Our immunity is gone

A fan on a Pittsburgh Penguins message board claimed "I'm killing Ovechkin and I don't care what happens to me." He was shortly afterwards taken into custody.
Wow, I need to be careful from now on.

almost 3 years ago anaheim angels 35 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Pittsburgh Penguins hates bloggers.

I am The Iron Man.

by 44FAN on May 7, 2009 4:15 PM PDT reply actions

Here you go

http://futurestorm.blogspot.com/2009/05/hr-1966-offend-someone-online-go-to.html

Play Wood already. Willits sucks.

by hauldog on May 7, 2009 4:52 PM PDT reply actions

Introduced by L.A.'s very own Linda Sanchez

Wonder if she has ever heard of the Bill of Rights?

RIP Nick Adenhart, #34

by Higz on May 7, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions

The bill explicitly says repeated threats.....

Meaning over and over on a regular basis, not single isolated threats.

I am The Iron Man.

by 44FAN on May 7, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions

The word "threat" is not even in the language of the bill

The terms used are not as clear-cut as that. That is the scary thing.

RIP Nick Adenhart, #34

by Higz on May 7, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Sorrry, I was using "threat" as a general term. Picky.......picky.

SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING.

(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Sec. 881. Cyberbullying

(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.

I am The Iron Man.

by 44FAN on May 7, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions

"or cause substantial emotional distress to a person"

You do not have a right to not be offended.

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on May 7, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Unconstitutional

not even a close call, really.

by jjackflash on May 7, 2009 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions

So was wire tapping and spying on American citizens by the U.S. Govt. but.....

I am The Iron Man.

by 44FAN on May 7, 2009 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions

*warantless wiretapping

I am The Iron Man.

by 44FAN on May 7, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Nobody is saying that, obviously

It’s just ridiculous that the Dems who cried foul over the Patriot Act are now trying to enact their own brand of Big Brotherism. Extremely hypocritical. I’m actually shocked that anybody would try and justify this.

RIP Nick Adenhart, #34

by Higz on May 7, 2009 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Oh, and it's not picky at all to point out the glaring absence of the specific word "threat"

Language, and the particular usage of it, is part and parcel of the law

RIP Nick Adenhart, #34

by Higz on May 7, 2009 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes but

in this case, it will be a heck of a lot easier to challenge and strike down a law that misses the mark of constitutionality by such a wide margin. The insidiousness of warrantless wiretapping is due, in part, to the logistical difficulty in challenging a practice that the victims, in many instances, have no idea is occurring.

This is one of those laws that the judge will rule unconstitutional before the attorneys have even finished giving their business cards to the court clerk. It’s almost comical.

by jjackflash on May 7, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions

As in

What part of

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…

does she not understand?

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on May 7, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Well, there are certain restrictions, as per Schenck vs US (1917)

One cannot simply yell ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theatre, or stir up hatred. It would be extremely difficult to prosecute someone without concrete physical evidence of an action (crime necessitates an action and an intent).
Mock Trial and AP US history finally put to some good use

That'll only happen if that one prospect is the second coming of Christ and redemption for mankind can only be achieved by smacking many balls out of the yard.
-The Limey

by anaheim angels on May 7, 2009 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions

yeah. that part.

by Stirrups on May 7, 2009 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions

questionable precedent

Schenck has been largely eviscerated over the years, and really does not accurately state the governing rule. Indeed, by today’s standards, the decision would probably go the other way. The current standard is imminent lawless action. Stated in layperson’s terms, you can’t restrict speech of this nature unless the proverbial barbarians are at the gate. For purposes of cyberbullying, the law could only restrict communications that are about to cause mobs of people to kill someone or burn down city hall.

Note also that this proposed law provides for punishment simply for intent, even if nobody actually suffers coercion, harassment, etc. Seriously, this is the sort of thing we’ll probably be laughing about at the courthouse tomorrow.

by jjackflash on May 8, 2009 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions

help me with this one.

In Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002), the US Ninth Circuit Court objectively assessed the term “threat.” It says that the test to determine whether a specific conduct is a threat is "Whether a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault." Further, the court stated in that case that the "alleged threats should be considered in light of their entire factual context, including the surrounding events and reaction of the listeners." The person making the alleged threat does not need to intend to, or be able to carry out the threat; the person only needs to intentionally or knowingly communicate the threat. This objective test was applied to a cyber-bullying case in which a young teenager committed suicide (the Drew case, filed in the Missouri District Court in 2008). The perpetrators posted comments such as, "the world would be a better place without you," but never posted threats of violence or direct physical harm to the victim. Certainly, under this test, defendants would not have been able to raise a First Amendment defense because the case involved a minor victim and adult perpetrators, making it more likely that an objective reasonable person would foresee the statements as a serious threat – i.e., intent to harm or assault, albeit through the emotions of the victim.

by Stirrups on May 8, 2009 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions

Rep. Linda Sanchez introduced this legislation as a result of the Megan Mier myspace suicide case.

She was the thirteen year old girl from Missouri that was cyber-bullied by her female neighbor posing as a boy that pretended to be interested in Mier. Sanchez explains in her own words why she brought this bill and why it will not endanger freeedom of speech in her view: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-linda-sanchez/protecting-victims-preser_b_198079.html

I am The Iron Man.

by 44FAN on May 7, 2009 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions

I read that

and Sanchez is even dumber than I thought. In her very own state of California, there’s already case law that essentially says that you can’t be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress for suggesting that someone kill themselves (Cochran v. Cochran – telling someone to get a ticket on an airline that’s notorious for crashes is OK).

by jjackflash on May 8, 2009 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions

Johnny Cochran sued himself?

by Rev Halofan on May 8, 2009 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions

He and his ex

by jjackflash on May 8, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah

But he lost, because he used the Chewbacca defense to defend himself, winning the suit.

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on May 8, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions

I know

And “So-and-so’s Law” is almost always a bad law.

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on May 8, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions

Excuse me for being so callous

but the fact that there were ever charges brought against the woman in that case infuriated me to no end. She told a 13 year old girl to kill herself and pretended to be a boy saying mean things, and SHE’S responsible?

How many kids get made fun of and don’t kill themselves? How many kids experience a break-up at that age (or even younger for that matter) and don’t kill themselves? Where’s the mother monitoring her child’s internet usage? Where’s the parent who cares enough about her THIRTEEN YEAR OLD to make sure she’s not throwing her entire life out onto the internet for God-knows-who to see? Nevermind that this isn’t school or work or the general public we’re talking about getting made fun of. It’s going on the internet, actively seeking out an environment to enter into, choosing the person or people you wish to engage with, and ALLOWING them to say and do what they will to you. The person on the other end can’t directly make fun of someone who isn’t there. If you don’t want to be insulted on AIM or on myspace by someone, don’t fuckin’ talk to them. There’s a very obvious ability to be more selective in your internet communications than you can be anywhere else.

And someone gets prosecuted for saying MEAN THINGS? Jesus, it’s pathetic.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on May 9, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions

that's pretty cold Casey

RIP Nick. We will miss you!

by KingF15h on May 11, 2009 5:46 AM PDT up reply actions

No one's saying anyone deserved to die

or that there’s no sympathy to have for a parent with a dead kid.

It’s just bullshit that someone ELSE ends up punished for something that, as far as I’m concerned, was somewhere in the neighborhood of 0% responsible.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on May 11, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions