<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;offensive&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Police In Tasmania Explain To The Public That Someone Saying Something Mean Online Is Not Illegal</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120716/03420319708/police-tasmania-explain-to-public-that-someone-saying-something-mean-online-is-not-illegal.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120716/03420319708/police-tasmania-explain-to-public-that-someone-saying-something-mean-online-is-not-illegal.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen it over and over again: some people seem to think that if anyone says something you don't like about you online, it's illegal, and you can go after them for it.  Of course, in most places that's not even close to true, but it doesn't stop some people from trying.  <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/07/16/028254/tasmanian-cops-decline-to-censor-internet?utm_source=slashdot&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">Slashdot</a> alerts us to the news that police in Tasmania are so fed up with people coming to them about things they don't like online that they've put out a statement <a href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/308553,tasmanian-cops-decline-to-censor-internet.aspx" target="_blank">telling the public to <b>stop contacting them</b></a> whenever they find something they think is "abusive or harassing" on Facebook or other social media sites.  They specifically state that they have no interest in censoring the internet:
<blockquote><i>
"If the conduct complained of would not amount to an offence if it occurred off-line, then it is not an offence simply because in a particular instance it was undertaken with the aid of digital technology," the department noted.
<br /><br />
"For example, complaints have been received about comments posted on Facebook which are abusive or harassing. If this behavior occurred in a public place it would not be a reportable offence.
<br /><br />
"It is not the role of Tasmania Police to censor internet content."
</i></blockquote>
My first thought was "good for them" for putting out such a statement. But, my second thought was to be surprised that so many people <i>go to the police</i> about such things.  Perhaps it's a cultural difference, but here in the US, they'd just threaten to sue (or actually sue) in the courts directly, rather than seeking <i>criminal</i> charges that would involve law enforcement.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120716/03420319708/police-tasmania-explain-to-public-that-someone-saying-something-mean-online-is-not-illegal.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120716/03420319708/police-tasmania-explain-to-public-that-someone-saying-something-mean-online-is-not-illegal.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120716/03420319708/police-tasmania-explain-to-public-that-someone-saying-something-mean-online-is-not-illegal.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sign-of-the-times</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120716/03420319708</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:49:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Judge Says Bombarding Someone On Twitter With Offensive &#038; Threatening Messages Is Free Speech</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/09542617107/judge-says-bombarding-someone-twitter-with-offensive-threatening-messages-is-free-speech.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/09542617107/judge-says-bombarding-someone-twitter-with-offensive-threatening-messages-is-free-speech.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year we wrote about a tough case, involving a guy who apparently spent nearly all of his waking hours <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110828/00440215714/is-it-stalking-to-bombard-someone-twitter-with-offensive-messages.shtml">bombarding</a> a Buddhist leader he had a falling out with, with nasty, offensive and threatening messages on Twitter.  He was charged with criminal stalking.  This raised an awful lot of questions about the First Amendment, and a judge has now ruled that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/technology/judge-dismisses-case-of-accused-twitter-stalker.html?_r=2&#038;smid=tw-nytimestech&#038;seid=auto" target="_blank">the tweets were, in fact, protected free speech</a>.  I tend to think the ruling here is correct, though I can see how this troubles people.  As the judge noted, however:
<blockquote><i>
Even though the Internet is the newest medium for anonymous, uncomfortable expression touching on political or religious matters, online speech is equally protected under the First Amendment as there is "no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied" to online speech.... Indeed "whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, basic principles of freedom of speech and press, like the First Amendment's command, do not vary when a new and different medium for communication appears."
</i></blockquote>
Funny.  I would think that this same reasoning would apply against domain seizures and SOPA, but it never seems to come up.  That said, if the guy represents a real threat, I would think there are other laws that should cover that, outside of this broad "anti-stalking" law that was used.  The fact that he caused "emotional distress" to the person his tweets were directed at is unfortunate and sad... but not illegal.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/09542617107/judge-says-bombarding-someone-twitter-with-offensive-threatening-messages-is-free-speech.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/09542617107/judge-says-bombarding-someone-twitter-with-offensive-threatening-messages-is-free-speech.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/09542617107/judge-says-bombarding-someone-twitter-with-offensive-threatening-messages-is-free-speech.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>tough-cases</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111216/09542617107</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:07:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Rhode Island Says Police Can Decloak Anonymous People Online If They Find Them Offensive</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/12050914769/rhode-island-says-police-can-decloak-anonymous-people-online-if-they-find-them-offensive.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/12050914769/rhode-island-says-police-can-decloak-anonymous-people-online-if-they-find-them-offensive.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been noticing a trend of various states attempting to pass laws against being a jerk online -- with a particular distaste for anonymous jerks.  But it seems that Rhode Island is taking it to new levels.  Via <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/Copycense/statuses/81454234675060736" target="_blank">Copycense</a>, we learn that Rhode Island is pushing forward with a broadly written law (for the children, of course!), which would <a href="http://www.riaclu.org/StoptheCyberPolice.htm" target="_blank">let police get names and other identifying information from service providers for online speech</a> that they find to be "offensive" or harassing, without requiring that it go through a judge for a warrant first.  Technically, <a href="http://pawtuckettimes.com/content/ri-house-passes-internet-subpoena-bill" target="_blank">the bill</a> allows for law enforcement to issue an "administrative subpoena" on such issues, rather than having to get a judge-approved warrant.  While much of the bill is targeted at uncovering those involved in child porn, it uses that fact to mask the broad powers this gives to law enforcement to uncover who's behind all kinds of anonymous speech, without any consideration for the First Amendment <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070118/160351.shtml">protections</a> for anonymous speech.  This kind of law seems ripe for abuse by law enforcement, and the ACLU notes that Rhode Island law enforcement has already been known to seek this kind of info under questionable reasons:
<blockquote><i>
Fears about the scope of this bill are not exaggerated. In the past year, there have been two highly publicized incidents of <a href="http://www.eastbayri.com/detail/137534.html">police seeking to track down the posters of comments posted online about political figures</a>. Last fall,
    <a href="http://www.riaclu.org/20101004.htm">the Rhode Island ACLU called on Narragansett's Police Chief</a> to drop criminal &ldquo;cyberstalking&rdquo; charges lodged against two town residents in separate incidents.  Under this bill, police could unilaterally issue subpoenas to obtain the information.
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/12050914769/rhode-island-says-police-can-decloak-anonymous-people-online-if-they-find-them-offensive.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/12050914769/rhode-island-says-police-can-decloak-anonymous-people-online-if-they-find-them-offensive.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/12050914769/rhode-island-says-police-can-decloak-anonymous-people-online-if-they-find-them-offensive.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>anonymity-is-protected-by-the-first-amendment</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110620/12050914769</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:44:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Apple Goes Offensive On Patents: Sues HTC</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1031458365.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1031458365.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, well, well.  We've discussed recently how it seemed effectively <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100218/0322308223.shtml">impossible</a> for any smartphone maker to survive the patent gantlet, as there are so many patents held by so many different parties, and they all seem to have recently started suing each other.  The latest, sent in by a whole bunch of you (though <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=quikster">Phillip</a> was first) is that <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5483689/the-apple-patents-cockpunching-all-smart-phones-an-illustrated-guide/gallery/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed:+gizmodo/full+(Gizmodo)" target="_blank">Apple is suing HTC</a>, again both in the courts and using the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080702/1117121576.shtml">ITC loophole</a>.  What's interesting here is that, despite Apple playing up the fact that it had over <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070111/005550.shtml">200 patents</a> on the iPhone, for the most part, it hadn't gone on the offensive with them.  The recent patent lawsuits that Apple has been involved in have all been on the defensive side -- which we thought was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100115/1737037782.shtml">a smart move</a> for Apple.  The fact that it's now going on the offensive on patents is unfortunate.  It's usually a sign that a company is worried that it can't keep up with the competition.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1031458365.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1031458365.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1031458365.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no-smartphones-at-all</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100302/1031458365</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:44:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple Now Censoring A Dictionary iPhone App?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090805/1832305780.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090805/1832305780.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apple's continued arbitrariness in banning iPhone apps continues in weird and somewhat incomprehensible ways.  The latest getting attention (and sent in by a lot of people) is that a dictionary app called Ninjawords <a href="http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ninjawords" target="_new">was forced to block out the definitions of certain words</a> in order to get approval to be in the App Store.  Even though the app itself has a 17+ rating, apparently Apple came back with a list of "objectionable" words in the dictionary which had to be removed.  Never mind the fact that anyone could just go to a website with the very same device and look up those same words... Oh, and of course other dictionaries available at the App Store seem to have those same words.  The article also points out that Wal-Mart -- notorious for refusing to sell "objectionable" material sells dictionaries with these sorts of words included.  The whole thing is bizarre, and again makes you wonder what Apple is accomplishing with its app review process, other than pissing people off. <b>Update</b>: Apple has <a href="http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/phil_schiller_app_store" target="_new">responded and explained its side of the story</a>.  They're claiming it wasn't censorship, so much as an issue of timing.  The app did have what Apple felt were offensive words/definitions, and asked the developer to wait until parental controls had been turned on for the iPhone.  The developer then chose to block those words to try to get the app launched prior to parental controls being in place.  Fair enough... but it still seems odd that Apple should be able to object to any definitions.  It's a dictionary, based on Wiktionary.org... which anyone can visit with their browser.  Still, this is one of the first times we've actually seen Apple <i>respond</i> to one of these stories.  So that's progress...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090805/1832305780.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090805/1832305780.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090805/1832305780.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>really?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090805/1832305780</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>