Seems some bloggers want to advance the notion that "electronic communication intended to harass, etc." can be extended to any reply to a blog, or any statements within a blog.
Those types of communication falls under our rights to free speech. There are reasonable limits to free speech, like the proverbial yelling of fire in a crowded theater. Another type of speech that is prohibited is outlined in most restraining orders.
The statue on cyberstalking is not intended nor written to prevent the normal flow of communications, even that which we may find annoying, or even statements we totally disagree with.
Call up a stranger and say nothing. Just breath heavily into the phone for a few minutes, or as long as the other person refrains from hanging up on you. Do this repeatedly and see where you will eventually end up. Drive by your ex-spouces or ex-lovers house everyday, real slow, and see if you aren't charged with a crime.
That behaviour is not normal.
Cyber stalking is intended to curb behaviour on the internet that is comparable to unacceptable behaviour via telephone or in person and in no way will be interpreted to affect ever day communication as some bloggers have advanced.
I believe that in the case of a Greensboro blogger charged with cyberstalking a Randolph County blogger, the questioning of the scope and breath of the cyberstalking law is only being questioned because of the unpopularity of the alleged victim to some of the better known bloggers in Greensboro and has nothing to do with fear that the law will be applied outside of its original scope or may limit ordinary and common speech.
One blogger calls himself a satirist but I find him to just be a flippant smart-ass but that doesn't make him any more guilty of a crime than being an acid-tongued crusader make one not a victim. One must put our feelings of the litigants aside and judge the case solely on the merits of the evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment