United States
"Cyberbullying" versus "cyberstalking"
In the US, in practice, there is little legislative difference between the concepts of "cyberbullying" and "cyberstalking." The primary distinction is one of age; if adults are involved, the act is usually termed cyberstalking, while among children it is usually referred to as cyberbullying. However, this distinction is one of semantics, and many laws treat bullying and stalking as much the same issue.
"Cyberbullying" versus "cyberstalking"
In the US, in practice, there is little legislative difference between the concepts of "cyberbullying" and "cyberstalking." The primary distinction is one of age; if adults are involved, the act is usually termed cyberstalking, while among children it is usually referred to as cyberbullying. However, this distinction is one of semantics, and many laws treat bullying and stalking as much the same issue.
Internet free speech issues have certainly made their way through the court systems, even as far back as cases from the mid-90s. In the case of United States v. Baker, for example, an undergraduate at the University of Michigan was charged with crimes related to snuff stories he had posted on Internet newsgroups, stories that named one of his fellow students. After progressing through the courts, the charges against Baker were dismissed primarily on grounds that there was no evidence that Baker would actually act out the fantasies contained in those stories. This case is now considered a landmark in the realm of First Amendment issues on the Internet.
Wikipedia
United States v. Alkhabaz
United States v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997) was a case brought against University of Michigan undergraduate Abraham Jacob Alkhabaz, a.k.a. Jake Baker, related to several incidents regarding snuff stories that he wrote while he was a student at…
The need for new laws
The focus on legislating cyberbullying and cyberstalking has largely come about as a result of the perceived inadequacy, generally by legislators and parents of bullying victims, of existing laws, whether those existing laws cover stalking, unauthorized use of computer resources, or the like. The motivation behind the bill in 1990 where 50 U.S. states and the federal government passed a bill to "criminalize" stalking was due to the cases of stalking against celebrities (Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002).
For example, in the case of United States v. Lori Drew, in which Megan Meier had committed suicide after being bullied on MySpace, three of the four charges against the defendant (Drew) were actually in response to alleged violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, since specific statues against cyberbullying were not on the books. The jury eventually found Drew innocent of the charges (but guilty of a misdemeanor), a verdict that was later set aside by the judge. In this situation, legislators in Missouri, at the urging of the public and Meier's parents, passed "Megan's Law", primarily aimed at the crime of a person over 21 years of age bullying a person under 18 years of age.
In addition, prosecutors will sometimes use other legal avenues to prosecute offenders. In the case of Tyler Clementi, who killed himself after video of his homosexual encounter was broadcast on the Internet, prosecutors charged the defendants with invasion of privacy and computer crimes.
Like the Meier case, the Clementi case spurred legislators (this time, in New Jersey) to pass a law specifically aimed at bullying, an "Anti-bullying Bill of Rights"
While some laws are written such that the focus on cyberbullying is the set of acts that occur within a school, others are more general, targeting cyberbullying no matter where it occurs. In addition, some of these newly written laws (like one in Connecticut) put more of an onus on the school system, mandating that the school's administration must intervene at the first sign of bullying
Finally, it's not uncommon for cyberbullying to be coupled with "traditional", in-person bullying, for example, in the suicide of Phoebe Prince. Students at her school had bullied her for months in school, and that harassment eventually moved online as well. As in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Missouri, the Prince case led to stricter anti-bullying legislation in Massachusetts.
The focus on legislating cyberbullying and cyberstalking has largely come about as a result of the perceived inadequacy, generally by legislators and parents of bullying victims, of existing laws, whether those existing laws cover stalking, unauthorized use of computer resources, or the like. The motivation behind the bill in 1990 where 50 U.S. states and the federal government passed a bill to "criminalize" stalking was due to the cases of stalking against celebrities (Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002).
For example, in the case of United States v. Lori Drew, in which Megan Meier had committed suicide after being bullied on MySpace, three of the four charges against the defendant (Drew) were actually in response to alleged violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, since specific statues against cyberbullying were not on the books. The jury eventually found Drew innocent of the charges (but guilty of a misdemeanor), a verdict that was later set aside by the judge. In this situation, legislators in Missouri, at the urging of the public and Meier's parents, passed "Megan's Law", primarily aimed at the crime of a person over 21 years of age bullying a person under 18 years of age.
In addition, prosecutors will sometimes use other legal avenues to prosecute offenders. In the case of Tyler Clementi, who killed himself after video of his homosexual encounter was broadcast on the Internet, prosecutors charged the defendants with invasion of privacy and computer crimes.
Like the Meier case, the Clementi case spurred legislators (this time, in New Jersey) to pass a law specifically aimed at bullying, an "Anti-bullying Bill of Rights"
While some laws are written such that the focus on cyberbullying is the set of acts that occur within a school, others are more general, targeting cyberbullying no matter where it occurs. In addition, some of these newly written laws (like one in Connecticut) put more of an onus on the school system, mandating that the school's administration must intervene at the first sign of bullying
Finally, it's not uncommon for cyberbullying to be coupled with "traditional", in-person bullying, for example, in the suicide of Phoebe Prince. Students at her school had bullied her for months in school, and that harassment eventually moved online as well. As in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Missouri, the Prince case led to stricter anti-bullying legislation in Massachusetts.
Illinois
According to "Who@: Working to Halt Online Abuse":
Sec. 1-2. Harassment through electronic communications.
(a) Harassment through electronic communications is the use of electronic communication for any of the following purposes:
1 Making any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene with an intent to offend;
2 Interrupting, with the intent to harass, the telephone service or the electronic communication service of any person;
3 Transmitting to any person, with the intent to harass and regardless of whether the communication is read in its entirety or at all, any file, document, or other communication which prevents that person from using his or her telephone service or electronic communications device;
1 Transmitting an electronic communication or knowingly inducing a person to transmit an electronic communication for the purpose of harassing another person who is under 13 years of age, regardless of whether the person under 13 years of age consents to the harassment, if the defendant is at least 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense;
4 Threatening injury to the person or to the property of the person to whom an electronic communication is directed or to any of his or her family or household members; or
5 Knowingly permitting any electronic communications device to be used for any of the purposes mentioned in this subsection (a).
(b) As used in this Act:
1 "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectric or photo-optical system. "Electronic communication" includes transmissions by a computer through the Internet to another computer.
2 "Family or household member" includes spouses, former spouses, parents, children, stepchildren and other persons related by blood or by present or prior marriage, persons who share or formerly shared a common dwelling, persons who have or allegedly share a blood relationship through a child, persons who have or have had a dating or engagement relationship, and persons with disabilities and their personal assistants. For purposes of this Act, neither a casual acquaintanceship nor ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in business or social contexts shall be deemed to constitute a dating relationship.
(c) Telecommunications carriers, commercial mobile service providers, and providers of information services, including, but not limited to, Internet service providers and hosting service providers, are not liable under this Section, except for willful and wanton misconduct, by virtue of the transmission, storage, or caching of electronic communications or messages of others or by virtue of the provision of other related telecommunications, commercial mobile services, or information services used by others in violation of this Section. (Source: P.A. 95-849, eff. 1-1-09; 95-984, eff. 6-1-09; 96-328, eff. 8-11-09.)
According to "Who@: Working to Halt Online Abuse":
Sec. 1-2. Harassment through electronic communications.
(a) Harassment through electronic communications is the use of electronic communication for any of the following purposes:
1 Making any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene with an intent to offend;
2 Interrupting, with the intent to harass, the telephone service or the electronic communication service of any person;
3 Transmitting to any person, with the intent to harass and regardless of whether the communication is read in its entirety or at all, any file, document, or other communication which prevents that person from using his or her telephone service or electronic communications device;
1 Transmitting an electronic communication or knowingly inducing a person to transmit an electronic communication for the purpose of harassing another person who is under 13 years of age, regardless of whether the person under 13 years of age consents to the harassment, if the defendant is at least 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense;
4 Threatening injury to the person or to the property of the person to whom an electronic communication is directed or to any of his or her family or household members; or
5 Knowingly permitting any electronic communications device to be used for any of the purposes mentioned in this subsection (a).
(b) As used in this Act:
1 "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectric or photo-optical system. "Electronic communication" includes transmissions by a computer through the Internet to another computer.
2 "Family or household member" includes spouses, former spouses, parents, children, stepchildren and other persons related by blood or by present or prior marriage, persons who share or formerly shared a common dwelling, persons who have or allegedly share a blood relationship through a child, persons who have or have had a dating or engagement relationship, and persons with disabilities and their personal assistants. For purposes of this Act, neither a casual acquaintanceship nor ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in business or social contexts shall be deemed to constitute a dating relationship.
(c) Telecommunications carriers, commercial mobile service providers, and providers of information services, including, but not limited to, Internet service providers and hosting service providers, are not liable under this Section, except for willful and wanton misconduct, by virtue of the transmission, storage, or caching of electronic communications or messages of others or by virtue of the provision of other related telecommunications, commercial mobile services, or information services used by others in violation of this Section. (Source: P.A. 95-849, eff. 1-1-09; 95-984, eff. 6-1-09; 96-328, eff. 8-11-09.)
• Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Damn not just state and federal laws broken, but HUMAN RIGHTS…
Zig zag is in the shitter now.
Zig zag is in the shitter now.
In the United States, over 41 states have passed laws and regulations that regard extreme online harassment as a criminal act. These acts can be punished on a federal scale, such as US Code 18 Section 2261A, which states that using computers to threaten or harass can lead to a sentence of up to 20 years, depending on the action taken
In August 2010, the international investigation Operation Delego, operating under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security, shut down the international pedophile ring Dreamboard. The website had approximately 600 members and may have distributed up to 123 terabytes of child pornography (roughly equivalent to 16,000 DVDs). To date this is the single largest U.S. prosecution of an international child pornography ring; 52 arrests were made worldwide
Wikipedia
Operation Delego
2009 investigation into pedophile network
In June 2012, LinkedIn and eHarmony were attacked, compromising 65 million password hashes. 30,000 passwords were cracked and 1.5 million EHarmony passwords were posted online.
On 23 April 2013, the Twitter account of the Associated Press was hacked. The hacker posted a hoax tweet about fictitious attacks in the White House that they claimed left then-President Obama injured. This hoax tweet resulted in a brief plunge of 130 points from the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the removal of $136 billion from the S&P 500 index, and the temporary suspension of AP's Twitter account. The Dow Jones later restored its session gains.
It is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail and a maximum $2000 fine, to post an individual’s address or number on a publicly accessible website with the intent to cause harm or a threat of harm to the individual or a member of the individual’s family or household.