs a small company out there started a website exposing what he considered to be morally dubious (at best) or outright illegal (at worst) practices which resident foreigners in Thailand used to extract money from visitors. Anyway, the people he was exposing first of all tried to shut him up by accusing him of being a peodophile, drug dealer and smuggler then, when that didn't work (the Thai Police are very well aware of who is doing what in their patch and knew the accusations were baseless) sued him for defamation of character (!!!!!!!!)

So the whole area of internet usage is coming under fire on a worldwide basis. This bill (nutty as it is - its badly crafted and pretty obviously an amateur effor) is just a symptom of a wider problem. How it's going to work out is anybody's guess.

[Molyneux]

If this actually gets anywhere, I think we might just see Anonymous vs. the US Government...though I dearly hope it dies quickly. That someone can introduce a bill like that with hopes that it may actually be passed drives home to me that these are some truly nasty times.

[Coyote]

They'll have to tighten up the language. Obviously this is meant for those 'cyber-bullies' that induce suicide and stuff like that, but the people that craft the laws are still amazed by Etch-A-Sketch and don't realize the medium they're dealing with.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Or they're wording it so deliberately vague so as to do all but explicitly ask for 'mission creep'. I wouldn't be surprised at all to expect this if the big telcos were writing this bill, what with their undeclared war on the internet as of late. Shit like CP, cyberbullies, and piracy are merely the pretext for forcibly returning us to the halcyon days of pre-internet TV, just minus any attempts at fairness and objectivity.

They don't like it when the sheep look up.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Oh that's nothing. Here in Singapore, criticisng the Government, as per the Sedition Act, can well be a chargeable offense if the Government so feels like charging you for it. Read:

Seditious tendency.
3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;

(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —

(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;

(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;

(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or

(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,

if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

(3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence under this Act, the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact such act had, or would, if done, have had, or such words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.

Yeah sure, like we can even justify our criticism showing government internal statistics or internal documents to save our asses, only to get whacked next by the Internal Security Act. What fun.

[CaptainChewbacca]

This would have somewhat amusing consequences for the America-folk of this board. The statement "cause emotional distress to a person" sounds stupidly vague. If this bill were passed, you'd have assholes left and right trying to sue people because they have received "emotional distress". And think of the legal traffic celebrities could feasibly create through gossip blogs alone!

There's a case going down in Thailand at the moment which is directly on point for this whole affair (its being tried in Nakhon Phanom of all places). What basically happened is that a guy who runs a small company out there started a website exposing what he considered to be morally dubious (at best) or outright illegal (at worst) practices which resident foreigners in Thailand used to extract money from visitors. Anyway, the people he was exposing first of all tried to shut him up by accusing him of being a peodophile, drug dealer and smuggler then, when that didn't work (the Thai Police are very well aware of who is doing what in their patch and knew the accusations were baseless) sued him for defamation of character (!!!!!!!!)

So the whole area of internet usage is coming under fire on a worldwide basis. This bill (nutty as it is - its badly crafted and pretty obviously an amateur effor) is just a symptom of a wider problem. How it's going to work out is anybody's guess.

Is it defamation if its true?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is it defamation if its true?

Since you are talking about an Asian country here, it is only true only if the person who is defamed, happens to have a lot of money.

[General Zod]

Is it defamation if its true?

The problem is you actually have to be able to prove it's true. Without solid evidence you can still be sued for defamation, whether or not it's factually correct.

[Coyote]

Or they're wording it so deliberately vague so as to do all but explicitly ask for 'mission creep'. I wouldn't be surprised at all to expect this if the big telcos were writing this bill, what with their undeclared war on the internet as of late. Shit like CP, cyberbullies, and piracy are merely the pretext for forcibly returning us to the halcyon days of pre-internet TV, just minus any attempts at fairness and objectivity.

They don't like it when the sheep look up.

Good point; I hadn't thought of that. And, of course, it is conveniently open to PATRIOT act bullfuckery, too...

[Stuart]

Is it defamation if its true?

In Thailand, the criteria for defamation is that the words in question would "lower the person in the eyes of reasonable people". To defend against a defamation charge the defendent must

A - prove that his allegations were substantially true and
B - that publishing the allegations was of benefit to society

There's an unspoken but very real third requirement that applies to the plaintiff

C - the plaintiff must prove that his reputation wasn't already so bad that nothing could significantly harm it further.

For example, let us suppose that the allegation is that person X goes around randomly hitting people with a wooden club.

Under category A, the police state that X was in the habit of ramdomly hitting people but used an iron bar not a wooden club. This would not be a case of defamation since the important bit is randomly hitting people not what he used. So the allegation would be substantially true.

Under B, the defendent claims that he was warning people to take cover when they saw X walking down the street swinging a blunt object. the court is likely to agree that this was a service that benefitted society.

The police then testify that X was known to be a violent and brutal person with numerous assaults attributed to him and that the local community all agreed that he had a "bad heart". (In Thailand, there is a saying, 'the law is weak but the village is strong' meaning that a person's standing in the community is a very important factor in a trial. If the community believes the defendent has a 'good heart' - ie is courteous, considerate of others, devotes some of his time to helping the community and/or donating help to those less fortunate than himself - he's likely to get treated much more favorably than a person who has a 'bad heart' - ie somebody who is selfish, rude, vindictive and disrespectful of the community). When the police investigate a crime in Thailand, at least half their effort is spent finding out what the local community really thinks about the accused. So in this example, the court is likely to conclude that nothing said about X will make his reputation any worse so the case gets dismissed.

By the way, no juries in Thailand. Defendents get tried either before a judge or a panel of three judges (I'm not sure of the criteria to determine which is which.) In some areas, one of the three judges will be an Army officer - a friend of mine has sat on the bench in numerous trials in that capacity.

[CaptainChewbacca]

That's interesting. I remember I saw some movie about 2 american girls in Thailand who were being framed for drug-smuggling. The attorney (an american who specialized in defending tourists) demonstrated the amount of drugs 'siezed' couldn't actually fit in their bag, but because it came out that the girls had used fraud to switch their room-service bill with another hotel guest, it made them look bad and the judges decided they were guilty of 'bad character'.

[Darth Wong]

That's interesting. I remember I saw some movie about 2 american girls in Thailand who were being framed for drug-smuggling. The attorney (an american who specialized in defending tourists) demonstrated the amount of drugs 'siezed' couldn't actually fit in their bag, but because it came out that the girls had used fraud to switch their room-service bill with another hotel guest, it made them look bad and the judges decided they were guilty of 'bad character'.

Were they also found guilty of smuggling the drugs that could not possibly fit in their bags?

[CaptainChewbacca]

That's interesting. I remember I saw some movie about 2 american girls in Thailand who were being framed for drug-smuggling. The attorney (an american who specialized in defending tourists) demonstrated the amount of drugs 'siezed' couldn't actually fit in their bag, but because it came out that the girls had used fraud to switch their room-service bill with another hotel guest, it made them look bad and the judges decided they were guilty of 'bad character'.

Were they also found guilty of smuggling the drugs that could not possibly fit in their bags?

I think so, its been a long time. It was something like 'The evidence is immaterial, because the women are obviously criminals'. A very weird movie.

[The Spartan]

That's interesting. I remember I saw some movie about 2 american girls in Thailand who were being framed for drug-smuggling. The attorney (an american who specialized in defending tourists) demonstrated the amount of drugs 'siezed' couldn't actually fit in their bag, but because it came out that the girls had used fraud to switch their room-service bill with another hotel guest, it made them look bad and the judges decided they were guilty of 'bad character'.

Were they also found guilty of smuggling the drugs that could not possibly fit in their bags?

I think so, its been a long time. It was something like 'The evidence is immaterial, because the women are obviously criminals'. A very weird movie.

Are you thinking of Brokedown Palace? If so, they were sentenced to 25 years each, as I recall. Eventually, one was released with the second agreeing to serve both sentences.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, in Thailand, just don't defame the king. Even if you are right, I think you will get charged for insulting the king.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Were they also found guilty of smuggling the drugs that could not possibly fit in their bags?

I think so, its been a long time. It was something like 'The evidence is immaterial, because the women are obviously criminals'. A very weird movie.

Are you thinking of Brokedown Palace? If so, they were sentenced to 25 years each, as I recall. Eventually, one was released with the second agreeing to serve both sentences.

Right, I just looked it up. In the movie, even though the girls were probably innocent, 'somebody had to go to jail', and since the girls had skipped a hotel bill, they looked bad. Interesting film.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Well, in Thailand, just don't defame the king. Even if you are right, I think you will get charged for insulting the king.

You won't just get charged, you'll get dragged into the streets and beaten. Some swede living in Bangkok tried that a year or two ago.

[Molyneux]

Well, in Thailand, just don't defame the king. Even if you are right, I think you will get charged for insulting the king.

Hey, Bhumibol Adulyadej, monarch of Thailand: fuck you!

I am often frustrated at the injustices in the United States...but some things just make me very glad that I live here.

[Patrick Degan]

Or they're wording it so deliberately vague so as to do all but explicitly ask for 'mission creep'. I wouldn't be surprised at all to expect this if the big telcos were writing this bill, what with their undeclared war on the internet as of late. Shit like CP, cyberbullies, and piracy are merely the pretext for forcibly returning us to the halcyon days of pre-internet TV, just minus any attempts at fairness and objectivity.

They don't like it when the sheep look up.

Good point; I hadn't thought of that. And, of course, it is conveniently open to PATRIOT act bullfuckery, too...

If the law is that vague that it's definitions are essentially meaningless, it's open to court challenge on those grounds alone, nevermind the possible constitutional questions also nipping at its heels.

[Darth Wong]

If the law is that vague that it's definitions are essentially meaningless, it's open to court challenge on those grounds alone, nevermind the possible constitutional questions also nipping at its heels.

The obscenity laws are equally meaningless, and they don't appear to be in any danger of revocation.