1-22-99 S Introduced and passed First Reading
1-25-99 S Referred to 1. CPN 2. JDC
2- 5-99 S Bill scheduled to be heard by CPN on 02-10-99 at
10:00 a.m. in conference room 016
2-10-99 S The committee on CPN recommends that the measure be
PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS.
2-10-99 S The votes in CPN were as follows: 5 Ayes: Senator(s)
Kanno, Taniguchi, Ihara, Inouye, Slom; Ayes with
reservations: Senator(s) ; none Noes: Senator(s) ;
and 3 Excused: Senator(s) Bunda, Hanabusa, Matsuura
2-19-99 S Reported from CPN (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 315) with
recommendation of passage on Second Reading, as
amended (SD 1) and referral to JDC
2-19-99 S Report adopted; Passed Second Reading, as amended
(SD 1) and referred to JDC.
Note that the last action shown is referral to a legislative committee in February. It appears the bill died in committee.
Michael Wise, who moderates the Soc.Culture.Hawaii Usenet group, has prepared a bill analysis, available on his Web site.
In a related story, a "flame war" in Hawaii-related groups has led to court cases and, according to one account, jail terms.
Here is one version:
One person X asked for and received a temporary restraining order (TRO) against another person Y who also asked for and was granted a TRO
against X. These TROs included contact over the internet but I believe
that the intent of the judge was that X and Y should not contact each
other in any way including over the internet.
Person X also tried and failed to get a TRO against another person
but failed.
Later, X filed more than 20 charges against Y for Y's posting of
opinions on usenet. All of the charges were dismissed.
Following this there was an altercation in real life -not on usenet -
that resulted in X and Y both being arrested (which usu. means jail).
Y was exonerated of everything. X was found guilty.
The important points here are that nobody was prohibited from
exercising their right of free speech and nobody went to jail for
doing so.
I am informed that the two parties have been banned from the moderated group Soc.Culture.Hawaii until their legal issues are resolved, but that they are a constant source of articles in the unmoderated Alt.Culture.Hawaii.
Here is the (unverified) information provided by one of the parties:
I was involved in the incident in ACH to which you are referring.
On Aug 12, 1997 a circuit judge granted mutual restraining orders between
"John Doe" and myself. On the restraining order the judge wrote
that we are specifically enjoined from "contacting" each other over the
internet. He did not specify newsgroups, or email.
Mr. "John Doe"'s statement to the court requesting the TRO was based on all
lies. However the judge refused to hear the case.
On Feb 12, 1998 "John Doe" posted a message titled "An Urgent Message to
[me]". I filed a complaint with the police and he was arrested. To
retaliate, he filed over 20 complaints against me based on anything that
he could even vaguely say that was directed at him.
On Feb 18 he made a false complaint that I had called him on the
telephone. I was subpoenaed to court. After several months of delays the
case was tried and the charges dismissed with prejudice. All of the
internet related charges were also dismissed with prejudice.
On October 28, 1998 "John Doe" appeared at a party where I was hired to take photos. He approached me on three occasions, the last two in which he made physical contact. Not wanting a scene at the party I filed a complaint
with the police after the party. The police misplaced the report. "John Doe"
went in the following day and filed a complaint against me for assault and
refiled the 20 complaints that were dismissed.
He came back the following night with the police and I was arrested. After several people came forward to witness that I had filed a report the
evening before, the police finally found my complaint and arrested "John Doe" as well.
This was on a Friday evening. We both spent the weekend in jail. On
monday, he was released OR and the PA insisted that I be held on bail on
the already dismissed charges and one of sending him email. The email
headers were clearly doctored and not email but cut and pasted newsgroup postings. I was never charged with the assault at that point.
"John Doe" was tried first and plead guilty to lesser charges in a plea
bargaining. The PA's office then decided to try me on an assault charge as
well.
After several delays getting the transcript where "John Doe" plead guilty the judge dismissed all charges against me with prejudice.
"John Doe" served six months probation and 20 hours of community service.
It is not over yet. The TRO expires Aug 12, 2000.
Judge David Fong who granted the TRO was not internet savvy and felt that
the whole matter was a total waste of his time. Had he allowed a hearing I
am sure that there wouldn't have been a TRO placed against me. Ermshar's
reasons for requesting a TRO were made up. I based my request on Ermshar's
threat to post my social security number and other confidential
information.
The judge's order said "specifically enjoined from contact via the
internet". Since he did not specify usenet (having no idea about the
difference) the PA's office felt that they could not prove that usenet was
"contact". Email is another matter.
