This is true. We're also talking about a different country with different laws, but my point is the bar for harassment is not all that high, as some appear to think.
I would point out that statutes have to be construed by case law and until you've reviewed the case law interpreting a particular statute, you can't tell much from the statute alone.
For example, the NJ statute you quoted is pretty vague. Not as vague as the Australian one but still pretty mushy. I doubt that it ever gets enforced in many situations that technically would constitute a violation.
Harassment generally describes a pattern of behavior rather than a one off comment. But a one off comment would technically fall w/in the statute. I could call someone a dipshit and if a court thinks that was "likely to cause annoyance or alarm." Then I would technically be in violation. But I seriously doubt there would be any case law supporting such an application of that statute.
I'd also point out that it's only a disorderly persons offense which is normally brought in municipal court. I think the max sentence you can get in muni ct is either 6 mo. or 1 year. I can't remember.
You can't tell that from just the statute. That's what I was trying to say.This is true. We're also talking about a different country with different laws, but my point is the bar for harassment is not all that high, as some appear to think.
You can't tell that from just the statute. That's what I was trying to say.
In my opinion, that statute is unconstitutionally vague. I don't remember constitutional law all that well but if I had to guess, I would say that as long as the case law places limits on the statute, the statute might be able to weather a constitutional challenge.
edit: I'm certainly not going to stop telling someone to fuck themselves just because I think I might fall afoul of that statute. And I'll do it in person or online if I think someone deserves it. I guarantee I never get prosecuted because there's a general "common sense" rule that goes into interpreting these kinds of statutes.
I don't know, there needs to be some self-control when it comes to internet bullying.
Why? Because suicide is no joke. It's sort of a joke if someone takes an immediate leap and does it on a whim without any issue, but those are rare cases. I reckon that, 99% of the time, they have mental health issues, and I'm a big advocate for proper care and treatment for mental health.
But with a jail sentence? You serious? Even as an American, where we enjoy free speech, you'd support this?
I find his comments and behavior beyond disgust, but not punishable with jail time. I find that more disgusting than anything.
That looks like the same story so I'm not sure what you're after.I'm curious what your opinion is of this incident, with more information than was provided in the OP?
That looks like the same story so I'm not sure what you're after.
Don't get hung up on specifics. Laws are supposed to be susceptible of general application but be specific enough that people know what they can and can't do. If you read a statute and its case law and you still don't know what is and is not permitted, then that statute is vague, probably unconstitutionally so.
Now granted, Australia is a different country with different rules but in both cases you still need to be able to tell people what is and is not acceptable and if you can't do that then your statutes are worthless. If they unduly restrict behavior they are also worthless.
It's somewhat disturbing to see people defending someone very clearly promoting rape culture because "free speech." I stand by my original opinion.
He posted with the intent to offend, not to "get a laugh."
It seems like you think something can't be offensive and funny at the same time.
Counter argument: nothing is truly funny unless it offends at least some people.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-labourer-zane-alchin-switches-to-guilty-plea-over-tinder-shaming-case-20160620-gpn2on.html said:Court documents show that, when Alchin was arrested in October, he told police of one explicit post that he wrote: "I got it off an anti-feminist website. To offend a group of feminists that were harassing me and my friends."
I'm sure you realize that pleading guilty is one way that you avoid the uncertainties of a trial. In this case, sure, he could go to trial, lose and then start the appeal process on the grounds that the law is unduly vague. But if you were him, would you really want the aggro and expense. Probably not.That is the same story, but with much more detail. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of Australian law, but given that the defendant has an attorney (and pled guilty), I would go out on a limb and say it's enforceable there. I doubt he'll see much jail time at all (if any), though.
He said himself that he his intent was to offend:
A little extreme don't you think?
Do you think that his conduct in this case should also be excused if their interaction was face to face instead of online?
Yes. And in America I doubt anyone would be jailed for making rape jokes, no matter how disgusting. Likewise all the people saying he should be killed, beat up, raped in jail (yes people are actually saying this) shouldn't be arrested for it.
Jokes, threats, harassment - they're all the same unless you're the target, yeah?
And why on earth would you think I would treat this any differently if it were directed on me.
actually that was Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. It allowed prosecution for offending or potentially offending a minority. All they needed was to say you hurt their feelings.Actually they passed a similar law here in Canada. They call it the anti bullying act or something. I can't recall if it only applies to FB and other social media or if it counts on forums too, but think you can get like 10 years or something. Pretty insane.
It's a matter of perspective. I'm sure there's some hypothetical situation where some outside party would think of something as a joke but you would feel harassed or threatened.
I think that if words typed on the internet causes someone to kill them-self, then maybe they have bigger issues that needed to be dealt with.When peoples lives become onerously affected by it, like death in some cases, Ostracizing is not enough. We already have Laws that deal with Speech limits, like Libel laws, because speech can cause harm.
actually that was Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. It allowed prosecution for offending or potentially offending a minority. All they needed was to say you hurt their feelings.
Thank God it was struck down and finally removed by an Act of Parliament.
Yeah and a lot of women feel harassed and threatened when they see trans women in their bathrooms so let's send them to jail I guess.
Or we could actually have a standard beyond how something makes people feel. Because feelings are not always rational.
We could also find it a little odd when people say they feel harassed and threatened while continuing to trade insults with others online. Normally you'd think that'd be a bad idea.. if you really feel harassed and threatened, and don't just want to send someone to jail to advance a greater social cause.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/15/sydney-man-gets-court-date-for-legal-test-case-over-online-harassment-of-women said:The several posts allegedly made by Alchin include “You’ll be eating my cock till you puke” and “I’d rape you if you were better looking.”