Hi! > Also, I think it's worth bearing in mind that unintentional offence > which is not persistent is unlikely to fall under this rule. Consider > that this is roughly the standard that actual law follows, e.g. Section > 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 in the UK: > >> (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a >> person harassment, alarm or distress, he— >> (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or >> disorderly behaviour, or >> (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which >> is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or >> another person harassment, alarm or distress.
I love it how The Law spends so much text and yet leaves so much unspecified and open to interpretation. Basically it says "offense is being threatening, abusive or insulting". But what is "abusive"? What is "insulting"? Even "threatening" is unclear - is "if you do this, you'll regret it very soon" a threat or mere prediction of the unintended consequences? "Causing another person distress" is unbelievably open to abuse - I can say STH RFC caused me much distress, so would somebody publishing it be harasser now? It's basically "if I disagree with you a lot, you are guilty" kind of clause. > The key part of that is "intent". I do note that it doesn't include the The problem with "intent" that knowing it for sure is requires telepathy and time travel to work, and both are still very much TBD ;) -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
