|
|
|
|
|
by Mz
3296 days ago
|
|
The entire reason this is a landmark case is because of the element of the communication being not in person: Legal experts say the decision could have national implications as courts grapple with how to apply long-standing laws as technological changes have taken interactions online. I think this is a thing that very much needs to be grappled with. People often say that online communications don't really count, it isn't the same as meatspace. And yet people can get jobs, create companies with long distance cofounders, meet future spouses etc etc online. People seem to say "It doesn't really count" when they are doing something shitty they wouldn't do in person. These same people often laud kindness that occurs in cyberspace or that happens because of connections made that way. This case is saying it still counts. I am fine with that having a potential chilling effect on shitty behavior generally that occurs online, on the phone, etc. |
|