Anti-Jerk Laws

[Danihel Laurieir]

Fellow MCS, Senators and members of the great Talossan public:

Here are three very rough bill drafts I'd like to present to the legislature and the public at large to comment on.

The bills are—obviously, to anyone who was around for it—a response to Martuc case.

Why propose them if current law—particulary the incorporation of certain State of Wisconsin statues—was able to handle the Martuc situation?

From my perspective, there are three answers to the question:

1. Under current law it is a crime to lie or make false statements in your own application for citizenship, but it isn't crystal clear that it's a crime to try to get another application in under a forged identity or to post on Wittenberg under more than one identity.

2. While current law—thanks to our dynamic incorporation of many State of Wisconsin statutes—does provide penalties for spamming and hacking and other bad web and email behavior, Talossa's own home-written laws have nothing to say on the matter. I think it's smart to rely on Wisconsin law to cover things we haven't had to deal with or haven't thought of yet, but once we've tangled with a situation, let's put our values in our own words and write our own laws.

3. I think it's important that we make it very clear—in our own words—that Talossa will not tolerate abusive communications. Communities like ours which rely heavily on the web and email for the day to day conduct of business of exchange of opinions must—I'd argue—value civility highly, and put some teeth into that value.

Note: While I am a member of RUMP, these bill drafts have not been approved by the RUMP's politburo. This, of course, does not mean that RUMP necessarily opposes them.


Anti-Imposter and Liar Act

Clause 1: Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a crime subject to punishment by banishment, revocation of citizenship, any combination of civil disabilities and any other authorized punishments as described in 35RZ34:

(a) Makes any fraudulent or dishonest claims or statements on his or her application for citizenship, including his or her claims or statements to the Cort, the Immigration Minister and any deputies of the minister or to Cosa members.

(b) Uses another person's identity or uses an identity that creates the impression of another person to post or convey messages via email or on any public forum.

(c) Creates more than one identity for use in Talossa, excepting only name changes that replace an earlier name previously held by the same person.

Anti-Spammer and Hacker Act

Clause 1: Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a crime subject to punishment by banishment, revocation of citizenship, any combination of civil disabilities and any other authorized punishments as described in 35RZ34:

(a) Spams…Need help in defining this.

(b) Attempts on fraudulent basis to obtain passwords and/or user-id from others…Need help here, too.

(c) Attempts to, or actually does, sabotage public forums and/or the Web site…Obviously, need help here, too.

Anti-Jerk Act

Clause 1: Definition of abusive communication. Any message or form of communication that is conveyed via email, telephone or other manner or that is published in a public forum that is intended to insult, threaten or abuse a citizen or citizens and that contains words, figures, images, phrases or language that can be reasonably construed in context to be insulting, threatening or abusive may constitute abusive communication and may subject the author of such communication to the provisions outlined in this act.

Clause 2: Any citizen who receives or encounters a single instance of abusive communication (as defined in Clause 1) may petition the Cort for injunctive relief in the form of a Cort order against the author of the abusive communication to cease and desist from any similar form of communication if the petition is filed no more than five days after the Petitioner had received or encountered the alleged abusive communication. Petitions for injunctive relief from abusive communication that are received by the Cort for communications that occurred after the five-day deadline may be summarily dismissed by the Cort.

Clause 3: Whoever violates a restraining order as defined in Clause 2 is guilty of a crime subject to punishment by any combination of civil disabilities, fine, restitution and reprimand as described in 35RZ34.

Clause 4: Whoever, after having been convicted of violating the law under Clause 3 or while being tried for such violation, authors and conveys or publishes an instance of abusive communication as defined in Clause 1, is guilty of a crime subject to punishment by banishment, revocation of citizenship, any combination of civil disabilities and any other authorized punishments as described in 35RZ34.

Clause 5: If the Cort receives more than one petition for injunctive relief as described in Clause 2 that is filed against the same author, the Cort may, in addition to imposing the sought injunctive relief, also impose the punishments described in Clause 3.

[Bleic'h Ianescu]

These are some great ideas, and I agree that although these things are "technically" covered by Wisc. Stats. we are better off making our own laws on the matter. It will make our position on these things that much more clear.

On the issue of definitions... American Heritage Dictionary says spam is:

Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.

For us that could mean email between citizens or prospective citizens that is unrelated to KoT, including harsher penalties for using email to commercially target citizens with ads.
With regard to sabotaging the forums, I think the wording of the law should be "circumventing security measures". By outlawing that you cover hacking passwords and things of that sort.
This is a start and obviously this will need much more input, but the groundwork is laid. These sort of laws will help make clear what we do not tolerate from citizens, and help keep abuse to a bare minimum.

[Danihel Laurieir]

Thanks, Bleic'h, for these concrete suggestions. If you have any more thoughts about how to flesh out these provisions, I'd apprecite hearing them.

[Sir Samuhel Tecladeir]

Overall, I agree with you. May I suggest adding the following word in your clause 1: "knowingly". It just prevents the law from being over-abused. Some of it is obvious, but others, like the "spam" can be inadvertant (soliciting people for games).

With the second law, I had some thoughts about the definitions. Spam - sending massive unsolicited (often repeated) proposals, advertisements, or other emails without regard to the audience - blah blah blah. The rest is escaping me at the moment.

I like the "circumvent security measures". After that, it could almost stand on its own.

"Attempts to sabotage or otherwise disrupt public forums, emails, or other forms of communication."?

For the last law, I understand where the harshness comes from, but I'm not sure I agree with it. I like (1) and (5). (2) is iffy. I think I'm balking at the "single". It doesn't leave much room for plaintiff malintent. After that, (3) and (4) don't seem too bad.

[King John]

There are a few things here I'm not entirely comfortable with.

First, I can see times when it might be entirely reasonable for someone to "create the impression of another person". Suppose you're investigating something on-line — a Talossan citizen allegedly running a competing micronation, or a Talossan citizen allegedly committing some kind of email- or Witt-based fraud —, a false identity might be indispensable to your investigation. We at least need some kind of exception-language here.

"More than one identity for use in Talossa" — OK, we certainly don't want someone becoming a citizen under two different names. But "in Talossa" isn't clearly defined.

Then there's the whole problem with abusive and insulting language. Right now, I can say "Dan's a weenie" and he can reply "And you smell like doggie-doo", and we both go away entertained if not edified. But suppose one of us felt litigious. (And we have had litigous people in Talossa from time to time, no?) This law would let either of us take our personal quarrel into the courts. Talossa had several laws that tried to do this, that tried to make it illegal and punishable to say things that other people found offensive; and they tended to be used to try to squash political opposition. We repealed them last year. I agree that we ought to be polite and nice to each other, but I'm not a bit convinced that criminalizing rudeness is a good way to go.

At some point, free speech can become abuse. But defining that point ahead of time is just about impossible.

— John Woolley, UrN

[Danihel Laurieir]

As usual, Sir John makes excellent points. His suggestions about improving the proposed "Anti-Liar and Imposter Act" are well taken.

His objection to the proposed "Anti-Jerk Act" is serious and fundamental. I remain open to being convinced that I am wrong about the wisdom of this proposal or something like it, but for now I still think it's a good idea.

Before responding to some of Sir John's concerns, let me remind everyone about the definition used in the proposed act. Here it is in its entirety:

"Clause 1: Definition of abusive communication. Any message or form of communication that is conveyed via email, telephone or other manner or that is published in a public forum that is intended to insult, threaten or abuse a citizen or citizens and that contains words, figures, images, phrases or language that can be reasonably construed in context to be insulting, threatening or abusive may constitute abusive communication and may subject the author of such communication to the provisions outlined in this act."

A few words of background:

In drafting this definition, I borrowed heavily from the formulations of Wisconsin law, specifically subsections of 947.0125 (which deals with misuse of computerized communications). From what I can tell, in this chapter Wisconsin law criminalizes abusive communications that threaten physical harm, use obscene or lewd language or repeatedly harass somebody. My proposal, as Sir John notes, would criminalize abusive—what he calls "rude"—communication (in Talossa) even if it didn't threaten physical harm or use naughty words or wasn't done repeatedly.

I did so intentionally because:

--in a Talossan context threats of physical harm are likely to be empty
--the use of obscene language doesn't seem inherently more insulting than other kinds of epithets
--a single instance of abusive communication in Talossa should—potentially—be enough to get somebody in trouble.

Now, on to Sir John's objections as I understand them:

Objection 1: This law would let us take personal quarrels into the courts.

Response: Yes, I suppose it could allow that. But consider: if two Talossans are both insulting each other, and one or both of them brings a case to Cort, then both are potentially subject to punishment. I imagine that two Talossans have a personal spat between themselves would not care to bring it to Cort. The proposal is meant to protect Talossans from hotheaded jerks who do not know how to conduct themselves in an internet-based community. If Talossan X and Talossan Y are bashing each other privately, that's one thing. But if Talossan X insults Y, and Y does not respond in kind—that's another. All Talossans should feel confident that their participation in Talossa will not be marred by jerks, and that if a jerk should appear in our midst the Kingdom will have some means of protecting Talossans who behave civilly from those who don't.

Objection 2: This law could be used to squash political opposition.

Response: This is a serious objection, and would be fatal to the proposal if it were likely to happen.

Under the proposed law, an abusive communication is made with the intent to insult, threaten or abuse and the Cort must consider the context of the communication in determining whether a particular communication constitutes abuse. So just because somebody finds another person's political views "insulting" doesn't mean that the views were expressed with an intent to insult. Furthermore, the Second Covenant of the Organic Law protects freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression subject only limits to protect public order and morals—which is the purpose of this proposed law.

Given the criteria of the proposed law itself, the protections of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms and Talossa's long-standing tradition of robust political debate and toleration of many viewpoints, I'd argue that it's not likely that this law would in fact be used to squash political opposition.

That said, it's possible that this law could be applied badly. But that danger exists with other laws and provisions of the Organic Law. I think a better question than "could this law ever be abused" is: "Is what we gain under this law worth the risk of its abuse?" And, I'd answer that second question by saying: the slight risk of abuse is outweighed by the benefits that would result from Talossa being able to more swiftly admonish and then—if necessary—boot any jerks in its midst.

Objection: Defining abuse of freedom of speech in law is near impossible.

Response: That's true. And while this proposal does specify abusive communication as something that is punishable under the law, the proposal directs the Cort to consider intent and context when making its determination. And that gives the Cort the flexibility it needs to protect Talossans without trying to anticipate in advance all possible forms of insult, threat and abuse. The proposed law highlights something that we all know exists—threatening, insulting, abusive communication—but is hard to define on paper in advance and gives the Cort the ability to recognize it when it sees it.