Free speech advocates say a new law geared could be cause for concern. (13-Jan-2006)
A Twenty-First Century Problem
McDermott's anticyberstalking legislation came about after the congressman learned about Seattle resident Joelle Ligon. Years after getting married, Ligon began getting anonymous and hard-to-track e-mail messages from someone she believed to be her ex-boyfriend, James Robert Murphy. The messages became increasingly disturbing and threatening. Eventually he sent e-mail to Ligon's coworkers accusing her of misrepresenting her résumé and making it appear she was sending them pornography.
Murphy was sending his e-mail from South Carolina, where it was difficult for Seattle police to pursue him. Eventually, Ligon's case was brought to Warma's attention. Warma was able to prosecute the case under the federal telecommunications law, which regulates telephone communications and protects against harassment. She interpreted the law to include the Internet, allowing the case to move to federal jurisdiction.
"The challenge we faced was that no one had ever prosecuted a crime like that under this statute," Warma says, adding that two South Carolina judges denied search warrants because they didn't know about or understand the legislation.
It was the first known instance of federal prosecution for cyberharassment, Warma's office said.
After FBI agents found copies of the e-mail messages on his computer, Murphy pleaded guilty to two counts of harassment and was sentenced to 500 hours of community service and five years probation.
Ligon says that the difficulty of prosecuting cyberstalkers makes it unlikely that officials will use the new law frivolously.
"It is so hard to get a cyberstalker prosecuted," Ligon says. "It took me years of heartache and effort. The idea that someone is going to be federally prosecuted for writing annoying blogs is ridiculous."
But would the same law have been applied if a woman was suspect of doing the same to another woman / man or if it was a law firm in CT advising of this in violation of the law? Would telling a child that "Perjury to State and Local authorities" by one gender - be overlooked - and deemed perfectly okay then...?
Isn't the "use of present family law for parental alienation" the real motivation for this and so many other legal issues - involved in this today?
The Truth will and shall be shared publicly - and the light of the present "cover up" of
gender and civil rightsdiscrimination exposed - even if there are those involved NOW who wish to keep it from being so.
Sharing love for one another - never wishing to do another harm in any way - and our light about the 300,000 non-custodial parents and children's lives lost in the last 10 years due to the current Family Law industry - is what this may really be about?
Is it not our children we should NOW have equal rights too - and has been - and always is - guaranteed by the founding fathers and our US constitution - I beleive it is.
The Federal Stats show this clearly, honestly, honorably, ethically, and morally on our web site - and more so than any other point - this should be the paramount issue we wish to resolve - and not continue to create legal conflict which ruin lives needlessly - can we NOW stop the needless conflict for and over legal fees when it comes to sharing and loving our children?
Can WE all NOW, along with the Family Law Legal industry who are starting to get it -finally come together - for a positive legislative change - and stop the "civil rights" hatred being legislated toward the other parent involved - for our children too...and finally realize what message this does send to our children and future generations of our society?
"It isn't ALL about just US or any one parent anymore...it is and always has been - about our children."
Thank you for making the choice to show you are listening,
Together We Can Make a Difference
Equality for ALL - not just a few - is what our Constitution...guarantees...
Why won't our opposition NOW SEE this as self-evident - simply and unselfishly.
News Update: Yahoo Loses Appeal in Nazi Memorabilia Case
Federal court rules Yahoo not significantly harmed in case. (12-Jan-2006)