link
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true iden y.
In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your iden y. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his iden y and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under le 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously led bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his iden y and with intent to annoy."
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.
In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your iden y?"
Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.
"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.
If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Cons ution he swore to uphold.
And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was uncons utional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.
Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
Are you out there Mouse?
This is terrific. At last criminals and lunatics who run rampant on this board can be made to pay for all they've done! I've always said if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear, which is why I'm proud to support and abide by this law. You'll notice that my screen name and profile are paragons of disclosure.
Don't posters have to register their iden ies in order to post here?
The information is not immediately public, but Kori has it.
But if you are posting within the confines of a forum, wouldn't the forum rules which you signed up under supercede that? You are agreeing to certain things when you join the message board. If you don't want to be annoyed then can't you just leave the board?
Now if someone annoys you by sending you emails outside of the board it seems that would be illegal, or if they violated the rules of the message board after being warned and crossed into harrassment territory. But that's another story. Just a couple of thoughts. Putting the word annoying in that ruling seems stupid.
Last edited by 2Blonde; 01-09-2006 at 04:22 PM.
This is the key:
Anyway, I don't think the trolls are annoying anyone. They are in their own little safe haven doing what they do. And like 2Blonde said, I know who they are - I have their IP addresses and emails."The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
But for those of you out there who mask yourselves with a proxy server or other program and then come to this forum and trash me or anyone else here, this law is probably a good thing.
That is how I see it as well.
If mouse and the other tools that create a million names want to run a muck in the smak forum, then so be it.
Koko knows all and she moderates to the fullest.
i just feel a littel creepy about the government reaching out it's hand to control things like this. kinda BigBrother ish.
I'm not feelign all grins and giggles after reading that article.
As you shouldn't. This is a long time in the making and I am elated that it is now in effect.
This, my friends, is a fight - a good fight, that can and will be won.
Let us keep the WWW clean and good spirited!
CBF,Mookie, and GiG are going to the slammer!
The Quattro is now officially ilegal
Actually, I sense a full-on legal discussion brewing in this thread. I want to sit back with this for a while before I say more.
The law is designed as a tool for the FBI computer crimes division and others to go after the big time spammers that hide behind anonymous postings.
It does not cover forums posts. It's for directed communications. PM's, emails, solicitations.
Posting on a chat or forum is already covered by laws that prevent violent threats online or talking about crimes etc.
BTW I would bet Vbookie money that his / her birthname is not "Clinton Fine"..
Finegold.. Clinton.. get it?
Edit: I'll agree this bill looks like some weak ass . Seems it was designed to help law enformement protect women being stalked and harassed. But the wording really sucks.
I don't know if Dubya even knew that was in there.. they don't read all the legislation and he has never done a veto before.
Really this is an act of Congress not something I think Dubya thought up on his own.
Last edited by Vashner; 01-10-2006 at 04:32 PM.
They said on the news last night that it covers forums, blogs, chatrooms, emails, websites, or any other internet means of "annoying" someone
That's in "interpretation" of what it covers. My opinion, having worked for the Federal Judiciary and in matters of intellectual property law, it only covers messages to a person. Only time will tell with what kind of cases they bring. I could turn out wrong but I doubt it. A Jurist is going to read it and you never know what they will think of it. But it so buried and poorly written it's pathetic.
No one should panic yet. I think threats of physical or sexual attacks might be all you have to worry about policy wise as far as policing and reporting to law enforcment.
They can't ban Smack and disagreements.
Total bull . I hate the ing government.
Yea I used to joke with people about the USC at work. Which I read once...
It's as long as my arms could reach. And everyone is supposed to know everything in there. Just imagine USMJ on top of that bad boy...
And that's just Federal law.. not to mention state. county.. school districts... neighboorhood associations (I ing hate those).. etc..
I think Congress has too much time on it's hands .. Buy more guns and build fences and .. leave our pc's alone!
edit: I guess even the printed USC (United States Code) is a short version of the legislation anyway...
Amazing.
The Ghostwriter Bill is finally becoming law.
That law is totally inappropriate. It's lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous!
Independently of course
Does this mean I have to sign my name now when I criticize Pop's offense?
there would be no need for this IF people could control themselves in the 1st place. there are some real assholes out there that say to people of which they know nothing about. those guys are annoying as .
Mouse is ed.
You're beginning to annoy me Manny.
yeah well Clinton got a blowjob from a fat girl!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
