Griefing is now A Federal Crime !!!

"sir judge" he shot me with a watermellon

Judge "oh dear were you hurt?"

"well not really mr. judge you see it wasn't me it was my avatar and I was afk at the time"

judge "LOLZ get this guy outa my courtroom his is wasting my time!"

judge whispers to bailiff "i remember that guy I was really borred and loged into second life and found this freebie watermelon shooter and shot him all around this hunk of land like a bowling ball and he didn't even say anything"

Bailiff" LOLZ!!11!!"

hehe just popped into my head but this is what comes to mind when I read the subject line

hehehhe thank you for this post, I just getting ready for work and this help started my day! Sorry but I don`t think SL falls in to this grouping, since as much as i like to agree with the writer of this thread. But frankly there are way to many factors that sl falls into that can`t support this law.

Fact there are non USA people on sl, and they don`t fall under the Laws. It would be nice to see a law like this applied to all. But.......

Just to be clear...We're talking about people using anonymous accounts to harass, belittle reputation and disclose info about others with real impact over their first lifes.

As for the daily cream pie stuff, it's everyone responsibility to handle this by themselves within SL limits and if you want to criminally sue about that, then we know who the sad people are and it's not only the griefers...No drama please!

wow someone needs a new funny bone ....

If you read both H.R. 3402 Sec 113 and Title 47, 223 you will see that what the law does is close the loophole by expanding the definition of a communication device. It could be argued that in Title 47,223 Paragraph(1) SL is excluded by Sub-Paragraph(B) and it's applicability in Sub-Paragraph(C) is thus ruled out.

The forums on the other hand I can't imagine have that loophole.

Don't worry, if you read my posts in numerous past threads, you'll easily figure that I do have a large supply of funny bones

My cynic remark was towards people who take SL too seriously; if you can't handle some shot from watermelon gun and the likeness once in a while and feel that's worthy of a criminal offense in RL court, then they should reconsider their existence in our virtual world...For me,it's like suing everyone who bump you in a crowded bus: turning something harmless into a full scale drama...and this is as much disruptive than griefer behavior.That's all

The Current Administration LOVES vague definitions, It gives them Fairly broad latitude in the things they wish to accomplish.
The problem happens when you take a Case to Court, and it is left to the Judges to decide just How annoying is Annoying.
There was a similar problem with the use of the word "Obscene" in Many Past Laws. It led to some very lengthy, and Costly Litigations and the results were not always what the Law Makers Intended. The problem is, words like "Annoying" are Very subjective, and the Law has to be as Objective as Possible in order to satisfy Constitutional Challenges.
Thier heart was in the right place, But more clear, and concise language is Necesary.

Angel.

as much as the Posters on the forum may not like it , this sort of law should ONLY apply to cyber stalking that negatively affects your freedom, health, safety, or property.

Anything else seems to me to be too intrusive into our personal liberties. I dont need big brother going after people who ask me to donate $5 to so or so charity.

Any law that can be "gamed" by people against you is a bad law. (not that there arent already plenty of those on the books)

well after you get out of jail for annoying whoever didnt like that you asked me, give me a IM.

You realize we're all of us who live in the US going to jail now, right? After all, pretty much everyone annoys ... a certain person who is no longer able to access the official forums. ;p

So ... yeah. See you in the joint.

i can imagine that, as a non US resident, it doesn't concern me.

Looks like it is still good to be a pest.

I've already sicced the feds on my Cable company. Their monthly bills are highly annoying.

actually, it could be intepreted that you are in the US and subject to US law, because LL is located in California. This area of law has not really been explored. the basic theory is that if I am a citizen of a US state where gambling is illegal, I can still gamble online at a bahama's based website, because I am not in the US, but am in a jurisdiction where gambling is legal.

Well the inverse of that is that If I am using a US based website, I am subject to US jurisdiction. Of course I am not sure someone is going to make an extradition case for something so minor.

As much as I'd love to be able to use this law to bodyslam the truly cognitively-challenged in SL, I have to agree with most of the rest of you - this is completely unconstitutional, going directly against the First Ammendment, and is so broad that the first time it comes up in court - if it ever does- it will be struck down.

What were they thinking when they wrote this?

I'd like to ask what George W. was thinking, but that's kind of an oxymoron.

Wow talk about an uninforcible law.

I heard about the possibilty of this, hmm had to of been over a year ago...


Interesting - "without disclosing your true indentity"

I gota admit, if this is true, it would definitely bring bush up a few lines on my list. However seeing how he classified it as "annoying" people, it could mean anything. Like already discussed, anyone can be annoying. Some people get so easily annoyed, that just reading this topic would piss them off hehe. I think it will need some heavy modding to get this right. If it definitely is now a federal crime to grief people over the internet, then this is a blessed day indeed. I can imagine a high percent of the US's griefer population packing their bags to go overseas to live with illegal MMORPG server emulator hosts. I would like to see some references for this news before i believe it though.

Given the Number of people Bush Himself irritates every night via electronic media (TV, Radio, Internet) he should have been extremely reluctant to sign such a Bill as it could lead to a Life sentence for Him. Lol.

Obviously mere personal discomfort with a one time event is not, and never will be the Legal Issue here. The law as it stood before dealt with using Phones, and the US Mails as tools in a pattern of Targetted, persistant Harassment of a person, or group. This new attachment Only expands the defenition to Include use of various Internet communications environments.
I Know someone in SL who's Ex Husband had avoided Violating his Court Ordered "No Contact" and Followed the woman Into SL to continue his stalking and Harassing behaviour On Line. Until now he could get away with it, But now, Thankfully, No More. Not only is his action a Violation of the Civil Order, it is a Criminal Offence.
The Laws MUST keep up with changes in Technology, or they will Fail to protect people. Not only can you Not ignore the Past, you Cannot Ignore the Future either.

Angel.

Folks... This law applies to PERSONS.

There are no persons in Second Life. Period.

It still amazes me that SL types regularly forget this... forget that it is not *them* that is "in" sl.

That being the case... the law simply does not appy, at all, in this case.

"Your honor, his game piece was annoying my game piece... and it annoyed me... so, ahh...".

People. Truly. Get. This. Through. Your. Heads.

You do not exist in any way, shape, matter or form in SL. Nothing happens to you. Period. Your human experience is limited to watching a game being played, over which you have some influence. That is where it stops. If you are overly emotionally invested in the game play... that is nobodies fault except you own, I'm afraid.

Next thing you know, the wheel barrow will annoy the horseman on Park Place in Monopoly... and someone will ask a Federal Judge to address it.


fercrissakes...

-Ryder-

I'm sorry Ryder, But i have to say that this is the most Willfully Obtuse reasoning i have seen in here. it's like saying an E-Mail isn't harassment because the E-Mail system isn't a Person.
Every Av you see on SL is backed by a Real Human Being (Or in some cases a marginally Sentient Anthropoid) The Avatars every (Text) word, and action is at the direction of a Person. In the case of the Woman i mentioned, Her RL Ex Spouse Continued a Pattern of Stalking and Harassment that the courts Deemed Unacceptable. Your Logic says he should be allowed to do it On Line because of the FORM of the communication, In effect, you would Grant Immunity to SL players based on the Most Spurious reasoning.

The Law is aimed at expanding the defenitions of the Communications devices BUT the target is the People Instigating the Harassment Not the Tools they Use.

Angel.

No, it is not obtuse in the slightest, because email is delivered to a person.

You, I have to guess, are one of those that literally does not have an operating understanding of the separateness of an avatar in role play, versus real life.



No, because the stalking occurred OUTSIDE of SL. A *person* (He) stalked another person (she) INTO the game... and his stalking consisted of persuing her into varied avenues of her LIFE.

You are confusing that with behaviour that is limited to in game. Her complaint is that she was, in RL, being hounded in any number of ways. It could have been stalking her at her baseball game, or any other activity.

That is totally different.

It seems actually that it is You that is confusing things as i have previously stated, that is PRECISELY the occurrance this Law has been set up to Deal with, they aren't interested in the Petty antics of Infantile game griefers.
If, However, a Game Griefer were to Target thier activities on a specific individual, and Follow them into Other Venues, such as E-Mail or other Game Platforms in order to continue thier actions that could arguably fall under this laws Jurisdiction.
Because the Harassment Started in a Game, that would Not Grant any special Immunity to a person who's actions strayed into the realm of the Disturbed.

Angel.

That is not possible, without rl relationship (willing or not), as one is fully anonymous in SL. You (or they) would have to violate or break that barrier, in order to begin to harass in any real world sense.

The "griefing" is then NOT the issue. The issue would be the discovery and persuit of a real human being in the real world.

So we are, once again, back to my original statement.

Folks,

the base note here is not original, and is in fact a copy of Declan McCullagh's column form over a year ago.

The section of the law we are discussing is called: "Obscene or harassing telephone calls ..." and also ***specifically exempts interactive computer services*** (which SL is).

Key passages:

----------------------------------------------
Whoever, by means of a telecommunications device knowingly— makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
-----------------------------------------------

So is all about "communications", not gameplay activities (like griefing).
other relevant passages are:

------------------------------------------------
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who ***receives the communications***;

(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication;
----------------------------------------------

So, clearly, we are talking about telephone calls here... not second life.

Lastly Section B in definitions :

-----------------------------------------------
Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
(B) does not include an interactive computer service.

-----------------------------------------------

I see lots of "talk" about this... but little serious thought or *checking* of facts.

Griefing is not covered.

At all.

Sorry if this is a disappointment to anyone.

-Ryder-

Cool, the only problem is you need proofs that are accepted in a court. Think the whole is more concieved for chat psychos that like to stalk, rather then SL noobs that do cage and stuff.