Greensboro blogger Jeff Martin (AKA Fecund Stench) has been charged with annoying someone with email. Why? It is not because he annoyed someone with email. It is because he confronted someone by email, said some things to which she took offense and, in my opinion, probably hit too close to home; she didn't like what was said and found a way to hit back through what I hope will be decided was a misapplication of the law.
Those who are saying that they think Jeff has exhibited objectionable behavior by writing derogatory things are correct. They are wrong, I believe, to leap from that observation to cheering for a successful prosecution of him. Remember, the charge was not for libel, not for defamation, not for threats -- it was for annoying. The "victim" wasn't libeled, wasn't defamed, wasn't threatened and, judging by her replies to the emails in question, she did not seem to even be annoyed, never asking Fec to stop emailing her.
What she was was offended.
We should all think long and hard about whether or not we want offending someone to become criminal in North Carolina.
If I were able take out crimnal charges against everyone who annoyed me, my workplace would shut down, as would my neighborhood grocery store, and the streets would be empty of cars.
ReplyDeleteSeveral bloggers would be out of "business" as well.
I appreciate your support, loathesome creature that I be.
ReplyDeleteHi Roch. Find me on Facebook. -Todd Drake
ReplyDeleteMr. Smith:
ReplyDeleteWhen I looked him up, it said he was charged with cyberstalking, not with making derogatory comments.
The fact is, Jeff Martin can curse and stomp all day on a public forum, no problem. But sending 20+ consecutive emails to someone he has a beef with is harrassment. It doesn't matter if it is 20+ apologies for acting like a fool, it's harrassment.
--Brandon Burgess
Roch, would it be appropriate for me to call your house 27 times in the middle of the night after you handed it to me on Guarino's blog?
ReplyDeleteWould you press charges?
Why or why not? And should the same standard apply to email?
Is it your position that it should not be illegal to offend someone?
--Brandon Burgess
It is not illegal to offend someone.
ReplyDeleteWould you have someone charged for calling your house in the middle of the night, 27 times in less than an hour?
ReplyDeleteI would have them charged with harassing phone calls. And even if I saw that person in the grocery store the next day, and exchanged words with them, I am confident that a conviction would result.
--Brandon Burgess
"It is not illegal to offend someone."
ReplyDeleteThis is not a valid response to the question I asked.
--Brandon Burgess
You asked if it was my opinion that it should not be illegal to offend someone. That is my opinion -- and the law. I'm not sure why that is "invalid."
ReplyDeleteRegarding phone calls -- it depends on the circumstances, what was said and the reason for my calls. If you were calling me too during that period, that also might have some bearing.
If this is a double post, just delete one or the other. I'm not sure my last comment posted.
ReplyDeleteRoch, I asked you if it should be illegal to offend someone. You replied, it is not illegal to offend someone.
If I follow your logic, then Q:Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? A:No, it is illegal.
Back to the issue: If I call you at night, 27 times back to back, letting you know that I know where you live, that I believe you are mentally ill, and then I go on television and admit that I know I frightened you and that I did it because I believe you are mentally ill, why should I not be charged and convicted of harassment? Even if we exchanged words in the grocery store or on the city bus the next morning?
--Brandon Burgess
If you think there is something to be gained by unrelated comparison, then let's be precise, since the act in question is NOT illegal, your question would be like you asking me if I though it should be illegal for a man to marry a woman and me saying, no, that it is not illegal for a man to marry a woman -- followed by you telling me that reply is invalid.
ReplyDeleteAlthough you describe it as "back to the issue," you actually return to your phone call scenario, not the issue at all, actually.
What is your opinion of the content of the emails, including Mary's responses?
"What is your opinion of the content of the emails..."
ReplyDelete--If I only knew what you knew right? I have not seen the emails or responses. I have seen Jeff Martin on television proclaiming that he was going to call the cops because he believed his victim was mentally ill, and that he understands his victim was frightened by his attack.
--Brandon Burgess