Guy Charged With Harassment For Sending Email Complaint To Senator Jim Bunning

from the careful-who-you-get-angry-with dept

We've talked multiple times about the problems with various online "harassment" laws, many of which are written so broadly as to outlaw using email to try to "annoy" someone. Basically, they try to outlaw being a jerk, which doesn't seem to make sense if you believe in the First Amendment.

With the recent situation involving AT&T threatening to take legal action against a customer for sending a complaint email to AT&T's CEO, it seems like lots of people are overreacting to email complaints. The latest is Senator Jim Bunning, from Kentucky. Bunning got a lot of attention back in February when he decided to become a one-man filibuster against extending unemployment benefits (much to the annoyance of politicians from both major parties). DavidClerk alerts us to the news that Bruce Shore, an unemployed man in Philadelphia, got so upset at Bunning that he sent some angry emails to Bunning and his staff. Fair enough. These are the basics of representative democracy.

The emails were definitely angry, but it's a stretch to claim they are real harassment. Yes, the final line could cut it close, but is hardly a direct threat.

Hello,

I am at a LOSS of words for SENATOR BUNTING blocking unemployment benefits for me and my children. If I do NOT get my check next week I WILL HAVE NO FOOD AND WILL BE ON THE STREET.

What kind of people are you? 10 Billion goes to the war every couple days and to Wall street weekly. I want my benefits or there will be people starving and dying.

What is wrong with you people. NOW is NOT the time to play politics with childrens lives.

ARE you'all insane. NO checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT??

IF THIS POLITICAL GRANDSTANDING DOES NOT END TODAY - WE WILL COME TO YOUR OFFICES AND MAKE OUR POINT. YOU ARE PLAYING A LIFE AND DEATH GAME HERE.

DO YOU GET IT.

Brad Shore
Louisville, KY 40202

Now there are lots of ways Bunning and his staff could respond to such emails. But the way he did respond was to get the Capitol Police and the FBI involved leading to the guy being indicted for online harassment, specifically that he "did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication." You can see the indictment here: Part of the issue appears to be that he also claimed to be in Kentucky when he was really in Philadelphia. Hence the "without disclosing his identity." But, no matter how you look at it, to charge him with harassment seems like a huge stretch and could present a clear chilling effect on people expressing their concerns to elected officials. Even if you think it made sense for the FBI to check things out to make sure there was no real threat implied by the email, to then go ahead and indict him seems like it's going way too far, and is hard to square with our concept of the First Amendment. Shore has since plead not guilty, but will face a trial starting in July. However, it seems like it never should have gotten this far. Expressing your displeasure with an elected official should not lead to felony charges against you.

Filed Under: email, harassment, jim bunning

Congress Clueless About Venture Capital... Still Wants To Regulate It

from the this-makes-no-sense dept

Following the financial crisis there's obviously a lot of interest in more carefully regulating aspects of the private equity markets, given that behind-the-scenes financial efforts have been seen (rightly or wrongly) as part of the cause of the mess. But, of course, Congress can barely understand what caused the problem, let alone other aspects of the the financial system, so they end up regulating by shooting in the dark. The latest is that the various attempts to put regulations on hedge funds and private equity firms that invest in public companies (which in many cases really were sneaky ways to get around regulations) may be applied to venture capitalists as well, despite the fact that venture capital is a totally different beast. It doesn't invest in public companies. It doesn't aim for sneaky quick flips. It's true long term investment capital, directly investing in private startup companies to help them grow. It's real investment -- not gambling. But Congress doesn't seem to realize that.

In a recent Congressional hearing where venture capitalist Trevor Loy explained this to our elected officials, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky apparently told Loy that he didn't believe him that VCs invest in private companies rather than companies likely to be rated by the various ratings agencies (I'd link to the story where this was noted, but the publication that wrote it, put it behind a paywall and apparently doesn't want traffic -- there's a Google cache for now). And, yet, these are the folks writing the regulations. This is why some of us get nervous about gov't regulations. Yes, in an ideal world, perfectly knowledgeable regulators might possibly be able to divinely create regulations that work. But that's not what we have.

Filed Under: jim bunning, regulations, venture capital