California bans malicious online impersonation

[quade 3]

http://www.macworld.com/article/154409/2010/09/califonia_ban.html

Quote

On Monday California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law, which makes it a misdemeanor in the state to impersonate someone online for “purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.”

I think this is appropriate in some cases, but I'm curious how'd that work across state lines.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

http://www.macworld.com/article/154409/2010/09/califonia_ban.html

Quote

On Monday California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law, which makes it a misdemeanor in the state to impersonate someone online for “purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.”

I think this is appropriate in some cases, but I'm curious how'd that work across state lines.

Internationally?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[scruffy 0]

Apparently I need to read the law before posting...disregard

Peace, love and hoppiness

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

http://www.macworld.com/article/154409/2010/09/califonia_ban.html

Quote

On Monday California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law, which makes it a misdemeanor in the state to impersonate someone online for “purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.”

I think this is appropriate in some cases, but I'm curious how'd that work across state lines.

Internationally?

California's biggest issue with international has to do with Copyrights. That's a HUGE financial loss to California every year, but since the countries involved aren't signatories to international Copyright law, there isn't anything we could really do anyway.

In the US and crossing state lines the problem wouldn't just be some girl cyberbullying a classmate, but rather a company getting pissed off some kid has grabbed the name "GoldmanSachsPressRelations" on Twitter and making posts he thinks is "funny."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

http://www.macworld.com/article/154409/2010/09/califonia_ban.html

Quote

On Monday California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law, which makes it a misdemeanor in the state to impersonate someone online for “purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.”

I think this is appropriate in some cases, but I'm curious how'd that work across state lines.

As long as we're talking about state, and not federal, law:
The very short answer is: that would be a matter of each individual state's laws and body of state court caselaw - in this case, California. If California law provides that an act committed outside of California that has a criminal effect inside California is a violation of California law, then California can enforce it, as long as they can get physical jurisdiction over the defendant. This concept pre-dated the existence of the online world. More often than not, challenges to this on grounds of federal unconstitutionality tend to fail.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

http://www.macworld.com/article/154409/2010/09/califonia_ban.html

Quote

On Monday California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law, which makes it a misdemeanor in the state to impersonate someone online for “purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.”

I think this is appropriate in some cases, but I'm curious how'd that work across state lines.

As long as we're talking about state, and not federal, law:
The very short answer is: that would be a matter of each individual state's laws and body of state court caselaw - in this case, California. If California law provides that an act committed outside of California that has a criminal effect inside California is a violation of California law, then California can enforce it, as long as they can get physical jurisdiction over the defendant. This concept pre-dated the existence of the online world. More often than not, challenges to this on grounds of federal unconstitutionality tend to fail.

What if both parties are outside the state, but one has the wherewithal to bring suit because he feels as if he's been harmed inside it?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.macworld.com/article/154409/2010/09/califonia_ban.html

Quote

On Monday California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law, which makes it a misdemeanor in the state to impersonate someone online for “purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.”

I think this is appropriate in some cases, but I'm curious how'd that work across state lines.

As long as we're talking about state, and not federal, law:
The very short answer is: that would be a matter of each individual state's laws and body of state court caselaw - in this case, California. If California law provides that an act committed outside of California that has a criminal effect inside California is a violation of California law, then California can enforce it, as long as they can get physical jurisdiction over the defendant. This concept pre-dated the existence of the online world. More often than not, challenges to this on grounds of federal unconstitutionality tend to fail.

What if both parties are outside the state, but one has the wherewithal to bring suit because he feels as if he's been harmed inside it?

Well this is a criminal statute, so civil lawsuits don't come into play - here.
But the general rule in civil cases (subject to each individual state's respective peculiarities) is that in order for a state to have jurisdiction over a civil lawsuit, there must be some sort of connection between the state and the facts of the lawsuit, in order to give the state jurisdiction over (a) the subject-matter of the lawsuit, and (b) at least one of the parties to the lawsuit. Sometimes, the facts fall into a grey area, and jurisdiction is disputed, whereupon the procedural issue is litigated, and the courts have to make the call.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

http://www.macworld.com/article/154409/2010/09/califonia_ban.html

Quote

On Monday California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law, which makes it a misdemeanor in the state to impersonate someone online for “purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.”

I think this is appropriate in some cases, but I'm curious how'd that work across state lines.

If it's a state law, they could only punish the offender that broke the law from Cali. I guess they could extradite, but that would get tough. Jurisdiction would be a boundary here, I imagine that they could only prosecute a person writing from Cali.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.macworld.com/article/154409/2010/09/califonia_ban.html

Quote

On Monday California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law, which makes it a misdemeanor in the state to impersonate someone online for “purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.”

I think this is appropriate in some cases, but I'm curious how'd that work across state lines.

As long as we're talking about state, and not federal, law:
The very short answer is: that would be a matter of each individual state's laws and body of state court caselaw - in this case, California. If California law provides that an act committed outside of California that has a criminal effect inside California is a violation of California law, then California can enforce it, as long as they can get physical jurisdiction over the defendant. This concept pre-dated the existence of the online world. More often than not, challenges to this on grounds of federal unconstitutionality tend to fail.

What if both parties are outside the state, but one has the wherewithal to bring suit because he feels as if he's been harmed inside it?

Well this is a criminal statute, so civil lawsuits don't come into play - here.
But the general rule in civil cases (subject to each individual state's respective peculiarities) is that in order for a state to have jurisdiction over a civil lawsuit, there must be some sort of connection between the state and the facts of the lawsuit, in order to give the state jurisdiction over (a) the subject-matter of the lawsuit, and (b) at least one of the parties to the lawsuit. Sometimes, the facts fall into a grey area, and jurisdiction is disputed, whereupon the procedural issue is litigated, and the courts have to make the call.

That and in order for a civil court to have venue jurisdiction that defendant must reside or have been damaged in that venue jurisdiction.

[quade 3]

You do understand where I'm really going with this as it pertains to skydiving; yes?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

If it's a state law, they could only punish the offender that broke the law from Cali.

If by "broke the law from Cali." you mean "broke the Cali. law", that's correct. If you meant "broke the California law by means of an act committed while physically located inside California", that's not necessarily correct; see below.

Quote

I guess they could extradite, but that would get tough.

Actually, the interstate extradition process is standardized, and from my personal involvement & observation, is pretty easy. Here are the basics. As a practicality, states usually don't take up the expense to extradite for a misdemeanor ("other crimes"); but that's a matter of their choice. If they choose to do so, they can. States generally do extradite for felonies (which this statute ain't).

Quote

Jurisdiction would be a boundary here, I imagine that they could only prosecute a person writing from Cali.

Not necessarily. As I wrote above, that would be a matter of California law. It is not unusual for states ("State X" for example) to have statutes and/or caselaw that provide that an act physically committed ("initiated" or "commenced" might be better words) outside the State, which is intended by the actor to have an effect inside State X, and which does have an effect inside State X, and which otherwise specifically is a crime under State X law, is deemed to have been committed, at least in part, inside State X. More often than not, court challenges to that jurisdictional issue would be decided under State X law, and not under federal law.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

You do understand where I'm really going with this as it pertains to skydiving; yes?

I wasn't really thinking about it in that context. I suppose there are all sorts of possible scenarios. Suggest one or two hypothetical ones.

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

You do understand where I'm really going with this as it pertains to skydiving; yes?

I wasn't really thinking about it in that context. I suppose there are all sorts of possible scenarios. Suggest one or two hypothetical ones.

Skyride anyone?

Remster

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

You do understand where I'm really going with this as it pertains to skydiving; yes?

I think it starts with an "S" and ends with a "kyride"?

Should be interesting.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You do understand where I'm really going with this as it pertains to skydiving; yes?

I wasn't really thinking about it in that context. I suppose there are all sorts of possible scenarios. Suggest one or two hypothetical ones.

Skyride anyone?

Oh. Duh (me). Of course. Sorry for being dense.

Yes, I think it might apply, as long as the facts of the case fit into the statutory language of “purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person", as those various terms are defined under CA statutory and/or caselaw. Each individual case would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis to see if the facts plug into the statute's language. Initially, that would be the state attorney general's and/or the particular county DA's call on whether to prosecute; and then, if need be, a judge would decide if the charges stick and the case goes to trial.

One basis upon which any such decisions would not be based would be laypeople's gut feelings about it.

Since it's a criminal statute, I'd think it could only potentially apply to present/ongoing or future conduct, but not to conduct that occurred, and was complete, before the effective date of the new statute. That's because a law that criminalizes conduct that was not a crime prior to the enactment of a law would be an "ex post facto" law, which is unconstitutional.

[Amazon 7]

I could also think of all those people who impersonate a real human being online. I can think of several people who's online profiles are completely and utterly fake

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

I could also think of all those people who impersonate a real human being online. I can think of several people who's online profiles are completely and utterly fake

As opposed to what? Turtles?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 3]

Quote

I could also think of all those people who impersonate a real human being online. I can think of several people who's online profiles are completely and utterly fake

Well, the law isn't about a person being "fictional." If you want to create a completely fictional on-line persona, it appears you'd still be allowed to do that as long as there's no confusion between it and somebody (or some corporation) that actually exists or for the purposes of fraud or intimidation.

You want to create the persona of "Garfinklestein, the gnome" have at it.

You want to pretend you're a Navy SEAL that's pissed off at your neighbor's dog who is keeping you awake at night and in doing so threaten to kill it because you're too big of a wimp to simply confront the guy; clearly that's out.

You want to pretend you're a BP PR executive and make "funny" comments on Twitter about how the oil spill is really a good thing; you're probably in for a really bad time.

The last one I don't think would hold up Constitutionally, BTW. However, I'm 100% certain large companies will try it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I could also think of all those people who impersonate a real human being online. I can think of several people who's online profiles are completely and utterly fake

OK. Again, re: the new CA law, the facts of the individual example would have to plug in to the language of the statute.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

I could also think of all those people who impersonate a real human being online. I can think of several people who's online profiles are completely and utterly fake

Well, the law isn't about a person being "fictional." If you want to create a completely fictional on-line persona, it appears you'd still be allowed to do that as long as there's no confusion between it and somebody (or some corporation) that actually exists.

It seems that a fictional personal that commits fraud is also covered there.

Or did I misinterpret again?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 3]

I went back and expanded that slightly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

I went back and expanded that slightly.

I have difficulty with some of the legalese - I was talking about the law, not what you wrote. But i will read it again.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I could also think of all those people who impersonate a real human being online. I can think of several people who's online profiles are completely and utterly fake

Well, the law isn't about a person being "fictional." If you want to create a completely fictional on-line persona, it appears you'd still be allowed to do that as long as there's no confusion between it and somebody (or some corporation) that actually exists.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

http://www.macworld.com/article/154409/2010/09/califonia_ban.html

Quote

On Monday California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law, which makes it a misdemeanor in the state to impersonate someone online for “purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.”

I think this is appropriate in some cases, but I'm curious how'd that work across state lines.

So who decides the applicability?

God help us if the bozo who gets to decide if the impersonator has committed a crime is a thin-skinned asshole who thinks being told "Fuck You" is harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding him.

You see? This is apparently just one more example of laws being made that go only to provide lawyers one more opportunity for making money.

The only provision I would go along with is the defrauding one and that implies harm in and of itself.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

So who decides the applicability?

It's a criminal statute, only, not a law that permits a new theory for civil lawsuits. As I posted up-thread, the initial call in deciding whether a set of facts apply is made by a prosecutor's office, with a judge ultimately making the call on whether the case goes to trial - just like any other criminal case. But without a prosecutor's initial decision to prosecute, there's no case - just like any other "citizen's complaint" that the authorities decide not to pursue.