RSS
Does Cyberstalking Need A Separate Law?
from the what-is-it-about-the-computer-that-makes-it-different? dept
Over in Australia, they're apparently putting in place a cyberstalking law that will mean jail-time for those who harass others "using a telecommunications device". Why do they need this special law to apply to the use of a telecommunications device? Why not just have a stalking law that will apply to those who "cyberstalk" as well? The action should be illegal, not the method by which the action occurred. Update: Here's another article on the subject that covers this is a dreadful law that could end up putting protesters in jail.
2 Comments | Leave a Comment..
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
- We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
- One Nation, Under Guard
- Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders
- White House Says It Can't Comment On Possible Chris Dodd Investigation
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Same as patents
Of course it's all crap--politicians either like to make themselves look good or are just plain stupid. Not only do existing laws fit just fine in covering 95% of internet actions, but at all it would take is pressing charges against a violator, presenting a solid, reasonable case on why for example "cyberstalking" is guilty according to the existing stalking laws and precedent will be set.
I say 95% because there are a few cases where the internet does require special legislation because it is different than anything else--spam of course being the obvious example because phone, mail, etc all mean advertisers paying several orders of magnitude more per message than email and the receivers actually being forced to actually pay for the message (through ISPs).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment