----------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Declan McCullagh

 

 

 

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyan ... 22491.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Story last modified Mon Jan 09 04:00:00 PST 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâé1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

edited

I'll support it

I'll support it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O Rly?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CaRLo.

 

I'll support it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O Rly?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CaRLo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea RLY lol

I try to be careful when a news story breaks to make my judgement right away. One thing is for sure, if I end up not liking this law - its just Bush we have to blame - it passed unanimously through the Senate and with flying colors through the House. Every politicion on Capitol Hill needs to be held responsible if we've violted the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One reason I won't make my decision just yet is right there. Clearly this article is slightly biased. Those two situations hardly relate to each other and should not be compared.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(By the way, I don't think anyone in America believes that Bush is for limited government - those dang'd Neo-Conservatives are destroying consevatives' traditionalist philosophies!)

Glad I don't live in the United States :)

Poopingman is annoying me. Sort him out Bush. kthxbai

Good thing my username is my name then :P (and that I don't live in the US)

Good thing my username is my name then :P (and that I don't live in the US)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Darn! I was thinking that maybe this was our chance as regular users to ban moderators for annoying us! :P

Think how much effort you have to put into being anonymous though, I'm posting here but didn't give any of my personal details out...or did I. The admins have my IP, from which they can find out exactly who I am. So I'm not anonymous.

<3 George Bush

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shame that people who have no ideas on things are the ones that make laws. That's almost as ridicilous as our new copyright law.

I love how this is all pin-pointed on Bush.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize that a bill must go through several commities before being approved? In those committies, they can alter the bill. If the Legislative Branch did not wish for this law to happen, it would not have. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are "to blame" for this. Bush only approved it, he didn't write it nor alter it to his liking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except, that's not what those ignorant to how American Government works would have you think. Oh, it must be Bush's fault.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, what "annoy" actually means is up to the courts. Seeing as this is criminal law rather than civil law, it'll be unlikely that we'll see a bunch of ridiculous law suits such as "McDonalds being sued for hot coffee". If this law does prove to be more of a henderance than a help, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court, where they can decide whether or not it violates the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, the Government really can directly control speech. In the Supreme Court case Denver v. FCC, it was concluded(wikipedia.org) that ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åthis Court, in different contexts, has consistently held that the Government may directly regulate speech . . .ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

This seems a bit idiotic...This will not do much and will just drain resources and be hard to enforce theyd be better putting those workers in something useful...cant think of anything useful but this is stupid...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rule Brittania :lol:

Can I see their definition of "annoy" please? What discretion is used for the term?

Can I see their definition of "annoy" please? What discretion is used for the term?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement of our honest politicians of course! :P

I don't see how this'll be enforced. I could easily type up a fake, threatening letter, address it to myself, and blame it on my neighbor. :?

Omg this prooves ( again) that I prefer a queen instead of president that's not functional like an average person :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glad that I don't live in the U.S. :D

It's hard to be certain since everything is so ambiguous right now but it seems to me that this is simply a step to prevent cyber-harassment. Prohibition does not work in any form and these new laws apparently have their flaws but if this is what I think it is then I think it's a step in the right direction.

Omg this prooves ( again) that I prefer a queen instead of president that's not functional like an average person :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glad that I don't live in the U.S. :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This bill was passed unanimously by the Senate and cleared with flying colors by the House. To blame this on the President is ridiculous... :roll:

Only reason bush suggested this law is because soem oen was cyber stalking him...

Hey Shadow!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice job making thread entirely dedicated to attacking Bush!!!

 

 

 

You know, since Bush is a dictator, and the only one that controls our goverment. :roll:

 

 

 

I love how almost every freaking thread here is either an attack on America, or Bush.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trust me, we are glad that you guys don't live in America either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, I'm not sure if I trust this BIASED article of yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Puts you down on ignorant people to ignore on Tip.it list*

Glad I don't live in the United States :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You live in the same city as me :o Im shocked, noone lives here. And I mean noone. Like noone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Puts you down on ignorant people to ignore on Tip.it list*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Does the same to you*

 

Glad I don't live in the United States :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You live in the same city as me :o Im shocked, noone lives here. And I mean noone. Like noone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Puts you down on ignorant people to ignore on Tip.it list*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Does the same to you*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's fine with me coming from someone who was temp banned.

 

 

 

Since I have never seen you before. And you did not justify your reason what so ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to mention your horrible sig.

Hey Shadow!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice job making thread entirely dedicated to attacking Bush!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anytime mate.

Glad to see all the anti-Bush folk decided just to scroll past my post and refuse to acknowledge that I actually bring up some good points...