劉龍珠律師 (已有 1,252,642 人访问过博主空间)

https://www.backchina.com/u/359631

刘龙珠律师法律评论:微信黄段子或骚扰违法吗?

作者:劉龍珠律師  于 2016-12-23 10:31 发表于 最热闹的华人社交网络--贝壳村

通用分类:法律相关

刘龙珠律师法律评论:微信黄段子或骚扰违法吗?

有些人会通过微信给她人发骚扰短信,那么问题来了,微信骚扰会触犯什么法律呢?今天刘律师要谈谈这种行为可能会牵涉的两条罪名——网络跟踪和网络骚扰。

一、加州刑法典第646.9——跟踪 (stalking),包括网络跟踪 (cyberstalking)

加州第一起网络跟踪案件发生在1999年,一名50岁的男性在向一名28岁的女受害人求爱遭拒后,模仿这位受害人的语气在多个网络聊天室和论坛上发布受害人的电话号码和地址,并发信息称自己(即受害人)幻想在家中被强奸。随后,经常有陌生男性会到受害人家中并试图强奸她,这样的事情发生了至少六次,其中有几次是在半夜。这名男性被指控跟踪和唆使性侵,随后他在19994月认罪,最终被判监禁6年。

网络跟踪属于跟踪的一种方式。如果行为人通过网络或者任何电子媒介给受害人发威胁信息,致使受害人深感恐惧,担心其本人或者其家人的生命安全,那么行为人就犯了网络跟踪罪。

网络跟踪罪的构成要件是:

1.       通过网络或者任何电子媒介与受害人沟通;

2.       恶意或者蓄意骚扰他/她人;

3.       对他/她人做出了实际的威胁;

4.       使他/她人感受到了合理的恐惧,担忧其本人或者其家人的生命安全。

这里的电子媒介包括网络、邮件、短信、电话、传真、视频等。

只有当以上四个构成要件都达成的时候才构成网络跟踪罪,缺少任何一个要件行为人都无法被定罪。比如说实际的威胁这一要件,如果行为人的威胁根本就不切实际,例如,行为人给受害人发短信说:“如果你不做我女朋友我就让外星人抓走你!”,很明显这是无法实现的,那么这一要件就不能达成,行为人也不能被定罪为网络跟踪。再比如说“恶意或者蓄意骚扰”这一要件,如果行为人给受害人频繁发送讯息的行为并无意给受害人带来恐惧,例如,行为人给受害人狂发求爱短信,短信并没有包含任何威胁的字眼,那么这一要件就无法达成,涉案行为还不构成网络跟踪。

根据加州刑法典第646.9条,网络跟踪依据行为人的具体犯罪情节以及有无犯罪前科,可被定性为轻罪或者重罪。如果被定轻罪,那么行为人可被判最多1年的监禁和不超过1千美元的罚金;如果被定重罪,那么行为人可被判最多5年的监禁和不超过1千美元的罚金,并且行为人会被记录为性罪犯,终生都无法消除此犯罪记录。

二、加州刑法典第653.2条——在网络上发布有害信息,又称间接的网络骚扰 (indirect cyber harassment)

加州规制在网络上发布有害信息的法律针对的是一种特定的情形,即行为人为了煽动他人去骚扰受害人,而将受害人的隐私信息或者對其不利的信息公布到网络上。一些 荡妇羞辱” (“slut shaming”) 言论即属于这种情形。即使受害人并没有确切遭受到来自有害信息接收者的骚扰,行为人通过网络散布有害信息的行为也构成网络骚扰。

例如,AB离婚了。鉴于B有家暴行为,A从法院获得了对B的禁止令 (restraining order)BA充满了愤恨,于是发推特诋毁A,说A一直都在跟踪他并且说要杀了他,因此他从法院获得了针对A的禁止令 。某一天B又发推特说,今天他要去参加一个酒会,昨天A说会去酒会上枪杀他,如果有人在酒会上看到A,请帮忙报警。尽管A并没有因为B的推文而遭受她人的骚扰,但是B的行为已经构成在网络上传播有害信息罪。

在网络上发布有害信息属轻罪,行为人可被判最多1年的监禁,或者不超过1千美元的罚金,或者两者并罚。

三、网络跟踪与在网络上发布有害信息的区别

网络跟踪是对受害人的直接骚扰和威胁,即行为人直接给受害人发送骚扰或者威胁信息,受害人感受到了恐惧;而网络骚扰则是以一种更间接的方式来对受害人造成伤害,即行为人将涉及受害人的有害信息发到网上,引发了他人对受害人的骚扰。

四、其他可能会触犯的法律

如果行为人与受害人关系亲密,比如说是受害人的未婚夫/妻、配偶、同居人、约会对象等,那么行为人的网络骚扰行为可能还会触犯加州家庭暴力法律,被判更重的刑罚。

而如果受害人是不满18周岁的未成年人,那么行为人给受害的未成年人发送淫秽、色情信息的行为除了构成网络跟踪罪之外,可能还会触犯加州刑法典第288.2条,构成给未成年人发送淫秽信息罪。

 

法律原文:

CA Penal Code

 

646.9.

  

(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

(b) Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(c) (1) Every person who, after having been convicted of a felony under Section 273.5, 273.6, or 422, commits a violation of subdivision (a) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five years.

(2) Every person who, after having been convicted of a felony under subdivision (a), commits a violation of this section shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five years.

(d) In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the sentencing court may order a person convicted of a felony under this section to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290.006.

(e) For the purposes of this section, “harasses” means engages in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.

(f) For the purposes of this section, “course of conduct” means two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”

(g) For the purposes of this section, “credible threat” means a verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family, and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “credible threat.”

(h) For purposes of this section, the term “electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

(i) This section shall not apply to conduct that occurs during labor picketing.

(j) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of a sentence is suspended, for any person convicted under this section, it shall be a condition of probation that the person participate in counseling, as designated by the court. However, the court, upon a showing of good cause, may find that the counseling requirement shall not be imposed.

(k) (1) The sentencing court also shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, that may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any restraining order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, and the safety of the victim and his or her immediate family.

(2) This protective order may be issued by the court whether the defendant is sentenced to state prison, county jail, or if imposition of sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.

(l) For purposes of this section, “immediate family” means any spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.

(m) The court shall consider whether the defendant would benefit from treatment pursuant to Section 2684. If it is determined to be appropriate, the court shall recommend that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation make a certification as provided in Section 2684. Upon the certification, the defendant shall be evaluated and transferred to the appropriate hospital for treatment pursuant to Section 2684.

(Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 582, Sec. 2.5. Effective January 1, 2008.)

653.2.  

 

(a) Every person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party, electronically distributes, publishes, e-mails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading, personal identifying information, including, but not limited to, a digital image of another person, or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person, which would be likely to incite or produce that unlawful action, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail, by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) For purposes of this section, “electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cell phones, computers, Internet Web pages or sites, Internet phones, hybrid cellular/Internet/wireless devices, personal digital assistants (PDAs), video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term is defined in Section 2510(12) of Title 18 of the United States Code.

(c) For purposes of this section, the following terms apply:

(1) “Harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that a reasonable person would consider as seriously alarming, seriously annoying, seriously tormenting, or seriously terrorizing the person and that serves no legitimate purpose.

(2) “Of a harassing nature” means of a nature that a reasonable person would consider as seriously alarming, seriously annoying, seriously tormenting, or seriously terrorizing of the person and that serves no legitimate purpose.

(Amended by Stats. 2009, Ch. 140, Sec. 144. Effective January 1, 2010.)

 


高兴

感动

同情

搞笑

难过

拍砖

支持

鲜花

评论 (0 个评论)

facelist doodle 涂鸦板

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 注册

劉龍珠律師最受欢迎的博文
  1. 刘龙珠律师法律评论:章莹颖家人狮子大开口要50万,涉嫌违法,可能坐牢20年! 文/刘龙 [2017/08]
  2. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:郭文貴的房產照片 [2017/04]
  3. 热辣点评:华人大闹瑞典旅馆被丢墓地事件 [2018/09]
  4. 刘龙珠律师法律评论:何洁还是留了一手,看看没她老公名字的美国房子 [2016/12]
  5. 刘强东案女主微信聊天记录曝光:床单——东哥的救命稻草? [2018/09]
  6. 告马云证券欺诈的刘龙珠律师评马云、孙正义频抛股票行为 [2017/01]
  7. 劉龍珠律師特別提醒:不是假新聞!美國海關有權檢查手機 [2016/03]
  8. 劉龍珠律师提醒: 全美移民检查站在哪里,被拦下来要如何处理 [2017/02]
  9. 刘龙珠律师法律评论:王宝强、张纪中、张靓颖、何洁的美国房子大对比 [2016/12]
  10. 孟晚舟凶多吉少!明天会被引渡 [2018/12]
  11. 劉龍珠律師評聖塔芭芭拉滅門兇殺案: 幹私活、挖牆腳後果很嚴重,嫌犯面臨死刑 [2016/03]
  12. 劉龍珠律師:梁案中Glock 19手槍很難走火 [2016/02]
  13. 劉龍珠律师法律評論: 不要撞在槍口上, 全美移民檢查站地圖 [2017/02]
  14. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:川普當總統,華人應該買房嗎? [2016/11]
  15. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:赴美產婦濫用福利、現在拿不到簽證 [2017/03]
  16. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:忠言逆耳,挺梁遊行可能害梁彼得、應給非裔受害人捐款 [2016/02]
  17. “一哭二闹三上吊” 中美皆违法 - 霸座男女 携手去瑞典 [2018/09]
  18. 如果网传事件记录属实,刘强东罪名会成立吗? [2018/09]
  19. 六天倒计时,孟晚舟会被释放吗 [2019/01]
  20. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:PAX公司状告郭文贵欠债8800万美元不还(附訴狀) [2017/04]
  21. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:梁彼得,為了種族和平,你應該主動要求坐牢 [2016/04]
  22. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:UCLA槍擊案的啟示——憲法第二修正案應廢除 [2016/06]
  23. 刘龙珠律师法律评论:华裔踹飞白人老太,可能涉嫌种族歧视,最高坐牢10年! [2018/03]
  24. 刘龙珠律师法律评论:美国真黑暗,杀人凶手被法官称为“好人” [2017/12]
  25. 刘龙珠律师法律评论:卖狗肉,中国罚款5万,美国坐牢40年,玉林狗肉节必须废止! [2018/02]
  26. 红颜不是祸水,俞敏洪才是 [2018/11]
其它[法律相关]博文更多

关于本站 | 隐私政策 | 免责条款 | 版权声明 | 联络我们 | 刊登广告 | 转手机版 | APP下载

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外华人中文门户:倍可亲 (http://www.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系统基于 Discuz! X3.1 商业版 优化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. 更新:GMT+8, 2019-6-5 10:28

倍可亲服务器位于美国圣何塞、西雅图和达拉斯顶级数据中心,为更好服务全球网友特统一使用京港台时间

返回顶部