据《****》报道，在一起涉及房地产律师、网络袜子木偶和死海卷轴的离奇案件中，纽约最高**裁定，仅仅烦人并不构成犯罪。

据《****》报道，该州的《加重骚扰法》昨日被奥尔巴尼上诉**驳回。该法规定，“以可能引起烦扰或恐慌的方式”说话是犯罪行为。预计这将影响到目前起诉的数百起骚扰案件。

这项裁决使54岁的格林威治村律师拉斐尔·戈尔布（Raphael Golb）得以逃脱因在网上进行诽谤活动五年多而被定罪的惩罚。

Golb的父亲是芝加哥大学教授，他主张死海卷轴是由耶路撒冷的图书馆创造的，而不是一个叫做艾赛尼斯的教派的工作。尽管听起来很迟钝，但这在互联网上却是一场激烈而激烈的辩论。袜子木偶——用来**一个人的观点实际上被许多人持有的假象的虚假身份——经常出现在诸如Reddit这样的娱乐网站上。但他们也越来越多地出现在学术界，在推特上争论，在亚马逊评论中诋毁竞争对手的书籍。

戈尔布用50多个化名攻击他父亲的批评者

年轻的戈尔布使用了50多个不同的在线别名和电子邮件帐户来压制对他父亲的批评。他还冒充父亲的批评者，以他们的名义开设电子邮件账户，并发送信息假装承认冤枉了老戈尔布。他在新闻网站、博客、维基百科上发帖，甚至给大学的媒体部门打电话时，还发明了化名之间的讨论，如“查尔斯·加达”、“理查德·莫斯”、“杰西卡·弗里德曼”等。

在一个例子中，年轻的Golb创建了一个Gmail帐户larry。[email protected]，写给劳伦斯H。希夫曼，纽约大学犹太研究会主席。然后他给研究生和院长发了一封电子邮件，链接到一篇用另一个虚假身份写的文章，并暗示希夫曼剽窃了这篇文章。

一些律师说，废除骚扰法将剥夺打击跟踪、家庭暴力和其他犯罪的重要武器。另一方则称之为****的胜利。

戈尔布确实被判犯有与伪造和刑事假冒有关的轻罪。《边缘》邀请他在评论部分发表意见。

更新：Golb拒绝加入评论部分，但他指向一个记录审判的网站，并通过电子邮件向Verge发送了一份声明：

In essence, I became aware of what is arguably a scam going on in a series of museum exhibits, and began to post little blogs and comments pointing it out, as a hobby while doing a lot of tedious research for a book I was writing at the library. As one or more people involved in the exhibits began to make angry comments in their defense, I decided to switch names all the time to make a point, partly humorous, partly serious: that I was not going to go away and would continue to pop up wherever they posted propaganda for their exhibits; that I was happy to fracture my identity for the sake of exposing what they were doing, just as they were trying to create a fake c***ensus surrounding their faith-based, speculative theories. My basic goal in everything I did was simply to provoke discussion and criticize a form of obscuranti** and charlatanry that I found repugnant and worthy of being exposed.

Given the situation I was objecting to, I really don't see what's morally wrong with any of this unless one is looking at it from a priggish, puritanical perspective; but the prosecutors were very skilled at presenting me as a nutcase with a weird agenda. Sadly, in doing this, they did a lot of damage to the truth, and removed the focus from where it belonged and still belongs, which is on the conduct of these people, not mine. A "reputation" can only be damaged if it's deserved, and whether it's deserved is something reasonable people can always disagree about. Hence not appropriate, I would submit, for a criminal trial, where the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt."