Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Laws Don’t Define What Is, IS
The real problem with legislation nowadays is how broadly they can be interpreted. Let’s take three recent examples:The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act, meant to protect people from cyber-stalking, defines as a felony the sending of an anonymous email that intends to “annoy” the recipient. This has real implications for whistle-blowers of all kinds, not just internet predators.
The Federal Government’s definition of terrorist organizations is “two or more individuals”. Can two people really be an organization? Does this mean that two serial killers working in tandem are a terrorist organization? Furthermore, the rules here are so broad as to include resistance groups against regimes the U.S. calls ‘repressive’, and have led to the deportation of people that have given moves to such groups.
Locally, Alachua County has ruled that dogs deemed dangerous should be euthanized. One of the definitions of dangerous is the following:
A dog that has, when unprovoked, chased or approached a person on any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack. One has to ask what constitutes a ‘menacing fashion’. Barking? Growling? Running Fast? What if the dog never actually touches the person?
Laws so broadly applied don’t do anything but tie up courts that then are required to define the nebulous into specific terms. That should well before anyone has to vote on it.
------------------------------------------------