Trolls Beware... You are now Illegal

[Guest]

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-ann...-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=602249 1&subj=news

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."


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."

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.

Ummm... okay...

 

[cloudy]

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-ann...-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=602249 1&subj=news




Ummm... okay...

oh, if only.

 

[LadyJeanne]

The only thing I find truly annoying is all the spam in my inbox. Make it go away!

 

[zeb1094]

The only thing I find truly annoying is all the spam in my inbox. Make it go away!

Took the words right out of my mouth or word 'spam'. The way it's worded it appears to be pointed right at the spammers. There were only a few states that spam was ciminalized, $100.00 fine per occurence, now it's a federal crime to spam someone.

 

[R. Richard]

The only thing I find truly annoying is all the spam in my inbox. Make it go away!

Hear! Hear! I must get over 100 spam messages each day in my e-mail.

I don't agree with fining spammers. DEATH is the only fitting punishment!

 

[Guest]

it is so very easy to get around the definition of spam.
im not proud of it. im not part of it...really but damnit, make the laws a bit more stringent...or define it better...just because im not selling you something right off the bat doesnt mean they wont want to in future.
one click is all it takes to send your email responce to the company sending 'spam'... its very telling.

 

[imalickin]

it is so very easy to get around the definition of spam.
im not proud of it. im not part of it...really but damnit, make the laws a bit more stringent...or define it better...just because im not selling you something right off the bat doesnt mean they wont want to in future.
one click is all it takes to send your email responce to the company sending 'spam'... its very telling.

and then they know that yours is a valid email address and you will receive even more. delete, delete, delete, is the only way to treat spam. or report, report, report spam to your isp, email provider, etc.

unless you like having your inbox cluttered with email containing viruses, spyware, malware, porn (well that one isn't bad, but most sites in spam mail try to download dialers, spyware, adware, software that try to take over you modem, computer, etc.)

junk mail via snail mail doesn't cost me anything directly but it does cost the sender on a per-piece basis. email spam (junk mail) cost me directly by how much i have to pay for my internet connection as there is usually email provided with it and all the spam takes up disk space, blah, blah, blah.

junk mail in my mail box i can recycle, right into the fire place, keeps me warm in the winter. junk mail in my inbox takes up space in my quota until i delete it.

spam sucks. i never asked for it to be sent to me and 99% of it is something i don't want to begin with. the 1% that i would like to receive is buried in the blizzard of crap that rains down upon my head, so it goes the way of the rest, down the crapper.

 

[Pure]

?

there may be less to this than meets the eye. two summaries of the act,
H.R. 3402 N.R.,

do not mention this problem, nor is it yet in a major newspaper. the act deals with cyberstalking among other things:

http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/135271.html


http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18208

===
the whole act (version 6 as finally passed by both houses)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:6:./temp/~c109hqucer::

section 113 does not actually seem to be the relevant one, possibly it's section 114: see below; I see nothing wrong with it.
-----

excerpt from HR 3402 NR

SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.

SEC. 114. CRIMINAL PROVISION RELATING TO STALKING.

(a) Interstate Stalking- Section 2261A of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 2261A. Stalking

`Whoever--

`(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

`(2) with the intent--

`(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or

`(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--

`(i) that person;

`(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 of that person; or

`(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;

uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B);

shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.'.

(b) Enhanced Penalties for Stalking- Section 2261(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(6) Whoever commits the crime of stalking in violation of a temporary or permanent civil or criminal injunction, restraining order, no-contact order, or other order described in section 2266 of title 18, United States Code, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 1 year.'.

SEC.

 

[Boxlicker101]

and then they know that yours is a valid email address and you will receive even more. delete, delete, delete, is the only way to treat spam. or report, report, report spam to your isp, email provider, etc.

unless you like having your inbox cluttered with email containing viruses, spyware, malware, porn (well that one isn't bad, but most sites in spam mail try to download dialers, spyware, adware, software that try to take over you modem, computer, etc.)

junk mail via snail mail doesn't cost me anything directly but it does cost the sender on a per-piece basis. email spam (junk mail) cost me directly by how much i have to pay for my internet connection as there is usually email provided with it and all the spam takes up disk space, blah, blah, blah.

junk mail in my mail box i can recycle, right into the fire place, keeps me warm in the winter. junk mail in my inbox takes up space in my quota until i delete it.

spam sucks. i never asked for it to be sent to me and 99% of it is something i don't want to begin with. the 1% that i would like to receive is buried in the blizzard of crap that rains down upon my head, so it goes the way of the rest, down the crapper.

Besides that, we can strike back at those who send junk mail. If they include a paid envelope, mail it back empty. It costs them about forty cents postage plus their handling costs and gains them nothing. Forty cents isn't much but thousands of them will add up.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I wonder if we could be prosecuted for some of our posts. Sometimes I disagree with another person on some of the political threads. That might annoy them, and I am basically anonymous. I often use my real first name, George, but my surname is not actually Boxlicker, even though I sometimes use it in my writing. Just imagine, somebody writes a post saying we should scrap the constitution. I disagree and annoy him or her. Laurel and Manu, who have my real name and address are subpoenaed and have to turn over that info and I get arrested. It could happen, you know.

 

[zeb1094]

I wonder if we could be prosecuted for some of our posts. Sometimes I disagree with another person on some of the political threads. That might annoy them, and I am basically anonymous. I often use my real first name, George, but my surname is not actually Boxlicker, even though I sometimes use it in my writing. Just imagine, somebody writes a post saying we should scrap the constitution. I disagree and annoy him or her. Laurel and Manu, who have my real name and address are subpoenaed and have to turn over that info and I get arrested. It could happen, you know.

So you actually gave your real name and address to Lit.?

 

[CrimsonMaiden]

So you actually gave your real name and address to Lit.?

Well, they get it if you ever win a prize.

 

[zeb1094]

Well, they get it if you ever win a prize.

Ah, lucky me, I haven't won anything!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonMaiden
Well, they get it if you ever win a prize.

Ah, lucky me, I haven't won anything!

I have only won one, and it was the smallest prize in the Survivors' Contest for 2005. H haven't gotten it yet.

 

[zeb1094]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonMaiden
Well, they get it if you ever win a prize.




I have only won one, and it was the smallest prize in the Survivors' Contest for 2005. H haven't gotten it yet.

At least you won something.