Now A Federal Crime To Annoy On The Internet

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by yo-yo, Jan 9, 2006.

  1. #1
    http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-ann...22491.html?part=rss&\1tag=6022491&\1subj=news

    Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

    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."

    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.

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

    Could we get any more redicolous America? Wake up and Educate Yourselves!

    George Bush and our "leaders" are continually shredding the constitution and all of our rights! If we don't stand up against this kind of BULL SHIT we'll be living in the dictatorship soon!
     
    yo-yo, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  2. fryman

    fryman Kiss my rep

    Messages:
    9,604
    Likes Received:
    777
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    370
    #2
    wow, better watch out, Amit!
     
    fryman, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  3. Colleen

    Colleen Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    6,777
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    430
    #3
    Amit's in India, do these laws apply to those of us outside the U.S. should we decide to annoy an American? Are Americans allowed to annoy me then?
     
    Colleen, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  4. Nintendo

    Nintendo ♬ King of da Wackos ♬

    Messages:
    12,890
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    430
    #4
    u guys no our real names!!! :D

    *Tries to guess how soon I'll be behind bars!!!* :D:D:D

    er wait...da wacko never annoys, he just entertains two-leged humanoids!!!!
     
    Nintendo, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  5. Colleen

    Colleen Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    6,777
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    430
    #5
    If you let me share your cell I will go annoy others right this instant!! :cool:
     
    Colleen, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  6. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #6
    I can't annoy anymore w/o using my real name at all times :( I have no purpose to be online anymore, later all :mad:


    :D
     
    GRIM, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  7. sarahk

    sarahk iTamer Staff

    Messages:
    28,830
    Likes Received:
    4,541
    Best Answers:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    665
    #7
    I haven't read the article but if I decide to bug someone like the lovely seBasic who is in London via DP which is in the States will the FBI be after me? I don't think so...
     
    sarahk, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  8. Nintendo

    Nintendo ♬ King of da Wackos ♬

    Messages:
    12,890
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    430
    #8
    Grrr!!! u no wacko!!! u 2 intelligent 2 b wacko!! :mad:
     
    Nintendo, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  9. Colleen

    Colleen Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    6,777
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    430
    #9
    *kisses for Ninno* :eek:
     
    Colleen, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  10. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #10
    I'm still in the running though correct? I'll post some new nasty wacko pics, just so I can be in the next poll :D


    :p
     
    GRIM, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  11. Blogmaster

    Blogmaster Blood Type Dating Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    25,924
    Likes Received:
    1,354
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #11
    They may take over your account ;)
     
    Blogmaster, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  12. Nintendo

    Nintendo ♬ King of da Wackos ♬

    Messages:
    12,890
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    430
    #12
    u 2 strong 2 b a wackO!!!!

    grrrr!!! :mad: :mad:
     
    Nintendo, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  13. Crazy_Zap

    Crazy_Zap Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    305
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    170
    #13
    When are US law makers going to realize that they can't effectively legislate the "WORLD" wide web? At best, they can only attempt to stop you from annoying each other. Even then, aren't there more pressing issues to deal with than someone getting their nose bent out of joint over something they read on the internet somewhere?
     
    Crazy_Zap, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  14. Blogmaster

    Blogmaster Blood Type Dating Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    25,924
    Likes Received:
    1,354
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #14
    But wouldn't you agree that there needs to be some sort of governing organization overseeing the www?
     
    Blogmaster, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  15. Crazy_Rob

    Crazy_Rob I seen't it!

    Messages:
    13,157
    Likes Received:
    1,366
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #15
    I'm placing yo-yo under citizen's arrest!
     
    Crazy_Rob, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  16. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #16
    No I'm not, I'm still weak as a kitten, got alot of work to do yet...
    Admit it I still have potential to be a wacko!!! :D

    Such as?
     
    GRIM, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  17. Blogmaster

    Blogmaster Blood Type Dating Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    25,924
    Likes Received:
    1,354
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #17
    Kereal is getting locked up and the key will be thrown into the bottom of the ocean.
     
    Blogmaster, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  18. ly2

    ly2 Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    222
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #18
    NO.
    Thats a horrible idea, the goverment will fuck the internet up just as they have our real lives.
    NO.
     
    ly2, Jan 9, 2006 IP
    Blogmaster likes this.
  19. Crazy_Zap

    Crazy_Zap Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    305
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    170
    #19
    I think that responsible users do a pretty good job of that already. The internet is like life. Stuff happens. Police take care of the "truly" illegal acts. The rest is a crap shoot. You take that risk every time you get online. It's no more reasonable to try to stop someone from annoying someone else online than it is to expect the police to come running every time some guy yells "*sshole" from his car in traffic.
     
    Crazy_Zap, Jan 9, 2006 IP
  20. yo-yo

    yo-yo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,619
    Likes Received:
    206
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #20
    So they can make more restrictive laws and control more of our everyday lives :rolleyes:

    What is it going to take before the majority of U.S. Citizens stand up and realize Free Speech and Privacy are no longer existant and that our government is full of criminals?
     
    yo-yo, Jan 9, 2006 IP