222229 Bullies, 4423 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 36
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 12 34 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Gary Busey is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Chicago, Il
    Posts
    49

    Posted On:
    4/09/2012 3:18am


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I just read up on the bill. It is a joke. IF it is signed into law it will be struck down with the first challenge. It is far too broad. To regulate speech a government needs to prove it has a compelling state interest, and the law has to be narrowly tailored to accomplish its goals. The state has not provided either of these qualifications IMHO.
  2. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,601

    Posted On:
    4/09/2012 7:39am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Busey View Post
    I just read up on the bill. It is a joke. IF it is signed into law it will be struck down with the first challenge. It is far too broad. To regulate speech a government needs to prove it has a compelling state interest, and the law has to be narrowly tailored to accomplish its goals. The state has not provided either of these qualifications IMHO.
    Oh, we're actually going to talk about this? OK, there are plenty of types of speech which are exempt from first amendment protection; this bill is aimed at those types of speech.

    Forget the fact that this is amending current law, and that the current law provides exclusions for "constitutionally protected activity." The new version adds an exclusion "[f]or other activity authorized by law."
    http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....Session_ID=107

    Did you actually read the law before you posted, or are you just saying that to qualify your ignorant response?
    Last edited by submessenger; 4/09/2012 7:40am at . Reason: typo
  3. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,785

    Posted On:
    4/09/2012 7:42am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Well you beat me to it. Here is a quick PDF of all the states that have some type of Cyber Bullying laws.
    http://www.cyberbullying.us/Bullying...lying_Laws.pdf
  4. Gary Busey is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Chicago, Il
    Posts
    49

    Posted On:
    4/09/2012 12:57pm


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Just because something is law does not mean it would stand up to challenge. In my post I went over that, yes, there are some types of speech that are exempt from the first amendment. I just felt this law Would not stand up to strict scrutiny.
  5. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,601

    Posted On:
    4/10/2012 9:39am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Busey View Post
    Just because something is law does not mean it would stand up to challenge. In my post I went over that, yes, there are some types of speech that are exempt from the first amendment. I just felt this law Would not stand up to strict scrutiny.
    The existing law has stood up to scrutiny. Here's one case I found, and it references others:
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-suprem...t/1412470.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Arizona Supreme Court
    Courts are less likely to entertain overbreadth claims as the behavior a statute seeks to proscribe “moves from ‘pure speech’ toward conduct.”  Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615, 93 S.Ct. at 2917.   The statute at issue, which applies only if a defendant uses a telephone for the reasons proscribed, clearly implicates conduct as well as speech.   Musser contends that the legislature moved from regulating conduct to proscribing protected speech in 1978 when it amended A.R.S. § 13-2916.A to change the prohibited conduct from “to telephone another” to “to use a telephone.”   Under either version of the language, however, a person must be charged with conduct-the use of a telephone.   While using a telephone usually involves speech, it also necessarily involves conduct.   Because the statute regulates conduct as well as speech, we are less likely to apply the standing exception to permit appellant to assert the rights of others.
    Emphasis mine.

    The interesting points of argument about the updated law are these, I think:
    1) speech on the Internet is generally done so in a multi-party or public forum (general term forum, not specifically sites like bullshido.net)
    2) speech on the Internet can be effectively indelible, whereas a telephone conversation is generally only partially recalled by either party
    a) indelible speech may have the effect of creating a reputation for the speaker
    b) indelible speech may prevent the offended from accessing other content to which he/she would otherwise be entitled to
  6. Gary Busey is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Chicago, Il
    Posts
    49

    Posted On:
    4/10/2012 11:08am


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Nice find Daddy. Thank you for the reading. Very interesting....
  7. downtime is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    187

    Posted On:
    4/10/2012 12:05pm


     Style: Bjj, Muay Thai

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    So obviously this falls within the realm of Cyber Tort, Im curious though about enforcement if it passes. To procsecute, is it going to be based off of IP address?
  8. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,601

    Posted On:
    4/10/2012 12:44pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by downtime View Post
    So obviously this falls within the realm of Cyber Tort, Im curious though about enforcement if it passes. To procsecute, is it going to be based off of IP address?
    Without getting into the boring and complex details, IP address alone is not a reliable indicator of geographic location, nor that a particular person is responsible for content.
  9. downtime is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    187

    Posted On:
    4/10/2012 1:44pm


     Style: Bjj, Muay Thai

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by daddykata View Post
    Without getting into the boring and complex details, IP address alone is not a reliable indicator of geographic location, nor that a particular person is responsible for content.
    Thats kind of why I asked. Im just not seeing how the law is enforceable...but dude please provide me with a link to boring details if you have one that explains the enforcement of the law, I dont mind reading it, I just haven't found anything on it.
  10. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,601

    Posted On:
    4/10/2012 3:59pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by downtime View Post
    Thats kind of why I asked. Im just not seeing how the law is enforceable...but dude please provide me with a link to boring details if you have one that explains the enforcement of the law, I dont mind reading it, I just haven't found anything on it.
    I'm not aware of a single link that outlines this stuff, although if you google "rules of procedure," and "internet forensics," you'll likely come up with good stuff. In the mean time...

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. But, perhaps Sam Browning (Bullshido's volunteer lawyer) will come along and fill in any holes I leave out.

    The first detail is that there are probably not going to be Internet police scavenging forums and facebook and the like looking for violations. Rather, people that feel that they have been bullied will file a complaint, at which point an investigation will begin. This part of the process will not be dissimilar from any other crime investigation.

    But, you asked specifically about IP addresses, so I'll try to scope my response to that. There are so-called GeoIP databases, the most notable and respectable from a company called MaxMind. These databases are primarily useful for marketing online (or for otherwise making regional decisions about what content to display). I mention them because somebody at some point will say "hey, what about GeoIP?"

    GeoIP has reasonable doubt built in. From the product page:
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxMind GeoIP
    The database contains our best estimate for the location for every IP address, but may not be accurate or complete in all cases.
    The simplest explanation is that your ISP may be in Philadelphia, PA, but you live in Camden, NJ. The IP's "location," will probably at best be coded to Philadelphia.

    In more complex scenarios, you have dozens or hundreds of users potentially sharing the same IP address at the same time, through a process called NAT. NAT's primary usefulness is postponing the inevitable shift to a better IP address scheme, because the current scheme is woefully overloaded, and we're quickly running out of addresses for computers (and other devices) that want/need to be on the Internet. Note that this also is not the only scenario where multiple users may be sharing an IP address, but it is the most common.

    In order to prove that the offending content was linked to a specific user, multiple points of authenticity will have to be provided - a password-protected login name would be a good start, an IP address that was known to be in use by that login at the time of the offense, records on the offenders computer indicating that (s)he had that IP address and login at the time of the offense, an affidavit / seizure log showing that the offending computer was taken from a physical location or existed at a physical location at the time of the offense. Essentially, all the facts that prove that the alleged offender contributed the offending content to the ether must be cataloged and validated to build the case.

    Mods, forgive the derail - please move to another thread if you deem fit.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 12 34 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.