Slashdot Mirror

I'd mod you up to 6 if I had mod points and it were possible.

I am a Tennessee resident and also IANAL. I was about to get all up-in-arms and send an angry email off to Gov. Haslam's office when I read this story but, fortunately, I decided to actually read up on what this "new" law is. It is, indeed, an update to the Harassment laws on the books for TN. This law covers directed communication with a malicious intent. Simply re-posting goatse images on your blog does not put you in violation of this law. Re-posting goatse images with an attached threat to a specific individual or group probably would, though.

Should harassment be protected free speech?

IANAL, but the following comes straight from the horse's mouth. I will use Denver as an example locality.

Infractions are civil matters. You cannot get arrested for them (DPOM 204.06.3.c, "Arrests for traffic infractions are not allowed."), and you won't go to jail for them -- not unless you do something else, like failing to show up for a court date, that is. Local laws (state / municipal) usually default to treating everything as a criminal offence (DRMC 1-13) and enumerating what isn't (DRMC 54-4). You can be arrested when you commit a crime -- that is a criminal act, and infractions aren't (CRS 16-3-102 "A peace officer may arrest a person when: [...](b) Any crime has been or is being committed by such person in his presence") (DPOM 204.05.2.a "No individual will be jailed on misdemeanor traffic charges, including D.U.I., unless one of the following criteria is met [...]").

CRS is very clear in defining the scope of rules in title 16, I'm not making it up: "This code is intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding." (CRS 16-1-103). An infraction is not a crime, thus 16-3-102 does not apply, and the police operations manual (DPOM) clearly restates that.

Of course other jurisdictions may vary.

Maryland Code, title 10, section 402:

(a) Unlawful acts.- Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or (3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle.

And the lawful acts are in (C)(2-4).

You really need to read the entire that entire section of MD code. To be charged and found guilty of a violation of the statute, all of the elements of the crime have be present. You need to know what an "oral communication" is as defined under that law.

(2) (i) "Oral communication" means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation.

The phrase "..in a private conversation." is key here. You can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the side of a busy interstate in the middle of the day. No expectation of privacy means no law was broken.

I I wonder why the judge hasn't throw the case out of court. Has the ACLU files to have the charge(s) dismissed for lack of elements?

1) Yes, they are. All police records are, with limited exceptions. Certainly in my jurisdiction, and probably in yours as well.

Subject to FOIA requests and sealed during pending investigations, which means they're effectively not public records.

Wrong. They are public records under a (non-permanent) seal. There's no privacy unless a judge attaches such, except again in special situations (rape, etc).

2) Again, the officer is already being recorded. The additional recording would not require consent. If I pointed a camera at the YouTube screen while it was playing, would I likewise be facing 16 years? Not so much.

You're not recording the conversation... You're recording a recording of the conversation. There is no second party, just YouTube.

Bingo! The same is true of recording something that's already being legally recorded under the law. No privacy attaches.

The 'harm' done to the officer's 'privacy' was already done by the state. Any replications of that are completely unimportant.

"Unimportant" to you doesn't mean there's not a legal or semantic difference.

Logic, FTW. The case clearly has no merit under what we both seem to agree is the intent of the law.

3) Same thing for this purpose. Again, already knowingly, legally recorded == consent not necessary.

[Citation needed]
Additionally, that you are knowingly recorded by a cop doesn't mean you consent is not required for any and all other recordings.

Here's your citation: The grey mass between your ears. This really is a common sense point of view. You can disagree if you lack said sense, but calling for a cite as an argument tactic is just lame.

This is a 'two party' law, is it not? Were both parties aware they were being recorded? Yes they were. Consent not necessary.

Reeeeaallly, now. Find me a single citation, anywhere, of a situation in which parties A and B may consent to each other's recording, and party C may then automatically record them without needing either A or B's permission.

Camcorder at an amusement park. Or are all the folks at Six Flags, Adventure Park USA, etc, also facing felony charges?

Further, if you're out to quote the statue, go ahead and link it. Otherwise you're speculating, same as I am, and should label it as such.

Maryland Code, title 10, section 402:

Cool, thanks! Except the link doesn't work... I'll see if I can track down what you were attempting to link.

(a) Unlawful acts.- Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to:

(1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

Doesn't apply. There's no interception, due to the public record recording. In order for interception to attach, some expectation of privacy would be required. Do we intercept the evening news with a VCR? No, not so much.

(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or

Again, not intercepted.

(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that t

1) Yes, they are. All police records are, with limited exceptions. Certainly in my jurisdiction, and probably in yours as well.

Subject to FOIA requests and sealed during pending investigations, which means they're effectively not public records.

2) Again, the officer is already being recorded. The additional recording would not require consent. If I pointed a camera at the YouTube screen while it was playing, would I likewise be facing 16 years? Not so much.

You're not recording the conversation... You're recording a recording of the conversation. There is no second party, just YouTube.

The 'harm' done to the officer's 'privacy' was already done by the state. Any replications of that are completely unimportant.

"Unimportant" to you doesn't mean there's not a legal or semantic difference.

3) Same thing for this purpose. Again, already knowingly, legally recorded == consent not necessary.

[Citation needed] Additionally, that you are knowingly recorded by a cop doesn't mean you consent is not required for any and all other recordings.

This is a 'two party' law, is it not? Were both parties aware they were being recorded? Yes they were. Consent not necessary.

Reeeeaallly, now. Find me a single citation, anywhere, of a situation in which parties A and B may consent to each other's recording, and party C may then automatically record them without needing either A or B's permission.

Further, if you're out to quote the statue, go ahead and link it. Otherwise you're speculating, same as I am, and should label it as such.

Maryland Code, title 10, section 402:

(a) Unlawful acts.- Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or (3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle.

And the lawful acts are in (C)(2-4).

Or maybe they got the idea from Tennessee, who has had this on the books for a number of years? See Tenn. Statutes: 39-14-602(b)(1):

Accesses any computer, computer system, or computer network commits a Class C misdemeanor. Operating a computer network in such a way as to allow anonymous access to that network shall constitute implicit consent to access under this part

[link]

negligent homicide

According to this site and the state law I think criminally negligent homicide would be a stretch. Not outright incorrect, but a stretch, as recklessly means "with knowledge or belief that x result will happen". I couldn't find a statue for negligent homicide without the criminally.

reckless endangerment

Same issue with the definition of recklessly. It could be applied, but as much as most people consider it a crock, its the "got up in the middle of the night and laid it on the table thinking to put it up in the morning" line that probably gets you off here, as in order to be reckless you have to "consciously disregard" good common sense. One could argue that either due to tiredness in the middle of the night, or due to shock/fight or flight (or coming back down from it) that he wasn't in a "normal" state of mind and therefor did not "consciously" disregard the danger.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing the guys behavior, I'm just saying.

Cite the law broken you want him charged under?

Involuntary Manslaughter is a good place to start. Particularly since he was in violation of TN law (a misdemeanor offense) by allowing the child to handle the firearm:

Unlawfully providing or permitting a juvenile to possess a handgun in violation of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor 39-17-1320

The child was not participating in a firearm sport or training, nor were they justified in using deadly force for home defense. The only defense would be to claim the child was not 'knowingly' in posession of the firearm, but that's why you press charges and let the courts decide.

It depends on the state, but in Colorado, an employee can detain someone if the theft detection alarm goes off.
From the Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-4-407.