Annoy someone online--two years in jail

[sabra]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6024695.html

Annoy someone online--two years in jail
By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com

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."

[wake.up.america]

1. Annoying? I find this law to be annoying.

[The Backlash Cometh]

59. "Annoying" is so broad, that if that's the term they used, that law

be impossible to enforce. The internet is an anarchy.

[Mz Pip]

2. I find all the

messages I get telling me I can increase the size of my penis very annoying. Judging from the amount I get, the jail population could double with these idiots alone.

I wonder if this is a result of O'Reilly getting pissed off at the volumn of negative e-mails he must get. :crazy:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[rodeodance]

3. more gov. intrusion into peoples everyday lives.

[bemildred]

4. At last, a weapon against SPAM. nt

[VegasWolf]

5. So this is what a Repuke House and Senate can do for us! What

a joke.

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[HuffleClaw]

6. a creeping horror

they won't be happy until all forms of dissent are criminalized.

[lvx35]

7. How did "annoy" get into federal law???

How does a judge interpret that?

[MagickMuffin]

14. Stop it with your logic

you're annoying me:sarcasm::evilgrin:

[onenote]

18. "annoy" has been in the law for awhile

However, previously, the prohibition related to telephone calls made anonymously and with intent to annoy, harass, etc. If this bill had been drafted narrowly, so as to extend existing law to calls made via VOiP, it probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow. But whenever Congress tries to legislate regarding technology, there is a better than 50-50 chance they're going to screw it up.

BTW, this was not just a repub thing -- it passed the House 415 -4 and was unanimous (voice vote) in the Senate.

onenote

[NJmaverick]

29. It is a repub thing

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

This is taken from the article

[onenote]

31. If that's what the article says, its misleading.

The cyberstalking provision was part of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act as originally introduced in June 2005. In the House, the bill (with the cyberstalking provision) more than half of the 108 co-sponsors were Democrats (including Conyers and Frank). In the Senate, there were nearly 60 co-sponsors, 40 of them Democrats.

Put another way -- it was politically infeasible for politicians to oppose this measure when it was introduced, as reflected by the fact that it had more than half of Senate as co-sponsors and almost every Democratic senator.

The bill wasn't "slipped" into the DOJ bill as much as the DOJ bill was used as a vehicle to get this legislation, which was considered important legislation by an overwhelming majority of the Democrats in the House and Senate, enacted.

I'm not passing any judgment on the merits of the provision, just correcting the record insofar as it suggests that this was some sort of repub plot.

onenote

[MADem]

71. It was tucked into an essential funding bill n/t

[bpilgrim]

8. substantial emotional distress

more...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/images/me

peace

[MrModerate]

12. Well, the tank would be damned annoying, if you ask me. n/t

[UpInArms]

9. I wonder where Gannon/Guckert fits into this?

:eyes:

[MrModerate]

10. Is it specific to the Web? I don't think USENET is a Web app, per se n/t

[Don Claybrook]

20. I believe it covers usenet

From a sidebar on the zd site, the operative language of the bill:

"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."

[onenote]

the law is confusing

There is an existing provision that states that the prohibition on calls/communications made via a "telecommunications device" anonymously and with intent to annoy, harass, etc. does NOT apply to "an interactive computer service" which is defined as referring to "any information service, system or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions."

The amendment doesn't change that limitation, but expands the definition of "telecommunications device" to include "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."

It mayb be that all they were trying to do was expand existing law to cover VOiP, but it sure looks like they've gone farther than that. WHether they've gone so far as to reach message boards is unclear to me.

onenote

[Dead_Parrot]

11. :-( No more hate mailbag...

Although does that mean the whole of Free Republic will be locked up? Hey, there's a bright side to everything...

[alfredo]

13. So posting at the FR site could get me put in jail. I guess I will

have to be even more careful not to annoy those whining ninnies.

[Centered]

50. Door will swing both ways :)

[alfredo]

52. Sure will.

let's see how this law is used. I can see it as a tool for political revenge.

[Centered]

62. I see it as a dangerous thing...

on one side I would find to decrease in flames and trolls to be refreshing (since it will remove some of the anonymity of the web) I also see it as an easy way for people to target those of opposing views for political or even personal revenge/retribution.

I am reminded of that news story a in early-mid 2005 about that guy and his family that was attacked or killed because of posts he made flaming muslims or something like that I want to say New Jersey but I can't remember.

I wouldn't go as far as to say this is censorship... but it would certainly stifle speech if people could identify who you were and what you said. What happens if you write an all out rant and your boss reads it and disagrees with your position...yikes!!

or people who comment about how much they enjoy smoking dope or some other illegal activity... law enforcement now knows who you are and they can start "looking out for you" (don't know if that would really happen... but it certainly could)

Yes my friend we will have to see... I hope we are both wrong.

[alfredo]

65. We already have stalking laws. I don't know why this is needed other

than a way to stifle dissent.

[bluestateguy]

15. Big government conservatives strike again

nt

[AllegroRondo]

16. Does that mean O'Reilly and Coulter cant post their columns on the web?

I'm sure the many people they annoy would love to sue them.

[katty]

17. so no more 'annoying'emails to the bush & co?

[Yoda Yada]

19. Can the Government find our posts "annoying"?

Isn't this opening up a can of worms? If "government" finds your post "annoying" do you have to post your name ( and whatever else next to it). Very clever way to get Americans to stop posting.

This seeminly harmless provision has too many loopholes.

I don't like it.

Why did they feel compelled to SNEAK IT INTO the Violence Against Women Act?

[Mithras61]

21. Is there a legal definition of annoy?

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."

I ask because it seems to me that if you have to demonstrate INTENT to annoy, there really ought to be a definition of "annoy" that everyone can agree on. If we don't have that, the wording of the law essentially seems to say that posting something that someone else finds offensive is illegal, which means that pretty much all blogs (including DU & FR) will have to be shut down (after all, how often does someone here post something that someone else could take offense at... I think I've seen several dozen postings this morning alone).

I suppose that simply having a profile filled out with your "correct" name would get the case thrown out. I'd be interested to see how many John & Jane Smiths suddenly appear...

[NVMojo]

58. boy, we could really be annoying to * on this site ...I'm scared!!!

the bush administration wants to control everything we do, think or say.

[genieroze]

22. Don't these idiots have better things to do? I mean all parties.

Oops, am I annoying congress? My user name is for all to see and I'm pretty sure DU knows my real idenity. Like a give a ratz azz.

[LibDemAlways]

23. The other night some kids were making

prank calls to my home. I checked our local phone company policy on this and they said not to bother them unless the calls threatened us with death or bodily harm. They won't investigate calls that are merely "annoying." I don't understand why use of the internet to "annoy" someone would be punishable by jail time if prank phone calls aren't important. Hell, my neighbor had $1300.00 worth of stuff stolen from his home one day last year and the police didn't even want to dust for prints telling him that such "petty thefts" aren't seriously investigated.

This "law" won't be worth the paper it's written on, either, as no one is going to want to go to the trouble of enforcing it.

[redqueen]

24. He should do what Clinton did, at the very least.

"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. "

[MrModerate]

25. A pretty stupid law (one among many) . . .

Even with the definition of "annoy" cited above, I can't see this as being enforceable. What, are they going to shut down the blogosphere, the primary objective of which (not including the cooking, pets, and crocheting blogs) is to annoy someone.

So there they go again, fostering contempt of the law by passing contemptible laws.

Why do these people hate America?

[depakid]

26. Vague and ambiguous

Won't stand up to a court challenge.

[Benhurst]

27. Bush's camping out in the White annoys me.

Who do I sue?

[Gregorian]

28. I find it annoying that they aren't paying attention to Darfur.

Fucking assholes!

[Zhade]

44. Indeed. This country should be fucking ashamed!

NT!

[ozymandius]

30. Two years in the pokey for Malkin, Coulter, O'Reilly, et al. - per ME

Who do I call to lodge a complaint?

[silverweb]

32. I can't wait for the first test case in court.

:popcorn:

[Dave Reynolds]

33. Good thing I use my own name,

so I can continue to safely annoy you all.

;-)

[shanti]

39. oh no you don't

with your NAME we can get you for SLANDER....and without we can getcha too! ;-)

[Dave Reynolds]

40. I have asked nicely for Fatherland Security to take me on a

tropical vacation, but they have thus far declined.

You mean my typing "that's just my opinion" does not clear me from slander? Dammit.....x( :P

[Mr. Peanut]

69. Exactly what BushCo wants

This is a Big Brother law designed to get us to "turn each other in" and "rat each other out" for expressing our opinions. BushCo does not want any dissension, he believes it is unpatriotic.

The word "annoy" is so ambiguous it leaves the door open for retaliation. Say someone posts a pro-choice post. A radical rightie reads your post and, if you've given your real name, the reader who radically opposes abortion can use the Internet to find you.

The reader probably doesn't "turn you in" to the FBI, rather elects to take retaliatory action against you as you leave your house for work, burns your house down, or performs any number of vicious acts upon you in the name of saving the lives of the unborn.

I hope DarthDem is correct that this does not apply to blogs, websites, etc. I'm still trying to pin that down. Otherwise, this may severely stifle interactive discourse on the Internet.

I'm also investigating the statement that The First Amendment protects your right to free speech but does not protect your right to do so anonymously. Any comments?

[Lilith Velkor]

72. That's it I'm changing my name to SuckMyAss

Should make for a few interesting days in court.

[colonel odis]

34. use it against free republic immediately.

none of those people post using their real names. and to call them "annoying" is the euphemism of the decade.

rest assured they'll try to use that law against du. so let's do the same to them.

this administration is bent on stifling any sort of dissent, aren't they? pathetic. benjamin franklin's first writings were satirical and done under a fake name, poking fun at local authorities. he'd do two years in the pen now.

[Poll_Blind]

42. Exactly! I'm serious about exploring these possibilities as well! n/t

PB

[anotherdrew]

45. that would be a great way to gin up a test case!

[C_U_L8R]

57. Maybe then the Freeps will ...

run to the ACLU to save their asses,

heeheehee

[Joe Chi Minh]

35. One implication of this seems very clear: it is more than ever

incumbent on the moderators here to fine-tune their political antennae, to discard the "Sadly ...", "To be fair..." posts, etc., before ever they hit a forum page. If the posts of ivory-tower, politically naive, Dem posters get the chop, so be it. They can rub noses with neocons elsewhere, be it in never so genteel and civilised a fashion.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the primary purpose of this forum was not intended to be as a talking shop, a "mothers' meeting"*, but as a battle wagon. A small, but I suspect potent weapon in the armory of progressive US, nay, American politics. And when I see some neocon nerd trying to pull a fast one with one of their crummy trojan horses, it's like red rag to a bull. I think the moderators need to be censor politically-ambiguous posts aggressively and unapologetically.

*No offense intended to mothers or women generally - many of the sharpest minds here, if I may presume to opine on the matter, belong to female posters.

[pinniped]

36. Guess I'll have to 'catch' the open WiFi signal being broadcast...

near my house and 'annoy' people from their connection.

Hey, but not all emails are annoying, some may be quite profitable. I made 10% of 80,000,000 USD by partnering up with a nice Nigerian fellow.

[0007]

37. Egads!

[Chi-Town Exile]

38. Drudge annoys me! Can we put him in jail? He'd love it! LOL nt

[Mr. Peanut]

70. Drudge annoys me too but...

Does Matt Drudge use his real name, or is it a pseudo?

[Poll_Blind]

41. The quickest way to get this law changed it to USE IT! INTO THE GROUND!

That's right! I'm going to do my best to file with the Justice Department for every piece of spam I receive- and since the law appears to be very general I think the death threats the Freepers generally levy against Hillary Clinton will not go unreported as well.

We can get this shitty law changed VERY QUICKLY if we only use it as it is intended/worded.

PB

[Zhade]

43. So when rightwing DLCers lie about their beloved organization...

...(you know, by saying they represent most Americans or that their positions DON'T hurt the average American), I can hold them accountable for annoying me with their lies?

Kidding aside, this is a reprehensibly STUPID law.

[superconnected]

46. It's orwellien. And scary.

[democracyindanger]

47. Or maybe not

In a comment to my co-blogger's post, I point out problems with Declan's article. I write: Declan's article is misleading. The provision extends a telephone harassment law to apply to email. Declan describes the provision as applying whenever a person "annoys" another: "A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity."

But that's not what the law says. Instead it provides: "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."

Note that "annoy" is part of the intent element of the statute -- it requires the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass. Far from an anti-anonymity provision that applies whenever a person annoys another, it is merely a prohibition on harassment.

Declan writes: "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." I don't see any basis for the law to apply in this instance.


http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/09/flame_someone_anonym.html

[cascadiance]

48. Could we impeach Bush with this?...

Hmm... Most of everything coming from Bush "annoys" me. What if he tells Cheney, Rove, or someone else on his staff to issue HIS annoying opinion on the internet of some issue under THEIR name instead of HIS. Wouldn't that be a federal crime under this new statute? And something we could impeach him on? Not much different than what Clinton did to get impeached is it?

[DarthDem]

49. Everyone

. . . including Declan, can relax, although Declan is still fighting it.

The new bill puts in a new section relating to telecommunications over the Internet, but leaves in an exemption for an "interactive computer service," which means blogs, webpages, etc. That makes it clear that they did this to make sure that no one could use VoIP, Vonage, etc. and be immune from federal law concerning stalking over the phone.

No applicability to blogs whatsoever, or they would have taken the other section out as well.

[onenote]

60. that's what I figured

My only concern is that whenever Congress tries to regulate technology they end up creating ambiguity. But I think that the posts claiming the sky is falling are a bit over the top, especially since the ACLU endorsed the legislation containing this provision.

onenote

[Mr. Peanut]

68. Assist, Please

DarthDem, can you help us pinpoint the particular Section of the Bill (H.R. 3402 Enrolled Bill) to which you refer that exempts blogs, webpages, etc.?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:6:./temp/~c1091Welrl::

[onenote]

73. the provision being referred to is in existing law

and is not changed by the new law.

See 47 USC Sec. 223(h)(1)(B)
onenote

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. So it looks very ambiguous now to me

because it ends up as:

(1) The use of the term ''telecommunications device'' in this
section -
...
(B) does not include an interactive computer service; and
(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)).

Isn't a bulletin board both "an interactive computer service" and "software that can be used to originate ... other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet"?

The fact that the new definition only applies to subparagraph C (annoying etc. with anonymous phone calls) rather than A or B (annoying with obscene material, or transmitting obscene material to under 18s) may indicate it's meant to be only about VOiP; but the wording still seems vague to me.

[LisaL]

51. Oh no. We all will end up in jail. WTF came up with this law?

[onenote]

61. check some of the other posts -- the sky isn't falling

[NEOBuckeye]

53. Check out ANNOY.com

Clinton Fein, the owner/publisher of this site has some experience dealing with the high courts on issues of freedom of speech and privacy.

http://www.annoy.com
http://www.gibe.com/forum/messages.asp?topicid=10850&forumid=1&pref=3

[DemoTex]

54. 1st case: Bu$h/Cheney v. Whitehouse.org (political annoyance)

2nd case: Pat Robertson, et.al., v. Landoverbaptist.org. (religious annoyance).

TARGET 1: http://www.whitehouse.org/index.asp

TARGET 2: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

[JVS]

55. When does this law go into effect?

[NVMojo]

56. it's infuriating that this went through ...buried ...swish ...

[onenote]

64. it wasn't buried

It was included in the Violence Against Women reauthorization bills as introduced in the House and Senate this past summer. Those bills had over 60 co-sponsors in the Senate (40 Democrats) and over 100 co-sponsors in the House (a majority of them Democrats, including Conyers and Frank). The ACLU wrote a letter endorsing the legislation and it was passed unanimously by the Senate in early October. The VAWA wasn't considered as a separate measure in the House, but rather was added to the DOJ approps bill -- not secretly, though. It was discussed on the floor. That bill passed 415-4 in late September. The DOJ approps bill then was passed unanimously by the Senate in December, but with a few changes that required the House to take it up again, which they did, passing it by voice vote.

the fact that this was done openly, with the support of some of the most liberal Democrats, and with the endorsement of the ACLU suggests to me that maybe, just maybe, the bill doesn't do what folks are assuming it does.

onenote

[LiberalGuy000]

63. Get me out of this f'cking country

I think I'm gonna go nuts. :crazy:

[GoddessOfGuinness]

66. But how can they enforce this?

I've had spammers use one of my email addresses to mislead their recipients. How can they tell who actually sent an email in a situation like this?

[Festivito]

67. Would that include everyone on a DU ignore list? /nt

[eppur_se_muova]

74. Thousands of people will change their names to John Doe (even women)...

or John Smith.

[Matariki]

75. this was more or less debunked, i think

halfway down the page, see readers comments: http://www.boingboing.net/

[Synnical]

77. Talk about a thread killer. :-)

Thanks for the link. I just received the original link via e-mail. Came to DU, and there is my answer as to whether it is true or not. :toast:

[serryjw]

78. Does that includ SPAM??

n/t