Unknown2006-01-11 04:50:47
Link
QUOTE
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.
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."
QUOTE
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.
Daganev2006-01-11 06:57:23
Amazing... but the article is wrong.
There is no freedom or right of Anonymity in the constitution, especially if the intent is to harm another. Just as it is illegal to mail someone a death threat with snail mail, why should the internet be any different?
If the people quoted in the article paid any attention to the actual wording of the law, it does not say something that annoys another person, but rather something that was sent with the -intent- to annoy another person, while done anonymously.
I would assume that screen names just work as an alias and so you don't have to say your 'real name' but I could be wrong on that.
There is no freedom or right of Anonymity in the constitution, especially if the intent is to harm another. Just as it is illegal to mail someone a death threat with snail mail, why should the internet be any different?
If the people quoted in the article paid any attention to the actual wording of the law, it does not say something that annoys another person, but rather something that was sent with the -intent- to annoy another person, while done anonymously.
I would assume that screen names just work as an alias and so you don't have to say your 'real name' but I could be wrong on that.
Suhnaye2006-01-11 10:09:57
What I don't understand, is how this is supposed to be inforced? What... Do people call the internet police when they feel they've been annoyed? For gods sake... People are complete morons when it comes to stuff like that... Someone doesn't like someone else or what they say and all they have to do is call the FBI or something and have the poor schmo arrested? Its complete 
. The only thing this law is going to accomplish is make it easier for to grief people. Because only the dicks of the internet would acctually call in on someone 'annoying' them, rather than just giving the annoying twerp a propper piece of they're mind.
. The only thing this law is going to accomplish is make it easier for to grief people. Because only the dicks of the internet would acctually call in on someone 'annoying' them, rather than just giving the annoying twerp a propper piece of they're mind.Iridiel2006-01-11 11:10:56
We're comparing "annoy" as in "calling somebody a troll in a forum" with "threaten" as in "send a death threat on snail mail". You can always argue that you didn't want to annoy the troll, but anyway.
Murphy2006-01-11 12:01:45
Narsrim, you annoy me.
sick em boys
sick em boys
Iridiel2006-01-11 17:08:49
I just noticed.
Killing somebody in Lusternia is usually annoying to the other player. If the dead player fills an issue, that means he's been annoyed.
Thus, in case of issues, the annoying person can be fined and jailed unless he can prove he in real life is a Celestian Paladin (just for example)! Yay! The end of PK! Finally!
Killing somebody in Lusternia is usually annoying to the other player. If the dead player fills an issue, that means he's been annoyed.
Thus, in case of issues, the annoying person can be fined and jailed unless he can prove he in real life is a Celestian Paladin (just for example)! Yay! The end of PK! Finally!
Daganev2006-01-11 17:57:04
As far as I can tell, this law it ment to include "sexual harrasment, racism, spam, 'mail-bombs', stalking, unsolictied porn, and I'm sure other things I can't think of.
The question is not if -you- are annoyed by it, but if the person who sent it to you, did so with the knowledge that you did not want to recieve it. BIG difference.
Secondly, killing someone in game is not 'anonymous'.. We all know who Narsrim is, he is Narsrim. Now Idras in imperian.. they might have problems. Good thing we don't have a masking skill.
The question is not if -you- are annoyed by it, but if the person who sent it to you, did so with the knowledge that you did not want to recieve it. BIG difference.
Secondly, killing someone in game is not 'anonymous'.. We all know who Narsrim is, he is Narsrim. Now Idras in imperian.. they might have problems. Good thing we don't have a masking skill.
Richter2006-01-11 18:11:53
I don't know Shiri's real name, and his post count annoys me. Arrest him! 
Daganev2006-01-11 18:32:24
It doesn't matter if you know the 'real' name. Shiri is now an alias of the man behind the computer, and you can connect the alias to the real person via his registration and ip address, so its really not a problem.
Richter2006-01-11 18:34:06
What if he lied in the registration and is at a library?
Unknown2006-01-11 18:44:13
Actually, Daganev, if Shiri's forum name was benjamin whateverhislastnamewas, THEN he is not affected by the law. Or if he put it in his signature. However, he is using an alias, IE is remaining anonymous, and is thus NOT in compliance with the law. Lucky for Shiri, he's a brit, and can tell the U.S. where to shove their idiotic law. In fact, I suggest he begin e-mailing annoying e-mails to hundreds of thousands of americans.
If nothing else, we can use this as an excuse to sue "bigger e-penis" companies. But that's childish and stupid. This law will be gone so fast it's not even funny.
However, they expect your REAL NAME to be included with anything "annoying". So I'm going to create a new forum name and begin spamming everyone with personal messages that say 'hi' 500,000,000 times.
IP addies are most likely the main way to track who is doing it. It's not your ID number, as your average user cannot find out who "SnookumPies69" is, nor their IP number, nor how to track said number.
If nothing else, we can use this as an excuse to sue "bigger e-penis" companies. But that's childish and stupid. This law will be gone so fast it's not even funny.
However, they expect your REAL NAME to be included with anything "annoying". So I'm going to create a new forum name and begin spamming everyone with personal messages that say 'hi' 500,000,000 times.
IP addies are most likely the main way to track who is doing it. It's not your ID number, as your average user cannot find out who "SnookumPies69" is, nor their IP number, nor how to track said number.
Daganev2006-01-11 18:52:24
When it comes to identity theft, The person who steals your name, is given a Legal Alias of your name. Meaning that if bob steals Steve's identity, the legal records will show that Bob is AKA Steve.
The same is true for nicknames, and screen names.
Similarly, The legal identity of a company, is the company name, not the person who owns the company.
You can look this all up yourself, but your "identity" legally, is NOT your -only- your birthname. Its every nickname and name your known by in any circumstance.
A clear example of this, is when an unkown person steals Bob's 'identity' the police reaport will read John Doe (AKA Bob)
If John Doe then used your Email to 'annoy' someone, then John Doe would be liable under this law.
The same is true for nicknames, and screen names.
Similarly, The legal identity of a company, is the company name, not the person who owns the company.
You can look this all up yourself, but your "identity" legally, is NOT your -only- your birthname. Its every nickname and name your known by in any circumstance.
A clear example of this, is when an unkown person steals Bob's 'identity' the police reaport will read John Doe (AKA Bob)
If John Doe then used your Email to 'annoy' someone, then John Doe would be liable under this law.
Shiri2006-01-12 02:02:53
I'm glad this all doesn't apply to me. Who judges whether, say, the aforementioned unsolicited porn is sent as some kind of advertising gimmick (I don't know, it could be) or "deliberately to annoy people"?
Iridiel2006-01-12 11:55:03
Sending me emails to make certains part of my body that I don't have nor am I supposed to have abused my bandwidth and is annoying.
Richter2006-01-12 18:20:27
Really? I always order those when I get the emails, and the effects stack.
Shikari2006-01-13 04:43:45
Note: The email/article omits to provide the legal definition of 'annoy' as far as the section is concerned. As such, it is not clear from the information provided whether it refers to harassment-level annoyance or simply to people being disagreeable.
