X-Post: Criminalizing The Internet, Part 1

A repository of the laws being cited by Donald Kent Douglas, in his attempts to legally bar me from responding to his posts (and teach me a lesson about daring to oppose him, of course)...((and with this, on 2/8/12, only the latter remains as a viable motive.)) ...and my responses to them. (The reason(s) each law doesn't apply to our situation is emboldened. Newest additions at the top...)

All this, because I submitted comments to posts at his moderated American Power blog (often, posts where he attacks me by name) against his wishes... Yeesh... (That and because he disagrees with me politically... Can't forget that...)
---
Below as posted 2/6/12, 10:00 AM (...mostly... I think I made a few grammatical edits and definitely link additions, since...)
From: American Power: Federal Investigation of Walter James Casper III Could Involve Civil Rights Abuses, Monday, February 6, 2012, 7:00 AM (PDST)

Federal statute 47 U.S.C. 223 prohibits anonymous harassment on the Internet and general harassment with the intent to annoy. As one writer indicates:

Ok, let me put this in plain English for you, using the language of section 223 itself:

Anybody who uses the Internet to post or email any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person has just committed a Federal crime, for which they can be imprisoned, fined, or both.

(Note: the terms "lewd", "lascivious", "filthy", and "indecent" were struck from the law subsequent to this blogger's opinion piece from 2006. Not that anything I submitted to Dr. Douglas' American Power blog was lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, either...)

There has been no obscene content, and no intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass anyone. I submitted generally on-topic comments to a moderated blog.

Just to be clear, the rest of 47 U.S.C. 223:

(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;

Nope, for what should be obvious reasons...

(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

Nope... no anonymity, and no intent... (also read legal opinions that say a computer is not covered under "telecommunications device," unless one is using VOIP.)

(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

Nope. (Do I need to explain?)

(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or

There has been no pattern or repetition, and no contact solely to harass. (And then there's that "telecommunications device" question, again...)

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,

Again, no... (Whatever Donald Douglas' claims are, he most assuredly is making them about me...)

***

From: American Power: Update On Big Talking Harassment-Blogger Capt. Fogg of 'Human Voices', Sunday, February 5, 2012, 1:00 AM (PDST)

US Code 18 Section 2261A:

Whoever--

(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

(2) with the intent--

(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or

(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--

(i) that person;
(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 [1] of that person; or
(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;


uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); [2] shall be punished as provided in section 2261 (b) of this title.

This one seems pretty obvious... there has been no travel, and/or no intent to to kill, injure, harass, place anyone under surveillance, or cause anyone substantial emotional distress, by any means.

ALSO:

§ 223. OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS
(a) Prohibited acts generally

Whoever—

(1) in interstate or foreign communications—

(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—

(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person...

No obscenity or child pornography, and no intent...

***

From: American Power: California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III, Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 6:00 AM (PDST)

SEC. 5. Section 653m of the California Penal Code

a. Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

b. Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with intent to annoy another person at his or her residence, is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

c. Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

Aside from the jurisdictional issues, (see below), there has been no intent to annoy or repeated contact, and no obscene language or threat to inflict injury to person or property.

***

From: American Power: California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III, Friday, January 27, 2012, 9:45 PM (PDST)

SEC. 4. Section 646.9 of the California Penal Code is amended to read:

646.9.

a. Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
b. Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
c. Every person who, having been convicted of a felony under this section, commits a second or subsequent violation of this section shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
d. In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the sentencing court may order a person convicted of a felony under this section to register as a sex offender pursuant to subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290.
e. For the purposes of this section, "harasses" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. This course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.
f. For purposes of this section, "course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."
g. For the purposes of this section, "credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section.
h. For purposes of this section, the term "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Aside from the jurisdictional issues--alleged crimes are committed where the alleged criminal is, not where the alleged victim is--there have been no willful and repeated behaviors, or any credible threat with intent to place anyone in fear for his/her safety. Rather, we're talking about non-threatening, on-topic comments submitted to a public blog for moderator approval.

***

September 22, 2011, 12:28 AM (EDST)

"And you might be careful about sponsoring your workplace attacks against me at this blog. You, as the admin, published calls to contact my employers, and that's called "tortious interference" with someone's work, and a judge recently ruled against a blogger in Minnesota. My lawyer raised the references, so we're on to you, and you are not on sound legal ground. And no, you haven't been contacted, because I never claimed I was going to contact you or have law enforcement contact you. The point is that you ARE on the radar and what you are doing is wrong. And you keep doing it, against your own interests. So, WISE UP, idiot ASFL. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMMENT AND HARASS ME IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY REPORTING ON YOUR PROGRESSIVE CAMPAIGNS OF HATE." - American Nihilist: Pizza and The Same Old Douglas Whine, September 22, 2011, 12:28 AM

"I read up on this "tortious interference" business... With all respect due your fine lawyer, I'm pretty sure you must suffer some visible harm (like for instance, being fired as a result of something I myself posted) before you can make any such claim against me.

Specifically (from the link above, and with particular attention to numbers 3 and 5 in the first case, and 1-3 in the second):

To establish a claim for tortious interference of contract, a plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of the contract’s breach; (4) absence of justification; and (5) damages caused by the breach. Similarly, a claim for tortious interference with prospective advantage requires a showing that: (l) the defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with the prospective contractual relation, (2) causing pecuniary harm resulting from loss of the benefits of the relation, and (3) the interference either induced or otherwise caused a third person not to enter into or continue the prospective relation or prevented the continuance of the prospective relation...." - American Nihilist: Pizza and The Same Old Douglas Whine September 22, 2011 1:25 PM

---

Relevant / on topic / interesting links:
Schneier on Security: Anonymous Internet Annoying Is Illegal in the U.S.
Concurring Opinions � Annoy someone online (anonymously); go to jail
Anonymous Internet annoyance illegal? Yes and no.
---

An American Nihilist x-post