| Author |
Message |
dierna
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Jan 2006 23:25
Reply
http://news.com.com/Create+....91.html
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 identity.
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 identity. 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 identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity 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 identity?"
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 Constitution 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 unconstitutional, 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.
Dierna note: WTF?! 
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Jan 2006 23:29
Reply
It seems that in both Britain and America these intrusive laws are increasing in number and scope. This law seems hard to police to me in any case. Oh well, I'm not an American citizen so I can flame away anonymously to my heart's content. 
Not that I ever DO flame anonymously. It's much more fun to let your target know who you are. 
|
lzrman
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Jan 2006 00:31
Reply
Can you say "Lamers and Troublemakers"
|
nicoll
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Jan 2006 05:13
Reply
Another case of idiot lawyers and even more idiotic governments not really knoing anything about the technology they are trying to legislate.
It may not be illegal to flame anonymously in the UK but owning that CD writer, that I'm sure you have, became illegal in december 2004. Not that anyone is going to enforce that. 
Just be thankful you don't have to deal with scottish law. 
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Jan 2006 11:31
Reply
They have law in Scotland?
Of course you have your Sheriffs . . . now that's the way to do it. Do they have a shiny badge, sport six-guns, ride horses called Trigger or something along those lines and say to the ASBO-breakers 'Git out of this town - or I'll see you in the Arndale Centre at High Noon!'
|
crazytexan
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Jan 2006 12:08
Reply
I guess this is as close to a Scottish Sherrif as you're going to get... I present, Sir Sean Connery!
He even has a six-shooter. 
|
teekay
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Jan 2006 13:45
Reply
*keels over backwards*
... the worst thing is, that is not photoshopped... is it?
|
hongjun
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Jan 2006 19:22
Reply
Hmm
Okay so flaming is out, but then can we still troll?
Then again I have never been very good at Trolling:(
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Jan 2006 22:01
Reply
This is going to end up in one of those "dumb law" books in about thirty years, isn't it.
|
ohm
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Jan 2006 23:28
Reply
I had no idea CD Writers were banned in the UK - my ignorance strikes again!
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Jan 2006 23:28
Reply
<!--QuoteBegin--polson+Jan. 10 2006,22:01--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (polson @ Jan. 10 2006,22:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is going to end up in one of those "dumb law" books in about thirty years, isn't it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><br>I'm still planning on visiting the city of Chester, to kill a Welshman within the city walls on a saturday morning with a crossbow. Oh, how we'll all laugh when I point out to the arresting officer that he can't hold me bang to rights! <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/haw.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
|
teekay
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Jan 2006 08:02
Reply
... except for the Welshman, of course.
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Jan 2006 08:54
Reply
It's true. I intend to dance with my horse in the streets since I'm not allowed to do it on the sidewalk.
Actually, I don't know the particulars of that law or where it's at, but I intend to follow it to the letter.
|
bria
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Jan 2006 10:20
Reply
The more laws you have, the more ways people will find to get around them.
I can see a day in the future where we'll all be going on the ferry all the time, using wireless internet to download illegal MP3's in international waters, or something.
Or flying into space to do that. Filesharing on the moon, or something. Now that would be cool...
|
polgara
Member
|
# Posted: 12 Jan 2006 07:45
Reply
Exactly my point 
That's why everything luring enough should be legalised like in Holland:
Soft drugs
Prostitution
and dog pooh on the sidewalk
Life and let live...and behold what you get is total Dutch anarchy taking over world!
p.s. forbidding stuff only encourages people to do it in a most inventive way like Bria said.
|
bria
Member
|
# Posted: 12 Jan 2006 08:20
Reply
I dunno, I still prefer something that involves flying into space. 
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 12 Jan 2006 15:24
Reply
Or badgers?
|
bria
Member
|
# Posted: 12 Jan 2006 17:16
Reply
Badgers in space? Or badgering people in space, maybe?
|
teekay
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Jan 2006 09:18
Reply
Tonight, on OTFBC 1, the long-awaited series Badgers in Space!
Featuring furry, yet competent Captain Ken, his First Officer Stripes, and beautiful female Doctor Jerri Badge, the intrepid crew of the Taxidea Taxus will boldly go where no badger has gone before!
... what do you mean, 'off topic'?
|
bria
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Jan 2006 10:32
Reply
Hey, I like it...
|
