Pendragon_6
01-12-2006, 08:50 AM
In response to the Perspectives column written by Declan McCullagh, "Create an e-annoyance, go to jail":
Interesting piece, Declan.
But on it's surface, it strikes me (at least, one would think, depending on the skill of the lawyer) as being completely unenforceable, isn't it?
One tack a clever attorney might take is simply to refute the claim on grounds of intent:
Judge: "You annoyed this person."
Defendant: "No I didn't. I sent him some information. That's all. Prove I intended to annoy him."
Or, if taken at face value, that merely to "annoy" someone means guilt:
J: "You annoyed this person. You're guilty."
D: "No I'm not."
J: "What are you talking about? You sent/created it. They're annoyed. You're guilty of annoying them."
D: "No I'm not."
In Full
C-NET (http://news.com.com/Provably+annoying/2009-1081_3-6026304.html?part=rss&tag=6026304&subj=news)
Interesting piece, Declan.
But on it's surface, it strikes me (at least, one would think, depending on the skill of the lawyer) as being completely unenforceable, isn't it?
One tack a clever attorney might take is simply to refute the claim on grounds of intent:
Judge: "You annoyed this person."
Defendant: "No I didn't. I sent him some information. That's all. Prove I intended to annoy him."
Or, if taken at face value, that merely to "annoy" someone means guilt:
J: "You annoyed this person. You're guilty."
D: "No I'm not."
J: "What are you talking about? You sent/created it. They're annoyed. You're guilty of annoying them."
D: "No I'm not."
In Full
C-NET (http://news.com.com/Provably+annoying/2009-1081_3-6026304.html?part=rss&tag=6026304&subj=news)