Re: In re: Spam and Gate Crashing

From: Charles Glasser/NYU Law <cjg6159[_at_]is.nyu.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:13:47 -0400 (EDT)

Earlier on this list, I had mentioned that:
> >
> > FYI: Under Connceticut's new computer law, flaming may be illegal, if
> > the law is given a liberal construction.

Then on Wed, 25 Oct 1995, Brian K. Yoder wrote:
>
> That is truly frightening. Could you post the relevant bit of the law?
> That sounds like it ought to be unconstitutional. We all have a right to
> flame if we want. Spamming is another matter entirely.

Here's the slip sheet from the legislative service in Connecticut: 1995 Connecticut House Bill No. 6883
1995 Regular Session (SUMMARY - STATE NET)

CONNECTICUT BILL TRACKING

AUTHOR:     Committee on Judiciary
TOPIC:      LAW AND JUSTICE

SUBTOPIC: CIVIL LAW- OTHER
LAST AMEND: 05/18/95 SUMMARY: Concerns harassment by computer, to acknowledge the increasing role of computers in our society and the potential for their misuse by providing that a person commits criminal harassment when he harasses another person through use of a computer. Also concerns possession of child pornography, making it a Class D felony.

This bill has been signed into law by the Governor.

Harrassment is a pretty loose term, but as I said in my earlier post, a liberal construction might attach criminal liability for flaming, especially if the flames are repeated, lengthy, particularly vitriolic or offensive.

Charles Glasser
NYU Law '96
<cjg6159[_at_]is.nyu.edu> Received on Thu Oct 26 1995 - 13:20:24 GMT