http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to%20+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=602249%201&subj=news
I don't know... But sometimes Carl annoys me on here so I am going to go right out a file charges......
The problem is this, Molly Mayfield: There is no constitutional right not to be annoyed. But since there is a constitutional right to free speech, you can always tell the person who is annoying you to take a flying leap. Talk about the death of common sense!
Yes you do.... One most certainly does have a right to be protected from annoyance. There are laws addressing noise, trash etc. that directly address behaviour which annoys other people. There are, literally, thousands of laws on the books which address annoyances in public! Worse, one can retreat to their private property and if I follow them to annoy I have violated their right to privacy. Otherwise, trespassing would not be illegal. Since we read the Internet (generally) on our private computer people claim SPAM oversteps its legal freedom. Frankly, the spam laws seem to derive their legal justification from the same legal precedence as the do not call list. I do not know, anyway, it is virtually unenforceable with current technology......
Re: Yes you do.... One may very well have the right not to be annoyed. But, since that right is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, it is not a constitutional right, per se. But my point was: exactly what threshold of annoyance must things reach before they become a legal issue? Suppose, for example, that Ted Heiks opens his email and finds that there are some new messages to certain subscribed threads on degreeinfo. Suppose, moreover, that Ted Heiks finds that some of those new messages on degreeinfo are from some guy named DTechBA. Is this level of annoyance sufficient for a lawsuit? In all fairness, if DTechBA finds that Ted Heiks has posted new messages to degreeinfo, is that sufficient annoyance to warrant a lawsuit?
Re: Re: Yes you do.... Well, now you're beginning to annoy me. Just kidding.... The protection from annoyance is basically enshrined in the right to privacy which is in the constitution. Also, email costs American businesses, government and consumers millions a year when they have to protect themselves with spam filters and anti-virus software etc. That kind of annoyance is most definately actionable through legislation....
Re: Re: Re: Yes you do.... Actually, the right to privacy is not in the constitution; it is merely intuited from various penumbras, which, I think, involved the right against unreasonable search and siezure, which is in the Constitution. Whether that constitutional penumbra remains, of course, depends on whether or how long Roe v. Wade stands as precedent.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes you do.... True but the bill of rights and the 14th amendment does address many issues which are privacy concerns and are generally determined to be a right to privacy. But I admit you make a fair point.....
There seems to be enough bad behavior on the internet that we won't have long to wait until the first test case is in court. I wonder if our anonymous friends on those other forums are aware of this new law? Jack
