Being a prick on the internet now a crimal offense (1913 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.86 on 64 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Fair & Balanced Smack Fuck (View user info) at 2006-01-09 14:38:39 EST
By Declan McCullagh
Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST
________________________________________________________
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.
User Reviews
Submitted by Serious_Melvin (user info) at 2006-01-10 16:55:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"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."
---
I'm no fortune teller, but I have a guess.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-01-10 08:12:27 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-01-09 20:12:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't PARTAKE in "RULES", Enormo-noggin. Unwritten or otherwise.
You'll have to tell your story to some other sheep. ""
the plural of sheep is cunt.
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2006-01-10 04:27:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Auto cut paste -2.
Fuck I'm glad I don't live in America. With this law, everytime I heard a police siren I'd have to hide and lock myself in the closet.
Submitted by BadAssJulie (user info) at 2006-01-10 04:11:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That's it. I'm sending all you bastards to jail!
By the way, does anyone know how I'm supposed to file a complaint and have your asses thrown in jail if I don't know any of your real names?
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-09 21:43:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The reason Fedgov wants to crack down on the internet is because of truth telling heroes like me uncovering their lies about everything, esp nineleven.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-01-09 21:33:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think the stupidest law we have over here is the requirement for all pubs to have a post outside them to tie up a horse...
God I pity Americans, I really do.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-01-09 20:12:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't PARTAKE in "RULES", Enormo-noggin. Unwritten or otherwise.
You'll have to tell your story to some other sheep.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-01-09 19:05:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
it's FUNNY when shlongy CAPITALISES words for EMPHASIS isn't IT?
cut and paste post = -2, standard uber rules.
SHLONGY the NOOB wouldn't KNOW that THOUGH would HE?
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-01-09 18:49:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah, you sure are.
For more reasons than just THAT.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-01-09 18:28:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
uh, oh.
i'm fucked.
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-09 18:01:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Shlongy and method will surely do hard time for their harrasment of yours truly, the peoples champ. Will they have to use the shitter in front of each other? Will electro make conjugal visits? And WHOM will he fuck? Tune in next week.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-01-09 18:01:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:58:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey Method:
In Greece, how do they seperate the boys from men?
With a crow-bar!
Tee hee!
----------------
Made me snort.
Submitted by jagmcmanus (user info) at 2006-01-09 17:46:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
HA my real name is Jag McManus but I'm not from the U.S anyway...
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-01-09 17:45:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
moo
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-09 17:39:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
greek people have mood swings :-/
Submitted by ScottPeterson (user info) at 2006-01-09 17:26:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Dog Breath
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-01-09 17:21:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
First off, I don't know what the fuck "doner kebabs" are, and second of all, I always wear something tight, you fucking goober
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-01-09 17:08:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
So, am I or am I NOT allowed to call you a fucking moron?
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-09 17:07:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yo yo yo method, i'll make it up to you with a greek boys-night-out. First we get doner kebabs (on me) then top it off with gay sex (on you), pick you up at 8 - wear something tight.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2006-01-09 17:02:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I just want to be assigned to work in the prison infirmary. I hear it's a pretty sweet gig if you're in the clink.
Submitted by Loren1 (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:54:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Good thing my real name is Loren1.
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:53:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:50:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
I wonder how much intentional soap dropping will occur.
=============
I plan on spending a lot of time washing my feet. Wink, Wink. Maybe they'll have a co-ed Uber prison. I'm not a fan of the vag sammitches. I like me sausage. First dibs on Shlongy.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:50:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I wonder how much intentional soap dropping will occur.
Submitted by userpete86 (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:49:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah... this is the start of dictatorship in America. 7 more laws like this and I won't be able to live out of my van after college like I plan.
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:46:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by RamenNoodle (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:13:35 (#)
Ranking: 2
See all of you miserable cunts in federal prison...fuckers
===========
Yahoo!!!!! I know there's rape in prison, but will there be cupcakes too????
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:44:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:42:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
I will like and dislike whomsoever I please, you sanctimonious French fuck
===
:-)
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:42:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I will like and dislike whomsoever I please, you sanctimonious French fuck
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:39:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:11:38 (#)
Ranking: -2
Just because you changed your name doesn't mean I hate you any less
===
What's wrong with you? Leroy_Brown/Smack_Fuck, along with Death_Metal_Dude or apollo, is one of the very few reviewer who speaks his mind.
I don't like the guy particularly, but I'd rather get a -2 from him than a +2 from weak-minded Internet rejects who give auto +2's.
Submitted by dangerdude (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:35:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:45:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
>Fuck off. (Get it?)
See you in court.
----------------------------
You asked for it, ya know.
Submitted by RamenNoodle (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:13:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
See all of you miserable cunts in federal prison...fuckers
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:11:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Just because you changed your name doesn't mean I hate you any less
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:10:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Stupid language barrier.
The US has a practice of abducting people in foreign questions and escorting them to jails that allow torture in foreign countries. Not that I am suggesting such a thing could happen in this case, but it does go to show that those outside the US can have US laws used against them.
And finally,
In light of the passage of H.R. 3402, I have been advised by my attorney to cease all comments which could be construed as annoying or harassing.
Carry on.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:06:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:08:04 (#)
Ranking: 2
Could this "ruling" spell the end of Shlongy?
----
I don't know. I never really found you annoying previously. Sad, pathetic, I mean sure even plain retarded, but annoying? Nah.
Remember everyone who I annoy. When I tell you to insert a tube of acid into your ass and then break iyt off inside of you...It's in a certain context. A NON ANNOYING context.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-09 16:03:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:59:22 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:05:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
I guess that means we can insult americans but they can't insult us back. Lovely.
-------------------
http://news.google.com/news?q=cia+rendition
===
My google is in french so this isn't working too well.
What does this means?
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:59:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:05:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
I guess that means we can insult americans but they can't insult us back. Lovely.
-------------------
http://news.google.com/news?q=cia+rendition
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:54:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah. I'm guessing the 1934 act was essentially a prohibition against prank/threatening phone calls, and Section 113(3)(C) is now applying it to the intarweb.
Had the Communications Act in question not originated waaaaaaay back in 1934, my initial guess would have been that the word "annoy" was just complete shit and whoever drafted the legislation should be lynched as it would certainly be overturned the first time if was challenged on a Constitutional basis for being overbroad, BUT because it is so old . . . I'm guessing it has probably been upheld.
Weird.
Meh. As someone said, enforcing it will be a bitch. I doubt it will ever happen.
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:51:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
OUI.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:49:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I suspect that "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person" comes straight out of the Coomunications Act of 1934, Teeph.
My lawyer has advised me to be nothing but nice from now on. Good times, eh?
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:45:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks Hadley, there's the "as passed" version I was looking for.
Now there IS a Section 113, but I still don't see the word "annoy" in there. Then again, I'm not about to look up some communications act from 1934, either.
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.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:37:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3402:
There it is. #6.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:36:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If the H.R. is all you have, then you may want to check your sources again.
There is no section 113 in H.R. 3402 and the word "annoy" does not appear in the text, anywhere.
http://www.rules.house.gov/109/text/hr3402/109hr3402_text.pdf
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:27:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060105-3.html
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:27:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
People cite the problem using "intent to annoy" in the law, but it is really that it also raises the specter of lawsuits against anonymous people for otherwise legal reasons.
This is a law that corporations have wanted for a long time. Read the wording again. "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."
Anyone who anonymously posts something that is intedned to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person" (and presumably corporation, depending on who the corporations lobby) is subject to jail time and a fine. Whistleblower online? Better use your real name. And be fired. Angry atthe service you and want to post a story on http://www.bestbuysucks.com? Better use your real name, or you are participating in ongoing harassment. Of course if you use your real name, you are setting yourself up to be bankrupted when you are sued.
I wonder how long until those liberal commies the ACLU takes that one to court. They should just mind their own business, right?
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:24:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Smack Fuck - do you have a U.S.C. citation for the Act as passed? All I can find is the House bill, and there is no §113 in that one.
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:14:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
One more thing for law enforcement to ignore.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:13:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:05:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
I guess that means we can insult americans but they can't insult us back. Lovely.
-----
If the insults are true, is there intent to annoy or intent to educate?
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:13:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's the wording:
"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."
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:08:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Could this "ruling" spell the end of Shlongy?
NOW what will I do for fun?
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:07:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wasn't that legal broad on here a while back? I'd love to get a lawyer's opinion on this....
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:07:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
On principle I can't +2 anything copy/pasted that you didn't write. But the comments and the content made me go "Oh man. We're fucked."
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:05:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I guess that means we can insult americans but they can't insult us back. Lovely.
Submitted by alfakyle (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:03:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
its the "intent to annoy" wording (if that's what's actually in there) that is the loophole. if you don't have intent they can't prosecute. intent is damn hard to prove. intent is often used to differentiate between degrees of murder and manslaughter (at least on "CSI" and "Law & Order"), and if punishment for taking a life is a question of intent then what'll happen in you send an email and it annoys someone purely by accident? my relatives have a tendancy to forward me "do this or bad luck" emails all the damn time even though i have asked them to stop. they don't do it to annoy me though. at least i don't think they do. those assholes.
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-09 15:00:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm glad I'm getting all these +2's, copy-pasting is an under rated skill these days.
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:58:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey Method:
In Greece, how do they seperate the boys from men?
With a crow-bar!
Tee hee!
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:57:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
CUe music of doom.
Dun dun duuuuuuunnnnnnnnnn
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:53:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"with intent to annoy"
I have no intention of annoying people when I call them gutter sluts, trench whores, cum dumpsters, or gay. I am simply trying to educate and share ideas.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:52:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I work in the next building from Hadley and just saw him carted off. Apparently we have a rat on Ubersite.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:51:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
hahaha we're all totally fucked
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:48:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ubersite is doomed...
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:47:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Fortunately I'm extremely inoffensive and meek. Easter baskets all round.
Submitted by digdug (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:46:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What an annoying article. Please disclose your full identity so that I can sue you frivolously.
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:45:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
>Fuck off. (Get it?)
See you in court.
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:44:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow, thank goodness my real name is Mistress Fist.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-01-09 14:42:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck off.
(Get it?)