Irish Legislator Proposes Law That Would Make Annoying People Online A Criminal Act

from the because-snail-mail,-telephones-and-the-internet-are-all-the-same,-right? dept

Is Ireland looking to pass a law that would "outlaw ebooks and jail people for annoying others?" Well, no, not really, but that's the sort of unintended consequences that follow when laws are updated for the 21st century using little more than a word swap. (h/t Brian Sheehan)

Ireland has had long-standing laws against harassment via snail mail, telephones and (as of 2007) SMS messages. A 2014 report by the government's somewhat troublingly-named "Internet Content Governance Advisory Group" recommended updating this section of the law to cover email, social media and other internet-related transmissions. UPDATE APPLIED:

1. The Post Office (Amendment) Act 1951 is amended in section 13, as substituted by section 4 of and Schedule 1 to the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007, by the substitution of the following section:

“Offences in connection with public electronic communications networks

13. (1) A person who—

(a) sends or causes to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or is indecent, obscene or menacing, or

(b) for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another—

(i) sends or causes to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that the sender knows to be false, or

(ii) persistently and without reasonable cause makes use of a public electronic communications network, is guilty of an offence.

Violators are looking at sentences ranging from 1-5 years and fines of up to €75,000 -- all for doing something as minor as "causing annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety." In addition, the proposed amendment would provide for the seizure of devices used to send the annoying messages, including computers, cell phones -- even the internet connection itself.

Provisions for device seizures first showed up in the 2007 update, as cell phones finally gave law enforcers something they could confiscate with minimal public outrage, at least at that point. Even in 2015, it's still pretty difficult to justify cutting off someone's phone service and almost impossible to find anyone who agrees that banning someone from using the postal service isn't a pretty clear violation of basic rights. But when it comes to computers and internet connections, many legislators still feel these essential tools of communication are just "luxuries" -- a status they haven't held for several years.

But back to the headline. The broad language -- if read literally -- could make emailing an ebook to someone a criminal offense. Works of fiction are, by definition, false. But this isn't a new "feature" of this proposed amendment. The sending of knowingly false messages dates back to the day when people still routed most of their communications through the post office. So, everyone who's ever sent anyone a fictional book through the mail -- including Amazon -- is a potential violator of this law.

It's the vestigial language from previous iterations of the law -- words meant to target scam artists and aggressive telemarketers -- that is problematic. Simply appending the words "electronic communications" to an old law doesn't address the perceived problem (cyberbullying is cited in the governance group's report). It just creates new problems.

Written in this manner, the proposed law allows the pursuit of criminal charges for annoyance and inconvenience -- and the internet has plenty of both. The saving grace is that this pursuit is left to law enforcement, rather than routed through a civil process. It's a criminal offense, which is an adversarial process every step of the way -- in stark contrast to other, far more terrible "cyberbullying" laws that shift the burden of proof to the accused --- if they're even allowed to defend themselves.

Yes, the law is badly written, but it's a not a legislative land grab. It's just a lazy update to an existing law -- one that may have worked out fairly well given the narrow confines under which it operated. But this proposal -- a lazy "on the internet" patch job -- has the potential to criminalize lots of previously protected speech.

Filed Under: annoying people, criminal law, free speech, harassment, ireland, online

Complaints To FTC About Rightscorp Detail Robocalls, Harassment And Baseless Threats To Sever Internet Connections

from the you-know,-all-those-things-everyone's-suing-about dept

If these FTC complaints are to be believed, Rightscorp is doing pretty much everything Morgan Pietz's class action lawsuit has accused it of.

Among other wrongful conduct: Rightscorp has engaged in telephone harassment and abuse (15 U.S.C. § 1692d); made various false and misleading representations (15 U.S.C. § 1692e); engaged in unfair collections practices (15 U.S.C. § 1692f); failed to provide validation and required notices relating to the debts (15 U.S.C. § 1692g); and furnished emails and letters knowing they would create false beliefs on the parts of consumers that their Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) were participating in the attempt to collect on the purported debts when in fact the ISPs were not participating (15 U.S.C. § 1692f).

Robocalls, baseless threats, seemingly endless harassment, constantly fluctuating "settlement offers"... it's all included in the FTC complaints. (And turned over with extreme expeditiousness by the FTC -- seven days from the point my FOIA request was received.) [Spreadsheet link. Scroll all the way to the right to see complaint details. Also note there are two tabs of complaints.]

Consumer had his internet turned off and he called his service provider and they told him that Digital Rights Corp sent them a warning telling him that they would shut off his internet if he didn’t contact them and he did and they told him that they had 34 counts against him of uploading a children’s song and they told him that it could be $150 thousand dollars per each count and they have admitted that he didn’t do it but he has to pay it because his service was used to do this and he has to pay teh consumer was told if he gave them $500 they would make everything go away. Advised Consumer to call the State Attorney General.

---

Consumer is receiving repeated phone calls from a company claiming to be from Rights Corp and the company claims that the consumer has illegally downloaded music and the company is trying to collect money for the illegal downloads. Consumer states that the company states that the consumer must pay immediately and they tried to obtain a cc number. Consumer states that the company claims that if the consumer does not pay over the phone the amount of the money owed would be mulitplied by 100% and that they would terminate the consumer's internet services.

Every settlement offer looks "reasonable" when compared to maximum statutory infringement damages -- something Rightscorp has no intention of pursuing. As for the claim that the alleged infringer's internet connection could be cut off? It's mostly false. Rightscorp has managed to push around a few small ISPs using its untested theory that the DMCA requires service providers to boot repeat infringers. But at this point, any internet disconnection is a purely voluntary action on the part of the ISP. There's no legal basis for its claims and no court decision that backs its assertions up. And, most importantly, Rightscorp can't actually cut off anyone's internet connection -- at least not on its own. But that doesn't stop it from insinuating that it possesses this power.

How can you tell Rightscorp has far less power than it pretends to have? By how swiftly it resorts to bargaining.

The Digital Rights Corp. has charged us with 216 illegal down loads. They said that 153 sucessfully down loaded. They first wanted us to pay 3,000 dollars. Now everytime we speak to them the amount changes from 3,000, 560.00, 500.00, and the last amount was 390.00.

---

Rightscorp, Inc sent us a letter about 6-24-2014 saying we owe $4,060 for copyright infringments. We called to inquire on this accusation. They stated pay $460 by ~6pm (that day ) or pay the full amount. They also pressed for a credit card number. To this day they have been calling about 3x's a week. (They threaten to cut off our internnet service.)

And how can you tell Rightscorp is nothing more than a troll? Because if you feed it, it comes back for more.

Forwarded by the State of Alabama Office of the Attorney General… Consumer responded to first email and paid $20 for the fee requested. She received 27 more emails each requesting $20… Consumer received another email threatening to shut down her internet service demanding settlement. Consumer states she is now getting phone calls from this company.

---

Digital Rights started annoying robot calls after I made a $20 payment on behalf of a third party to settle an alleged copyright issue. They decided I "owed" them a lot more, $280. I demanded no further calls...They insisted they can call me as much as they want by any means even though I was not actually involved directly with the internet account.(gift,not at my home) They sent a threatening letter and emails, too...

---

I received notification from my internet provider that a report had been made of illegally download. I contacted Charter who offer no assistance they were "only relaying a message" I then contacted the RIGHTSCORP. I was hesitant to give them information but was coerced into giving them our name and phone number. Initially they said they wanted 20.00 or else they would sue us for 150,000.00 dollars. I told them I had checked with the entire family and they did not believe they had downloaded these songs. She , Cecilee, called back and stated the charges were now 180.00.

---

I made a single payment on behalf of my son in law to clear a digital rights claim as I gave him a year internet as a gift. Now they won't stop calling me trying to get more money for more "claims."

Rightscorp apparently deploys two tactics with regularity, both unpleasant: threats and harassment.

Rightscorp sent me a letter for copyright infringement so I called the number on the paper they sent and they said that it carries a fine of $150,000 but if I gave them $20 they would settle it. Now they call me every Monday, Wednesday & Friday and are continuing to send me the same letter.

---

Rights Corp is claiming that I owe them money because they served my internet service provider with a subpoena for my information. They call 3 or 4 times per day in addition to text messaging…

---

This company has been calling my home 3-4 times a day for months, originally threatening me to pay them thousands of dollars or they would sue us. Since the initial call with them, which I refused to comply with, they have called continually, everyday and on weekends, always with a recorded message that I never pick up...

And the company's "collection agents" appear to be disguising the origin of the calls.

False claims of copyright infringement from well-known copyright "troll". Company is California based, but call came from Tennessee.

---

...They are trying to intimidate me into giving them money for nothing by harassing me over the telephone. Most of the telephone calls are not live people, but an automated message that leaves me a voice mail from several different numbers with several different area codes..

I've reached out to Rightscorp to see if it has any comment on the FTC complaints. I'm not holding my breath for an answer, considering much of what's alleged in these complaints is the subject of two class action suits. But what's detailed here is nothing more than pure copyright trolling: baseless threats, harassment, and settlement offers. We've seen this deployed by a fair number of supposed rights enforcement entities and most of those are now languishing. Rightscorp isn't looking too healthy itself.

And the most amazing part is that -- despite two lawsuits centering on this abusive behavior -- it hasn't reined in its collection efforts. Many of the complaints filed with the FTC appeared after Morgan Pietz filed his lawsuit in November of 2014, with the latest listed being March 24, 2015. Apparently, it's just going to keep up its questionable tactics until it's forced to stop, even though there's little indication they've resulted in anything more than a few scattered, small settlements.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, ftc, harassment, robocalls, shakedown, threats
Companies: rightscorp

UK Government Can Now Hand Out Two-Year Sentences For Revenge Porn, Online Trolling

from the another-round-of-'message-sending' dept

Revenge porn is now officially a crime in the UK, as last year's amendments to the Criminal Justice and Court Acts come into effect. This particular amendment targeting revenge porn was proposed last October.

The change will cover the sharing of images both online and offline. It will mean that images posted to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter will be caught by the offence, as well as those that are shared via text message. Images shared via email, on a website or the distribution of physical copies will also be caught. Those convicted will face a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison.

The offence will cover photographs or films which show people engaged in sexual activity or depicted in a sexual way or with their genitals exposed, where what is shown would not usually be seen in public. Victims and others will be able to report offences to the police to investigate. Officers will work with the Crown Prosecution Service to take forward cases for prosecution.

Fortunately, the law contains affirmative defenses, including one for journalistic entities or other disclosures in the public interest. It also appears to keep the burden of proof (mostly) where it should be: on the entity bringing the charges.

However, this amendment seems to be more borne of social pressure than actual need. Trafficking in revenge porn has been punished successfully under the UK's harassment laws. This law just feels extraneous -- a way to "do something" that increases penalties for violating existing harassment laws. There's a two-year maximum sentence attached to this amendment, which is far lower than the surprising 18 years handed to revenge porn site operator Kevin Bollaert, but far more than a previous "revenge porn" prosecution under the UK's already existing laws, which only netted a 12-week sentence.

The enacted amendments also give UK Justice Secretary Chris Grayling what he wanted: increased penalties for the crime of being a jerk online. The UK has jailed trolls before, but now the government has a new upper limit on sentencing - quadrupling the former 6-month maximum.

This revenge porn law may be less broadly-written than others we've discussed, but that slight positive is negated by the UK's vastly more limited free speech protections.

Filed Under: harassment, revenge porn, trolling, uk

Why Online Abuse Is Not Our Destiny

from the we'll-learn-to-behave dept

If you've spent any time on social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter, you can appreciate the hazards of the digital jungle. And even if you can fend for yourself out there, what about your kids? As well as I know the jungle's safe paths, I constantly worry about my three sons as they begin to navigate social platforms.

The alternate world of our social media identities – profiles, handles, accounts, "friends" – has ruined reputations and ended careers, even lives. Adolescents and teenagers see this daily in the form of online bullying. For adults, the harassment usually comes from the anonymous vitriol spewed across the web. The question becomes then: Will it get better? Or is this simply the new normal of our increasingly all-digital world?

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the case of a man convicted of threatening on Facebook to kill his wife. The defendant argues that he never meant what he wrote online. The prosecution argues, in effect, that intent is not the issue. Rather, a reasonable person would have felt threatened and that should be standard for a crime committed. What would you – or did you – think if someone dropped a death threat on your profile page?

How the Court decides Elonis v. United States could lead the way toward stemming online abuse. The Justices may uphold the conviction, but as Justice Sonia Sotomayor said during oral arguments, "We've been loathe to create more exceptions to the First Amendment." It's a comment that might leave the floodgates wide open for online abuse, granting online bullies and trolls even greater latitude under the cover of the First Amendment.

No matter what the Court decides, it still would be exceedingly hard to prosecute online offenders whose abuse doesn't include physical threats. Ask any teenager or adolescent if online attacks like, "You're so ugly; you should kill yourself," hurt any less than verbal assaults. The Court's decision won't stem the online harassment of adult victims either, whose tweets, posts or pictures done in poor taste can cause serious digital backlash.

The fact is social networks have changed the way we see ourselves, just as email once changed the way we communicated. Whether it's bullying or harassment, there still exists a sense of comfortable anonymity in the digital-social world. We have our "offline" selves, who would never say such things to someone's face, and our "online" selves, who can't stop from piling on our targets. In many ways, it's no different than the violent mobs of yesteryear – people in a mob find themselves doing things they would never contemplate on their own.

But Court cases like Elonis are helping to erode this digital wall between our online and offline identities. Since its foundation, the Internet has revealed its unique place in society – a place where people are free to be whoever they want. As the classic New Yorker cartoon featuring two canines puts it, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." This freedom has found its purest expression in social network sites. Yet the nature of the Internet is changing. We hardly even talk about "being online" anymore, because we're always online through our smartphones and mobile devices.

And today, more and more of our cars are online. Our televisions are online. Even our clock radios are online. There will be a time in the not-so-distance future when most of our household appliances will be connected to the web – and not in the way we now know them: using the Internet for one application, such as navigation for cars. They will be "communicating" with other connected devices, constantly gathering data through sensors on us, the users, and on our surroundings.

As the Internet evolves, so too will the way in which we see ourselves. Social networks will no longer be confined to our screens – laptops, tablets or smartphones. They will be as seamlessly integrated into our daily lives as the Internet itself. In this digital future, it will be much harder to cyberbully and torment people online, because the anonymity of the Internet will give way as we circle back to a world of singular identity – online and off.

The chasm that once existed between our online selves and our offline selves is shrinking. Given the trends of digital devices and the ubiquity of the Internet we see today, Facebook, Twitter and other social networks will no longer be separate places where our actions live without consequence. They will be as real as our brick-and-mortar reality, where civility and restraint still govern. "Welcome to the jungle" will no longer be a dire warning, but a digital whisper.

Shawn DuBravac, Ph.D., is the chief economist at the Consumer Electronics Association and the author of the forthcoming book, "Digital Destiny: How the New Age of Data Will Transform the Way We Work, Live, and Communicate" (Regnery, 2015). Follow Shawn on Twitter @ShawnDuBravac

Filed Under: abuse, culture, harassment, identity, online

No, Tech Companies Can't Easily Create A 'ContentID' For Harassment, And It Would Be A Disaster If They Did

from the not-how-it-works dept

Every so often we see a sort of "tech magical thinking" when it comes to solving big challenges -- in which people insist that "those smart people in Silicon Valley can fix [big social problem X] if they just decided to do so." This sort of thinking is wrong on multiple levels, and often is based on the false suggestion that tech innovators "don't care enough" about certain problems, rather than recognizing that, perhaps, there aren't any easy solutions. A perfect example of this is a recent column from Jessica Valenti, over at the Guardian, that claims that tech companies could "end online harassment" and that they could do it "tomorrow" if they just had the will to do so. How? Well, Valenti claims, by just making a "ContentID for harassment."

If Twitter, Facebook or Google wanted to stop their users from receiving online harassment, they could do it tomorrow.

When money is on the line, internet companies somehow magically find ways to remove content and block repeat offenders. For instance, YouTube already runs a sophisticated Content ID program dedicated to scanning uploaded videos for copyrighted material and taking them down quickly – just try to bootleg music videos or watch unofficial versions of Daily Show clips and see how quickly they get taken down. But a look at the comments under any video and it’s clear there’s no real screening system for even the most abusive language.

If these companies are so willing to protect intellectual property, why not protect the people using your services?

See? Just like that. Snap your fingers and boom, harassment goes away. Except, no, it doesn't. Sarah Jeong has put together a fantastic response to Valenti's magical tech thinking, pointing out that ContentID doesn't work well and that harassment is different anyway. As she notes, the only reason ContentID "works" at all (and we use the term "works" loosely) is because it's a pure fingerprinting algorithm, matching content against a database of claimed copyright-covered material. That's very different than sorting out "harassment" which involves a series of subjective determinations.

Furthermore, Jeong goes into great detail about how ContentID isn't even particularly good on the copyright front, as we've highlighted for years. It creates both Type I and Type II errors: pulling down plenty of content that isn't infringing, and still letting through plenty of content that is. Add in an even more difficult task of determining "harassment" which is much less identifiable than probable copyright infringement, and you would undoubtedly increase both types of errors to a hilarious degree -- likely shutting down many perfectly legitimate conversations, while doing little to stop actual harassment.

The more aggressive the tool, the greater the chance it will filter out communications that aren’t harassing — particularly, communications one wishes to receive. You can see this in the false positives flagged by systems like Content ID. For example, there’s the time that Content ID took down a video with birds chirping in the background, because it matched an avant-garde song that also had some birds chirping in the background. Or the time NASA’s official clips of a Mars landing got taken down by a news agency. Or the time a livestream was cut off because people began singing "Happy Birthday." Or when a live airing on UStream of the Hugo Awards was interrupted mid-broadcast as the awards ceremony aired clips from Doctor Who and other shows nominated for Hugo Awards.

In the latter case, UStream used something similar but not quite the same as Content ID—one in which blind algorithms automatically censored copyrighted content without the more sophisticated appeals process that YouTube has in place. Robots are not smart; they cannot sense context and meaning. Yet YouTube’s appeals system wouldn’t translate well to anti-harassment tools. What good is a system where you must report each and every instance of harassment and then follow through in a back-and-forth appeals system?

None of this is to suggest that harassment online isn't a serious problem. It is. And it's also possible that some enterprising folks may figure out some interesting, unique and compelling ways of dealing with it, sometimes via technological assistance. But this sort of "magic bullet" thinking is as dangerous as it is ridiculous -- because it often leads to reframing the debate, sometimes to the point of shifting the actual liability of the issue from those actually responsible (whether copyright infringers or harassers) to intermediaries who are providing a platform for communication.

The idea that tech companies "don't care enough" about harassment (or, for that matter, infringement) to do the "simple things" to stop it are arguments of ignorance. If there were some magical silver bullet to make online communications platforms more welcoming and accommodating to all, that would be a huge selling point, and one that many would immediately embrace. But the reality is that some social challenges are problems that can't just be solved with a dollop of javascript, and pretending otherwise is a dangerous distraction that only leads to misplaced attacks, without taking on the underlying problems.

Filed Under: abuse, algorithms, contentid, copyright, filtering, free speech, harassment, jessica valenti, sarah jeong

Supreme Court Quotes Eminem As It Explores The Difference Between Free Speech And 'True Threats'

from the free-speech-ain't-free dept

A few months back, we discussed how the Supreme Court was going to hear the case of Anthony Elonis, who had been convicted for making "threats" on Facebook directed at his ex-wife. Elonis, who claims to be an aspiring rap artist, says they were just lyrics, and he wasn't making any actual threat. On Monday, the Supreme Court had the oral arguments, and it gave Chief Justice John Roberts a chance to demonstrate his rapping skills [pdf] by quoting Eminem. The government's lawyer, Michael Dreeben tried to play it off as different, because people would be entertained by Eminem, but that just raised more questions:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What about the language at pages 54 to 55 of the Petitioner's brief? You know, "Dada make a nice bed for mommy at the bottom of the lake," "tie a rope around a rock," this is during the context of a domestic dispute between a husband and wife. "There goes mama splashing in the water, no more fighting with dad," you know, all that stuff.

Now, under your test, could that be prosecuted.

MR. DREEBEN: No. Because if you look at the context of these statements

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Because Eminem said it instead of somebody else?

MR. DREEBEN: Because Eminem said it at a concert where people are going to be entertained. This is a critical part of the context. It wasn't as if he stated it to her in private or on a Facebook page after having received a protection from abuse order. It wasn't as if he appropriated a style of rap that wasn't anything that he had been doing previously in the marriage and all of a sudden tried to express violent statements that way.

In the context, I think any reasonable person would conclude at a minimum that there is ambiguity about these statements being a serious intention of an expression to do harm. And this is critical here. We're talking about an area in which if the jury finds that it's ambiguous, it has to acquit. It has to conclude that this is how these statements should be interpreted.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, yes, but you're dealing with some very inflammatory language. The question is whether or not the jury is going to be swept away with the language as opposed to making the subtle determinations you've been talking about.

Justice Samuel Alito seemed ready to toss the First Amendment right out the window because, apparently, anyone can use it:

Well, this sounds like a roadmap for threatening a spouse and getting away with it. So you put it in rhyme and you put some stuff about the Internet on it and you say, I'm an aspiring rap artist.

And so then you are free from prosecution.

This reminds me of the claims about how a "source protection" law for journalists wouldn't be any good because anyone can claim to be a journalist. The answer, again, should be so what? Beyond the fact it's crazy unlikely that everyone who is actually threatening their ex-wives are going to make it rhyme and claim it's just verse, the actual issue at law here makes this question totally irrelevant. The issue is whether or not there was a "true threat" at all, and if Elonis actually intended to do anything or if he was just mouthing off.

And, indeed, the court does wrestle with what the hell "true threats" mean, with Justice Kennedy, in particular, finding that concept (from the Supreme Court of the past) to be a particularly unhelpful phrasing. Right out of the gate at the beginning he noted:

I'm not sure that the Court did either the law or the English language much of a good service when it said "true threat." It could mean so many things. It could mean that you really intend to carry it out, A; you really intend to intimidate the person; or that no one could possibly believe it.

Meanwhile, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted the problem of showing someone's mindset:

How does one prove what's in somebody else's mind? This case, the standard was would a reasonable person think that the words would put someone in fear, and reasonable people can make that judgment. But how would the government prove whether this threat in the mind of the threatener was genuine?

Again, I don't think anyone can (or should) prove what's really going on in someone's mind, but it seems like it's perfectly reasonable to explore if there is any other evidence to support the idea that someone is out to do someone harm, that goes beyond just posting about it on Facebook (which, frankly, seems like a really dumb way to plan out how to harm someone, seeing as you've made it pretty clear you've done any such harm). But, even that doesn't fully cover the issue in the case, which focused more on whether or not Elonis wanted his wife to be afraid, rather than if he was actually intending to do her harm (and, yes, there's a fine line mixed in there somewhere).

No doubt, Elonis did an awful lot of things that were clearly designed to upset his ex-wife. But how much of that is protected online speech? As always, reading the tea leaves from oral arguments is not a wise move, so it's tough to say which way the Court will actually decide. But, as Sarah Jeong recently noted in a great writeup for The Verge, this case could have a widespread impact on issues related to online harassment and bullying online, no matter which way the ruling goes. That article compares some of Elonis' "lyrics" and actions with the threats often posted by internet trolls threatening to kill or rape people they disagree with -- and, further, notes that the increased discussion around these issues may play into how whatever test the Court settles on will be applied in practice. In other words, this case, no matter how it's decided, is likely to have a widespread impact.

Filed Under: anthony ellis, anthony kennedy, free speech, harassment, john roberts, lyrics, ruth bader ginsburg, samuel alito, social media, supreme court, threatening speech, true threats

Canadian Newspaper Under Investigation For Violating Ban On Publishing Names Of Child Pornography Victims

from the where-good-intentions-meet-the-friction-of-real-life dept

A Canadian newspaper is under investigation for violating a court-ordered ban on publishing the names of child pornography victims. The Chronicle Herald covered the sentencing of a young man on child pornography distribution charges but included the name of his victim, Rehtaeh Parsons.

Rehtaeh Parsons was 15 when the then-17-year-old young man sent a photo of him having sex with her to two other females. Parsons was apparently unaware she was being sexually assaulted. The photo showed not only the young man's actions, but her vomiting out a window.

The subsequent distribution of these photos, along with additional harassment from both the participants and Parsons' peers, eventually led to her suicide. Her suicide then prompted Nova Scotia's legislators to enact an extremely unfortunate cyberbullying law in late 2013, nearly two years after the incident and four months after Parsons took her own life.

In May of 2014, the legally-ordained ban was upheld, forbidding anyone or any media entity from publishing Parsons' name, despite objections from Rehtaeh's parents, who were actively seeking an exception from this part of Canada's child pornography laws. But the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had decided to pursue child pornography charges rather than sexual assault charges and the resulting indictments dragged Retaeh's name under the cover of this ban.

The Chronicle Herald's story on the guilty plea entered by of one of the two perpetrators (whose names are still being withheld because they were minors at the time) leads off with this editor's note:

We’ve decided to publish the name of the victim in this story, despite a court-ordered ban. We believe it’s in the public interest in this unique case, given the widespread recognition of Rehtaeh Parsons’ name, and given the good that can come, and has already come, from free public debate over sexual consent and the other elements of her story.

Rehtaeh’s parents want her name printed, and Judge Jamie Campbell, who upheld the publication ban, wrote in his decision that “the ban serves no purpose,” though he had no choice but to uphold it. Waiving Rehtaeh’s privacy rights “would be a good thing, if it could be done just for this case, just this once,” the judge wrote.

It is difficult for readers to follow a news story when the name associated with it is omitted, and we want to inform Nova Scotians of the outcome of this legal case. We would like to reassure other crime victims that their own court-ordered privacy rights will be respected as always.

As is noted here, Parsons' parents fought to keep her from being "forgotten" by this ban, but to no avail. The Parsons' have given their blanket permission for publication, but that has had no effect on whatever sort of busybody it is that reads this disclaimer and still files a complaint. An accompanying story notes that the Chronicle Herald is being investigated by local law enforcement.

Police have launched an investigation into a possible breach of a publication ban after a major news outlet in Halifax published the name of a teenage girl at the centre of a high-profile child pornography case.

Const. Pierre Bourdages said Tuesday that they had received several reports from citizens complaining about the use of the girl’s name, which is subject to a publication ban under the Criminal Code.

“There’s already been a number of complaints filed with the department in relation to this article,” he said.

“There’s an alleged breach of the publication ban … so we have an investigation ongoing now.”

Now, it would seem that the only party with any true claim over Parsons' name would be her parents, but apparently, certain members of the public feel otherwise. The good news is that this isn't the police's first run-in with the publication ban and they seem to be handling other cases in a responsible manner using context and common sense, rather than blindly asserting that "The law is the law" and punishing those who violate the letter, rather than the spirit.

“Investigators considered whether the victim’s name was used in connection with the child pornography charges as well as the overall context in which her name was used,” police said in a statement.

Based on that and consultation with the Crown, charges were not laid, police said.

Even the prosecutor seems uninterested in laying charges just to be laying charges.

Chris Hansen of the province’s Public Prosecution Service said they consulted police in the seven previous instances, but concluded that there was either not a likely chance of conviction or that if there was, it was not in the public interest to pursue it.

She said they considered several factors, including the past publicity and widespread publication of her name, the wishes of her family to have her name published and the possibility that it would facilitate public debate on a “serious societal issue.”

It's refreshing to see this recognition that the law isn't always binary. The Parsons' have repeatedly stated they don't want their daughter's name removed from additional coverage of this case. The judge upholding the ban also noted that exceptions were needed but wasn't something that could be handled from the court's end. Meddling citizens with no actual stake in the matter may be trying to make things more difficult for the press by complaining about ban violations, but so far it appears they won't be receiving any help from those actually charged with enforcing the law.

Filed Under: canada, child porn, free speech, harassment, journalism, rehtaeh parsons, reporting, sexual assault

UK Government Would Like To Put Internet Trolls In Jail For Two Years

from the and-you-just-got-yourself-some-trolling dept

The war on free speech continues. Andy Przybylski points us to the news that the UK's Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, is apparently really upset about internet trolls, and thinks they should be jailed for up to two years. He's pushing to extend an existing law -- which we've ridiculed in the past -- which allows for jailing trolls up to six months. Grayling thinks the threat of even longer sentences would suddenly make people nice online.

"These internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life. No-one would permit such venom in person, so there should be no place for it on social media," Grayling said.

"That is why we are determined to quadruple the current six-month sentence."

The article also quotes a lawyer claiming -- apparently with total seriousness -- "There is a public interest in having people put away for a long time. It is putting someone in fear of their life and fear of physical harm."

No one denies that trolls can be abusive and harassing -- to the point of seriously upsetting some people's lives. But putting people in jail for being assholes? That crosses over a line. Grayling also has an interesting definition of cruelty:

"This is a law to combat cruelty – and marks our determination to take a stand against a baying cyber-mob. We must send out a clear message: if you troll you risk being behind bars for two years."

Of course, some people would argue that jailing people for two years for being jerks is actually pretty damn cruel as well. Perhaps the response should be to put Grayling in jail for his own cruelty...

Filed Under: chris grayling, free speech, harassment, trolls, uk

Dennis Toeppen Arrested For Harassing Online Critics And Being Creepy As Hell

from the keep-digging,-sir dept

In case you don't remember who Dennis Toeppen is, he's the owner of Suburban Express, a shuttle bus service in Illinois that chiefly works the university circuit for students and visitors. I actually took one of their buses over a decade ago (I think) when visiting my now-wife at the University of Illinois, which normally wouldn't be relevant to an article about a guy and company that sues their own customers, drops those suits, and then refiles against them. Except that it turns out that Toeppen not only enjoys going after his online critics, but also likes to dig up little personal details of those critics and then send them cryptic-as-hell messages.

And now, it would appear, he's been arrested for his creepy antics.

Toeppen added another chapter to his strange story when he was arrested in Champaign, Illinois on two counts of "Harassment through electronic communications," a class B misdemeanor in Illinois, according to a spokesperson for the Lake County State's Attorney's Office. By this morning, he had posted the $10,000 bond and was free awaiting arraignment, according to a spokesperson for the Champaign County Sheriff's Office where Toeppen was booked.

Between creating his own wave of public backlash and drawing the ire of Ken "Popehat" White, you might have thought that Toeppen would have learned his lesson by now. Not so, apparently, and his online antics are as strange as his harassment is creepy. It turns out Toeppen appears to go to sites like Yelp and respond to critics in rather harsh ways, and then continues editing those responses years in the future. One Yelp reviewer warned against using Suburban Express and mentioned that Toeppen had apparently Googled his/her name and responded with online article links about someone sharing that name and asking if that was the Yelpers identity. Creepy enough on its own, except then there was this follow up.

July 8. 2014
It gets even scarier...
I just got a message from him:
Hi Naama, Dennis T. sent you a message on Yelp:
Subject: RE: Your Review
"By the way, what is all that trash in your driveway on the google street view of your house? You seem a little wacko."

And now we're in the stalking and implied threat arena. The obvious but subtle suggestion by Toeppen was "I know where you live." Fortunately, someone has decided to fight back.

Apparently, this time at least one target of Toeppen’s tactics documented the situation well enough to get misdemeanor charges filed. According to Lake County Circuit Court’s database, the charges filed against Toeppen were based on incidents on September 23, 2013 and January 10, 2014.

I'd say keep it sleazy, Dennis, but we already know you will.

Filed Under: dennis toeppen, harassment, online critics, stalking
Companies: suburban express

California City Achieves New Lows In Anti-Bullying Laws, Makes Public Entirely Subject To Other People's 'Feelings'

from the protecting-the-elusive-5-25-demographic-from-feeling-down dept

Just stop.

"Fixing" bullying through rushed, stupid, reactionary laws does nothing to address the issue and generally just makes things worse. Carson, CA, Mayor Jim Dear thinks he's going to beat bullying and he's going to use a new law to do it. His plan is a real gem, though, requiring only a one-paragraph summary to encompass its utter vapidity. (via Adam Steinbaugh)

Under an ordinance that will go before the City Council next week, it would become a misdemeanor in the small Harbor-area city to cause anyone from kindergarten through age 25 to “feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed or molested” with no legitimate purpose.

1. This wording suggests there are legitimate reasons to "terrorize, frighten, intimidate, threaten, harass or molest" people aged 5-25. Sadly, the mayor fails to provide examples.

2. Thicker skin is apparently grafted on at age 25, at which point people can expect to be terrorized, threatened, etc. right up to the limits of existing laws. The subtext here is that people are expected to "grow up" and deal with bullying better at some point in their lives. That arbitrary point appears to be four years past the legal drinking age.

3. This bill is entirely subjective -- the key word being "feel." No one is allowed to make anyone "feel" any of the above forbidden feelings. As presented here, there's no "reasonable person" subjectivity bar, which makes everyone in Carson subject to everyone else's feelings.

This bill also covers "cyberbullying," which is incredibly redundant considering all of the feelings listed above. But it goes beyond simple redundancy, offering additional actionable feelings specific to electronic communications.

It cites “hurtful, rude and mean text messages” as a key form of cyberbullying, along with “spreading rumors or lies about others by email or social networks.

"Hurtful?" "Rude?" "Mean?" Have you not met children, Mayor Dear? They can be all of these things without being bullies, simply because their sense of perspective has yet to mature. The most amazing things fall out of kids' mouths. Some grow brain-mouth filters as they mature. Others don't. But most start out without a knowledge of societal norms -- the unspoken agreement that specifies that you don't point out what's different or strange or funny about someone else to their face. But to Dear, these childish statements may be treated as misdemeanors.

For additional unintentional hilarity, here's a statement from the bill's co-sponsor.

Councilman Mike Gipson, a co-author of the measure, said the goal was to make Carson a “bully-free city.”

Gipson's idealism would be admirable if it weren't completely indiscernible from the sort of thing politicians who have long since kissed their ideals goodbye would make. It's a promise that can't be kept, stated as a lofty goal towards which the city will e'er strive, even if it means criminalizing protected speech and non-criminal behavior. If this effort fails (and it will, at one level or another), the goalposts can always be moved, or the definitions changed, so that Carson, CA is constantly approaching the "bully-free" ideal.

The problem with unquantifiable goals is that someone will want to quantify it, if only to justify the arrest and booking of schoolchildren. And when you make certain activities the target, that will be what's counted. The more "bullies" it prosecutes, the closer it must be to achieving Gipson's and Dear's utopian goal. This provides twisted incentives for law enforcement and prosecutors, both of whom are now involved in a problem that used to be solved by parents and schools. Good work if you can get it -- especially if you've got a crusade on your mind -- but it's hardly a solution to a societal problem.

Filed Under: anti-bullying, california, carson, feelings, free speech, harassment, jim dear