From Cornell Law School, 18 U.S. Code 119 states this.
"(a) In General.—Whoever knowingly makes
restricted personal information about a
covered person, or a member of the
immediate family of that
covered person, publicly available—
(1)
with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a
crime of violence against that
covered person, or a member of the
immediate family of that
covered person; or
(2)
with the intent and knowledge that the
restricted personal information will be used to threaten, intimidate, or facilitate the commission of a
crime of violence against that
covered person, or a member of the
immediate family of that
covered person,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
And immediately after it says this.
"
(b) Definitions.—In this section—
(1)
the term “
restricted personal information” means, with respect to an individual, the Social Security number, the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number, personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to, that individual;"
So while I see what she is saying the KICKER of this law the term *Covered Person.*
The term covered person means this.
"
(2) the term “
covered person” means—
(A)
an individual designated in section 1114;
(B)
a grand or petit juror, witness, or other officer in or of, any court of the United States, or an officer who may be, or was, serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate;
(C)
an informant or witness in a Federal criminal investigation or prosecution; or
(D)
a State or local officer or employee whose
restricted personal information is made publicly available because of the participation in, or assistance provided to, a Federal criminal investigation by that officer or employee;"
So far she has given no indication that her parent falls under any of this from what I am reading. Granted again I am no lawyer but I can read the details. Is her parent involved in a Federal criminal investigation? A witness or informant? A court juror or witness? So far all we have is her making idle threats based on the fact her stupid ass involved with a group of retards and she doesn't like that. Also the beginning of the this stated that there has to be INTENT to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence against said individual or their immediate family.
Now lets take a look at the other law she mentioned. The Kentucky one.
525.080 Harassing communications
"
525.080 Harassing communications.
(1) A person is guilty of harassing communications when, with intent to intimidate,
harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:
(a) Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone,
telegraph, mail, or any other form of electronic or written communication in a
manner which causes annoyance or alarm and serves no purpose of legitimate
communication;
(b) Makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, with no purpose
of legitimate communication; or
(c) Communicates, while enrolled as a student in a local school district, with or
about another school student, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, the
Internet, telegraph, mail, or any other form of electronic or written
communication in a manner which a reasonable person under the
circumstances should know would cause the other student to suffer fear of
physical harm, intimidation, humiliation, or embarrassment and which serves
no purpose of legitimate communication.
(2) Harassing communications is a Class B misdemeanor."
All of this from my understanding requires you to communicate WITH said person in any of these manners, aka send them emails, phone calls, etc. Merely posting about this bitch HERE from my understanding is not a communication with this person. Now if her retarded ass were to come here then MAYBE she could then argue that but then everybody else could make the argument of "The bitch came here. She came to us. We didn't go to her." Well anybody that follows the forum rules of "Look but don't touch." could make that argument.
