ChessBanter - View Single Post

**Brian Lafferty**

wrote:

So on balance I think the extension of the telephone harassment
statute to the Web is a mistake. The statute already has problems, and
the extension risks substantially exacerbating those problems, by
potentially covering one-to-many annoying Web speech as well as the
somewhat less valuable one-to-one annoying telephone calls.
LOL. Mr. V. conflates annoyance to harassment. Wrong. Sounds good in a
forum such as the one he posted to for general consumption by aging,
budding legal beagles such as you. Annoying behavior does not
necessarily rise to harassment, civil or criminal. There's a reason the
statute uses the word harassment, not annoyance.

Now, provide a citation to a scholarly work by Mr. V. in which he makes
this argument.

You're really getting desperate, Brian. I know you find it painful to
have to back down (though you should be used to it by now). But since
you are so ready yourself to argue credentialism, don't you think a
UCLA law professor specializing in the 1st Amendment probably knows
more about the subject than a two-bit former lawyer from New York? If
you want to try to make new case law on this, go ahead. I note that
your threat to get a U.S. Attorney to file charges against Truong has
proved as exiguous as I expected.

Stick to cycling. That end of your anatomy seems more intellectually
competent.

ROTFL! John, do you understand the difference between annoying actions
(such as speech) and criminal harassment? They are quite different. I
suspect that Mr. V. understands this. I've looked a several of his
published law review articles and do not see where, in any of those
articles which are effectively peer reviewed, he equates annoyance
speech with actions that are criminally harassing. Perhaps he has made
that argument, with citations to case law and or other statutes, but I
haven't seen it. Do you have a citation for that?

BTW, this is not about credentialism(sic). This is about supporting
one's legal argument. If we were to merely rely on credentialism(sic),
you'd be nothing more than the aging poser that you are, absent a law
degree.