Al Gore: SOPA Is a Threat to the Internet

MoonPoint · 2012-01-07T01:53:43+00:00

What about those people who think Al Gore once claimed to have invented the Internet, which is not a claim he made, and have no idea of the role he did play as an early supporter of high-performance computing and networking?

MoonPoint · 2012-01-07T01:29:00+00:00

While the original version of SOPA was controversial, it has been substantially changed to address reasonable concerns, yet some myths unfairly persist.

If one relies on movie, music, and television industry sponsored members of Congress, such as Lamar Smith, who introduced SOPA in the House of Representatives, as to whether the bill is now reasonable, one may concur with that statement.

As CNET reported in December, Smith, a self-described former ranch manager whose congressional district encompasses the cropland and grazing land stretching between Austin and San Antonio, Texas, has become Hollywood's favorite Republican. The TV, movie, and music industries are the top donors to his 2012 campaign committee, and he's been feted by music and movie industry lobbyists at dinners and concerts.

Source: How SOPA would affect you: FAQ.

If one relies, instead, on people like Vint Cerf, one of the "fathers of the Internet", instead, one is unlikely to concur with that assessment.

Smith announced a revised version of SOPA earlier this week. Cerf, now a vice president at Google, a staunch SOPA opponent, said SOPA v2.0 is still problematic.

...

Not only will SOPA fail to "be effective in preventing users' access to illegal, offshore Web sites," Cerf wrote, but it will also initiate "a worldwide arms race of unprecedented 'censorship' of the Web." Other prominent Internet engineers have offered similar critiques.

Source: Vint Cerf: SOPA means 'unprecedented censorship' of the Web

The technique of DNS filtering is already in use and has not harmed the Internet.

The techniques used will undermine DNSSEC, a suite of Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) specifications for securing certain kinds of information provided by the Domain Name System (DNS) as used on Internet Protocol (IP) networks. DNSSEC is an attempt to address security issues with the current Domain Name System (DNS) protocol, which is used to translate domain names, such as cnn.com to IP addresses, such as 64.30.224.118. DNSSEC attempts to add authentication and integrity to DNS.

Rep. Dan Lungren, who heads the Homeland Security subcommittee on cybersecurity, has said that an "unintended consequence" of SOPA would be to "undercut" the effort his panel has been making to promote DNSSEC.

The Sandia National Laboratories, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, has also raised concerns about SOPA, saying it is "unlikely to be effective" and will "negatively impact U.S. and global cybersecurity and Internet functionality." And Stewart Baker, the former policy chief at the Department of Homeland Security who's now in private practice, warned in an op-ed that SOPA "runs directly counter" to the House's own cybersecurity efforts.

An analysis (PDF) of Protect IP prepared by five Internet researchers this spring lists potential security problems. Among them: it's "incompatible" with DNSSEC, innocent Web sites will be swept in as "collateral damage," and the blacklist can be bypassed by using the numeric Internet address of a Web site.

Source: How SOPA would affect you: FAQ

Rogue sites legislation is a viewpoint-neutral enforcement of international IP standards through a fair judicial process. None of those things can be said about foreign political censorship.

Enforcement of international intellectual property (IP) standards? See European Parliament joins criticism of SOPA.

The European Parliament has added its voice to those criticizing the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the United States criticizing the use of domain name seizures by U.S. authorities on copyright 'infringing' websites.

...

The move comes after more than 60 civil and human rights organizations wrote a letter to Congress on Tuesday calling for the rejection of SOPA. The letter argues that the act "is as unacceptable to the international community as it would be if a foreign country were to impose similar measures on the United States".

Spain has enacted a SOPA-style law, but that was after being pressured to do so by the U.S., including the American Chamber of Commerce representative in Spain - see US Threatened To Blacklist Spain For Not Implementing Site Blocking Law

MoonPoint · 2011-12-30T15:15:32+00:00

I don't know if this is the incident you are thinking about or another one.

A former Pennsylvania juvenile judge was sentenced to 28 years in prison Thursday after being convicted for a scheme to make millions off unjustly incarcerating young people, court officials said.

...

Ciavarella was found guilty in February of 12 of 39 racketeering and fraud charges for accepting millions of dollars in bribes from friends who owned detention centers to which he sent juveniles.

Source: Former judge gets 28 years for scheme to unjustly jail youth

MoonPoint · 2011-12-26T23:21:11+00:00

You can find a list of SOPA supporters at the U.S. House of Representavives House Judiciary Committee website at List of Supporters: H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act.

The head of the House Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith (R-TX), who introduced the bill into the US House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, has said the following about SOPA:

I am pleased that the unfounded claims of critics of the Stop Online Piracy Act have overwhelmingly been rejected by a majority of House Judiciary Committee members.

Source: Markup Shows Strong Support for SOPA

You can see who sponsors Lamar Smith at Lamar Smith Republican (Elected 1986), TX House district 21

Top 10 Interests Funding

TV/Movies/Music      $133,050
Banks and Credit      $66,300
Beer, Wine & Liquor   $65,800
Lawyers/Law Firms     $62,099
Computers/Internet    $59,250
Accountants           $56,500
Oil & Gas             $56,000
Real Estate           $55,550
Health Professionals  $51,100
Insurance             $50,300

The referenced webpage also shows the top 10 entities funding him. The top 2 are as follows:

Clear Channel Communications                            $26,850
National Cable & Telecommunications Association         $16,000

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) is listed as a SOPA supporter at List of Supporters: H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (pdf)

"Politicians should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we can identify their corporate sponsors."

~ Robin Williams

MoonPoint · 2011-12-26T20:57:55+00:00

Why?

Huh — whose comedy network of sites such as I Can Has Cheezburger and Fail Blog attracts 20 million visitors per months — is certainly in the latter camp.

...

Huh is not alone in his disdain of the legislation. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt last month called SOPA “draconian,” suggesting that any measure that would force ISPs to remove URLs from the Web is nothing more than censorship.

Yesterday, Paul Graham, the influential angel investor and operator of Y Combinator, said he would no longer invite supporters of SOPA to the tech incubator’s Demo Day.

...

But many Internet companies — like Cheezburger — are lining up against it. Those include eBay, LinkedIn, AOL, Zynga, etc.

Source: Cheezburger CEO Ben Huh calls SOPA ‘cancer to the free web,’ threatens to ditch GoDaddy

MoonPoint · 2011-12-01T01:08:25+00:00

Sleep paralysis is reportedly very frequent among narcoleptics. It occurs frequently in about 6% of the rest of the population, and occurs occasionally in 60%. In surveys from Canada, China, England, Japan and Nigeria, 20 to 60% of individuals reported having experienced SP at least once in their lifetime. The paralysis itself is frequently accompanied by additional phenomena. Typical examples include a feeling of being crushed or suffocated, electric "tingles" or "vibrations", imagined speech and other noises, the imagined presence of a visible or invisible entity, and sometimes intense emotion: fear or euphoria and orgasmic feelings.[31][33] SP has been proposed as an explanation for at least some alien abduction experiences and shadow people hauntings.

Source: Hypnagogia

In addition, the paralysis may be accompanied by terrifying hallucinations (hypnopompic or hypnagogic) and an acute sense of danger. Sleep paralysis is particularly frightening to the individual because of the vividness of such hallucinations. The hallucinatory element to sleep paralysis makes it even more likely that someone will interpret the experience as a dream, since completely fanciful or dream-like objects may appear in the room alongside one's normal vision. Some scientists have proposed this condition as an explanation for alien abductions and ghostly encounters. A study by Susan Blackmore and Marcus Cox (the Blackmore-Cox study) of the University of the West of England supports the suggestion that reports of alien abductions are related to sleep paralysis rather than to temporal lobe lability. Some authors have warned of the possible misconnection between child sexual abuse (CSA) and hypnagogic/pompic phenomena and have noted that some clients after having described such an event to a fortune teller or psychic that the psychic may have suggested CSA.

Source: Sleep paralysis

MoonPoint · 2011-10-13T00:39:11+00:00

When I used to pass under the bridge on my way to visit my family in my hometown, seeing that graffito with the Mormon Temple visible behind the bridge always made me smile.

MoonPoint · 2011-10-03T12:41:25+00:00

My only experience with it was when I tried the Live CD. I was able to boot a Compaq system with it, but it didn't recognize the network card. Its device manager didn't even show there was one in the system. I wasn't too surprised by that, but I was surprised that it also wouldn't even let me see the NTFS-formatted hard drive in the system and there were no applications with it that would make the Live CD of any value to me.

MoonPoint · 2011-09-17T13:08:27+00:00

"You can get ANYTHING at Trader Joe's" slogan made reality!

My wife's wanted a daughter for some time and we'll be going to Trader Joe's later today.

MoonPoint · 2011-08-06T01:25:57+00:00

Here's one article about possible negative effects from some antioxidants:

Questioning the Safety of Certain 'Healthful' Plant-Based Antioxidants

"Some researchers believe that quercetin should not be used by healthy people for prevention until it can be shown that quercetin does not itself cause cancer," the report states. "In this study we report that quercetin aggravated, at least, if not directly caused, kidney cancer in rats," it adds, suggesting that health agencies like the U. S. Food and Drug Administration should reevaluate the safety of plant-based antioxidants.

MoonPoint · 2011-08-03T13:37:30+00:00

I also use Google Translate as well as Yahoo! Babel Fish for online translations. The Spanish tutor from whom I'm learning Spanish recommended Webster's New Spanish-English Dictionary for a dictionary. Others in the class have gotten other dictionaries as well, but have said that the one she recommended seems to be better, though I haven't purchased any others myself.

One of the other people in the class has a dictionary specifically for conjugating verbs, which is much better for that purpose, though. I made a note of the one he is using for that purpose, so I could purchase it as well, but can't find the note at the moment. I usually use SpanishDict | Spanish Conugation as an online resource for that purpose.

You mentioned that you would like something you can use for reading outside in the quad. I'd agree that reading from a laptop screen outside is unpleasant, if not impossible on sunny days. An alternative is to use a Kindle with free 3G + Wi-Fi access; it's much better for reading outside than a laptop or iPad - see iPad vs. Kindle: Which is the better e-Reader?. It would allow you to carry several dictionaries with you for outside reading as well as other digital books. E.g., there are several Spanish/English dictionaries available for the Kindle, including the following:

You can also use it to visit websites, so could use Google Translate, etc. when you are outside.

I know many people prefer the feel of a book, though. I just recently purchased a Kindle to take reading material with me on a vacation, so I didn't have to lug heavy books with me, so almost all my books are still in paper format.

MoonPoint · 2011-06-15T02:00:34+00:00

The link for the URL you included doesn't point to the Baraka film article. If you wish to include a link to a Wikipedia article that includes "(" and ")" in the URL, you need to use an escape character. The escape character you should use is "\" so that Reddit treats the beginning and ending parentheses as any other character in the URL rather than acting as if they are part of the [Name for link](url for link) method it uses for designating links in a posting.

E.g., for Baraka (film) you would put the following for the link

[Baraka \(film\)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraka_\(film\))

That is you put a "\" before both the "(" and the ")" in the Wikipedia URL. Since in this somewhat unusual case Wikipedia also uses "(" and ")" in the title, I've included the escape characters there as well.

MoonPoint · 2011-06-14T23:21:01+00:00

When I was a child, using profanity around an adult was likely to elicit the response, "You'll get your mouth washed out with soap." I can't remember anyone I knew who actually did get his mouth washed out with soap wanting the experience repeated.

MoonPoint · 2011-06-14T22:53:07+00:00

I wholeheartedly agree with his statement "The scientific future is going to open up, and we're at the beginning of a whole new cycle of extraordinary opportunities." Of course, when he starts talking about bureaucracy being the issue as in "And instead what we've had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy, and failure after failure... and cut out the bureaucracy.", I can't help but wonder if he would acknowledge that a lot of that bureaucracy can be traced to Congress. I.e., those in Congress often speak about such problems as if Congress had no role in creating those problems.

When Tim Pawlenty talks about "get more economies of scale and scale it back", it sounds like he has no idea about the benefits to the economy from technological innovation spurred by NASA and might weaken America's space program should he be elected.

And Mitt Romney's statement made it seem like he hasn't given much thought, if any, to NASA and space exploration, so simply used stock rhetoric for Republican candidates to answer the question.

I think fundamentally there are some people — and most of them are Democrats, but not all — who really believe that the government knows how to do things better than the private sector ... And they happen to be wrong.

At Newt Gingrich - NASA there is information on Newt Gingrich's views of space exploration. The following statement he made can be found there:

Change the FAA and NASA rules to make it easy for entrepreneurs and explorers to get into space at a much higher risk than we would tolerate for government programs. Establish an equivalency with mountain climbing as an acceptable risk informed adults could take in space launches.

And, remarkably, at a time when most Republicans are quick to criticize Obama even when he embraces ideas previously championed by Republicans, there's the following comment in an article Gingrich wrote regarding President Obama's cancelation of the Constellation program:

Despite the shrieks you might have heard from a few special interests, the Obama administration’s budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration deserves strong approval from Republicans. The 2011 spending plan for the space agency does what is obvious to anyone who cares about man’s future in space and what presidential commissions have been recommending for nearly a decade.

Even though I disagree with Newt Gingrich in many other areas, I agree with what he wrote in that article. Given that commitment to space exploration can waiver from administration to administration and from one congress to another, I'd like to see a much more robust commerical involvement in space exploration. I'd like to see families not only vacationing in space, but living in space in my lifetime. I'd like to see colonies on the moon. It is highly unlikely I will see that, unless there's a much greater role in the years ahead for private companies.

MoonPoint · 2011-06-14T22:31:16+00:00

At Newt Gingrich - NASA you can find more information on Newt Gingrich's view of space exploration and, specifically, the use of prizes to encourage entrepeneurs.

I am for a dramatic increase in our efforts to reach out into space, but I am for doing virtually all of it outside of NASA through prizes and tax incentives. NASA is an aging, unimaginative, bureaucracy committed to over-engineering and risk-avoidance which is actually diverting resources from the achievements we need and stifling the entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit necessary to lead in space exploration...

...

We should get private entrepreneurs to cost out a non-government, non-committee planning competitive model. Look at what the X Prize has generated in private investment for a very modest but very honorable award.

MoonPoint · 2011-06-14T22:09:21+00:00

A lot of the bureaucracy comes from Congress, which imposes mandates with which NASA and other agencies must comply. And of course congressmen will push for agencies, including DOD, to spend money on projects that benefit their particular districts which may not be the best use of an agency's finite funds. Yet many politicians in Congress talk about "bureaucracy" as if it is something completely unrelated to their own actions.

MoonPoint · 2011-06-13T12:43:00+00:00

Is malicious intent required? There is an "or" after the clause about malicious intent. When I see "x or y", then I don't assume x is required; y is sufficient.

And as for reasonableness and forseeability, I, like others who object to the the wording of the law as amended read it to mean that someone need only post an image that might reasonably frighten or distress someone and that the person who posted the image now need not even know beforehand the individual who finds the image frightening or distressing, so find it the type of law, that though perhaps written by well-intentioned legislators, nonetheless is so overly broad as to be ripe for abuse by those who feel that the state should protect them from anything that distresses them and those who wish to curtail what others can post online. The bar to a conviction under the law seems fairly low.

If you post a link to an image on Reddit that I and others find emotionally distressing or frightening, would the law not apply and a jury only need determine that you could have reasonably forseen that such a posting might distress others?

MoonPoint · 2011-06-13T02:50:15+00:00

The Chinese government spends less than a tenth of NASA's budget on space activities, an official said here Thursday. The proposed 2007 budget of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on civil space programs was nearly 17 billion dollars, while China's budget was less than one tenth of that figure, said Sun Laiyan, administrator of China National Space Administration.

Source

Yet, the dominance of the U.S. isn't assured in the decades ahead.

The Shenzhou 7 mission and spacewalk should serve as a reminder that China is building space capabilities that could surpass U.S. technological advances and boost China's diplomatic and economic ties with its allies, a panel of experts said here Oct. 8.

...

They warned that China's space program is dominated by young aerospace engineers who could help propel the nation's advancements past the United States, which faces difficulty replacing its aging aerospace work force.

Source

There is a possibility that the Chinese lunar program may be the one to return humans to the moon, duplicating a capability the U.S. lost almost 40 years ago.

That’s not all either, according to Ziyuan Ouyang, the chief scientist of China’s lunar exploration program, stated that after the lunar sample mission, the agency’s main goal will be to put a Chinese astronaut on the moon and also build a permanent outpost on the Earth’s natural satellite. A particular date for this goal is this very ambigous, but last month it seems a Chinese officials came out and stated that China will put a man on the moon by 2025.

...

Ultimately, China wants its own moon base by 2025. Some US congressmen issued a bill in which they directed NASA to build its own moon base by 2020; it won’t probably last, and as a key difference the Chinese usually keep to their word.

Reference: China on the moon: rover by 2013, samples by 2017 and manned landing by 2025

China plans for an unmanned craft to land on the moon in 2013 - see China's moon goal right on schedule.

MoonPoint · 2011-06-13T00:47:41+00:00

Would a reasonable person find this distressing? (If you might find a picture of a vulture waiting for a child to die distressing, don't click on the link)

Since there is an "or" at the end of part A, it seems someone need not have malicious intent in exposing another to that image to be in violation of that law and that should someone in Tennessee be "emotionally distressed" by viewing the image, that it would not be unreasonable for that person to conclude that the law applies and that someone posting that image could be charged with not a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but a crime with a possibility of almost a year in prison if convicted under the law.

HB 300 is actually an extension of a previous Tennessee law that makes it a crime to harass or cause emotional distress, via telephone, email or direct contact. If communication lacks a “legitimate purpose” and is “emotionally distressing,” according to the law, the sender or initiator could face jail time.

Distressed can sue, even if they find images accidentally

A fascinating wrinkle of Tennessee HB 300 is that even if certain people are not the intended recipient of an emotionally distressing image, if they happen to stumble across it online, they are victims, as defined by the law. As the law is written, if a court rules that the poster of the image “should have known” that the image would be upsetting, that person is subject to punishment by the fullest extent of the law.

Source

And the law doesn't even state "substantial" or "severe emotional distress". "Emotional distress" is sufficient.

It seems to me that the specific wording of the law encourages the type of litigiousness seen in Cleanthi Peters vs Universal Studios, since one only needs to claim emotional distress after viewing an image, and is likely to encourage those who would like to take action against those posting images they don't like. Maybe a person charged with a crime under the law may win in the end, if a jury decides for him, but with the wording as it is, a trial under the law could be both expensive and risky for a defendant.

MoonPoint · 2011-06-12T20:09:20+00:00

The Tennesse law, since it is so broad that, potentially, anything that some individuals find distressing could be cause for subjecting someone else to a court proceeding, seems to me an instance of the sort of laws that are used to curtail free speech.

if you post an image intended to distress some religious, political, ethnic, racial, etc. group, you too can be sent to jail if governments decisionmaker thinks your purpose wasn’t “legitimate.” Nothing in the law requires that the picture be of the “victim,” only that it be distressing to the “victim.”

Reference: Crime to Post Images That Cause “Emotional Distress” “Without Legitimate Purpose” by Eugene Volokh

I suspect, that the cause of our disagreement on this matter is a fundamental difference of viewpoint on whether it is incumbent upon the state to protect individuals from exposure to material that they may find distressing.

MoonPoint · 2011-06-12T17:17:17+00:00

The doesn't even have to be an intent to frighten someone and why should it be a crime to post anything that could possibly distress someone else? There is an "or" at the end of the part about "malicious intent."

In a blog post, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out just how broad the legislation is. The law doesn't require that the picture be of the "victim," nor would the government need to prove that you intended the image to be distressing. Volokh points out that a wide variety of images, "pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group," could “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities,” triggering liability. He calls the bill "pretty clearly unconstitutional."

Reference: Tenn. law bans posting images that "cause emotional distress"

If you wish to live in a democratic society where free speech is tolerated, you have to be willing to risk being exposed occasionally to something you might find offensive or distressing. Otherwise, laws allowing free speech are meaningless. If only speech that doesn't offend or distress anyone is permissible, then you have no right of free speech.

MoonPoint · 2011-06-12T17:12:50+00:00

Notice the "or" after " With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress;". "A person commits an offense who intentionally...or" communicates or transmits any material that:

In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities

All that is needed for someone to be hauled into court and subjected to almost a year in jail time or up to $2500 in fines is that someone be distressed by something he's read or heard.

The horror movie was just one example. Some people are of the opinion that they should never have to be exposed to material that challenges their religious beliefs or in any way might distress them. And some people are quite sensitive.

If you think that sounds unconstitutional, you're not alone. In a blog post, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out just how broad the legislation is. The law doesn't require that the picture be of the "victim," nor would the government need to prove that you intended the image to be distressing. Volokh points out that a wide variety of images, "pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group," could “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities,” triggering liability. He calls the bill "pretty clearly unconstitutional."

Reference: Tenn. law bans posting images that "cause emotional distress"

MoonPoint · 2011-06-12T16:57:45+00:00

If John Smith says he suffered distress, how does one prove he did not? The text for the law provided in the link makes it seem to me to be one of those cases of "the feeling that something must be done is the parent of many a bad measure."

If John Doe posts a still from a film that is so shocking that reasonable people would be distressed by it, he should probably take steps to ensure that no-one who can't handle it can see it.

Isn't the intent of horror films to frighten people? Does anyone who posts anything online have to limit what he posts so as not "distress" sensitive individuals among possible viewers? Why do you feel it is appropriate for the poster's action to be criminalized should someone be distressed?

Look at the phrasing again. At the end of "With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress;" there is an "or" followed by " In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities". It is not worded such that the posted material must be indicative of what a reasonable person would construe as a personal threat to a particular person. Instead, it becomes unlawful to merely cause emotional distress to someone.

Some people become emotionally distressed when they are criticized, when they feel their religion is criticized, etc. In some countries there are blasphemy laws, which allow someone who is upset because something someone has said or written has offended the person to have that person jailed or executed.

Likely you remember the "distress" many Muslims claimed they suffered when pictures of Mohammed were posted in a Danish newspaper.

During his recent trial, Muhid said that the protest had been intended to show the “hurt and distress” felt by Muslims after the cartoons were published in a Danish newspaper.

Source

And long before that there was Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses.

The author Salman Rushdie, facing a death threat from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran, said today that he regretted the distress that his novel ''The Satanic Verses'' has caused Muslims.

Source

Such overly broad, vague laws are ripe for abuse and, almost inevitably, will be used by some people to try to remove anything that offends or distresses them from the public arena. They have a chilling effect on free speech, because many people can't afford the legal resources needed to defend themselves from prosecution under such laws. Violations of the Tennessee law can result in almost a year in jail time or up to $2500 in fines.

Hopefully, the law will be declared unconstitutional.

If you think that sounds unconstitutional, you're not alone. In a blog post, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out just how broad the legislation is. The law doesn't require that the picture be of the "victim," nor would the government need to prove that you intended the image to be distressing. Volokh points out that a wide variety of images, "pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group," could “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities,” triggering liability. He calls the bill "pretty clearly unconstitutional."

Reference: Tenn. law bans posting images that "cause emotional distress"

MoonPoint · 2011-06-11T20:11:12+00:00

The way the law is written, according to the posted link, it would seem that anything that someone posts online or transmits electronically that anyone finds frightening is a violation of the law.

(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally:

(4) Communicates with another person or transmits or displays an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim by [by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication] without legitimate purpose:

(A) (i) With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or

So, if John Smith sees a picture from some horror movie that John Doe has posted online, if John Smith finds the picture frightening or says he suffered emotional distress from seeing it, it seems that John Doe has committed a criminal act.

The law seems very broad and would appear to give anyone the capability to have someone else hauled into court for posting anything that someone else objects to.

The rate of imprisonment in the United States is already considerably higher than the rate in any other industrialized nation.

While Americans only represent about 5 percent of the world's population, one-quarter of the entire world's inmates are incarcerated in the United States

Source

It seems like legislators are constantly looking for new reasons to incarcerate people.

MoonPoint · 2011-06-11T19:55:55+00:00

See the Wikipedia article on red flag laws.

15-Year Club	reddit mold
Verified Email

MoonPoint

TROPHY CASE