DU-ers (this means YOU) CAN ALL BE ARRESTED. Poster beware!!

[Trish1168]

It is now illegal to write/post/blog anything that can be considered annoying (though, it does appear that it needs to be aimed at a particular person). I'm not kidding. Read for yourself.

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

Now....(choosing my words carefully so as to not annoy)...doesn't this violate the first amendment?

I know our commander in-chief really cares about our civil liberties and all. He has great respect for our freedoms, and would never allow anyone to be prosecuted just because some people are annoyed, right?:sarcasm:
Oops...excuse that little sarcasm thing. Slip of the mouse.

Conversely, does this mean du-ers can ask freepers to be prosecuted under certain circumstances? I'm just wondering how this all works.

article excerpt below:
...........................
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

[philarq]

1. This site annoys me:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

so where do I report it?

[JuniperLea]

3. Good one!

:toast:



Edited to say: We have an ignore button. That function allows people to choose who will and who will not annoy them. ;)


There's my defence... now, off to annoy the hell outta someone! ha! I jest;)

[Initech]

4. No, THIS site annoys me to no end:

http://www.drudgereport.com

[w8liftinglady]

35. this one really annoys me:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse

[KyndCulture]

5. *LOL* good one!

[cascadiance]

42. I think all not identified at this site should go to jail!

EVERYTHING on this site *ANNOYS* me!

http://pptkids.org/index.php

[Big Kahuna]

2. They'll have to pry my keyboard from my cold, dead fingers!!!!!

[TheCentepedeShoes]

20. Great bumper sticker idea ! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

6. heads up

They're going to have to shut down the internets.

[stepnw1f]

7. Guess What?

I don't give a fuck! Arrest me...

[Iris]

11. Guess What?

Chicken butt!

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ha

ha


HA!


Arrest me!

[stepnw1f]

12. Guess Why

a boogie in yur eye!

[Iris]

14. Chicken thigh!

yuk! yuk! yuk!

[Joe for Clark]

8. Well, if you were cynical

Doesn't this seem to reinforce the idea that the people in power concede that they cannot win the internet battle??

They cannot compete in cyberspace so they come up with legislation that frightens some into thinking they could "get into trouble" for speaking up for what they believe??

Timing is sure suspicious. Use your real name, easy for NSA to find you, too.

It does seem strange. Now putting my tinfoil hat away (but keeping it close).

Joe

[stepnw1f]

10. And That Their Totalitarian Behavior We Accused Them of in the Past

has been confirmed, again!

They can't win anything, so they lie, steal and oppress.

[Trish1168]

13. It seems the intent is about harassment, but who is included?

Does this include the pResident? The veep Dick Vader? Is legitimate disagreement annoying harassment?

This law is vague enough to be abused.

I have to say....it does make me uncomfortable, given the context that W says dems are giving aid and comfort to the enemy (it seems to me like they accused that kid....John Walker Lind?....the one they found it Afghanistan.....I think those were the charges he faced and that they dropped the treason charge, because its so narrow).
Considering their mindset, I put almost nothing past them.

If criticism of the war is aid and comfort to the enemy (and the enemy is an adjective?...the war on terror?) and this is something against the law....we are steps closer to throwing critics of all sorts in jail.

[Joe for Clark]

22. Enemy used as an adjective - very astute.

Now, I don't believe the moron could pass English 101. But he sure seems to have a "coached" ability to frighten, doesn't he?

He simply implies dissent is treason, plants the seed, and lets it grow.

He will run into a problem soon enough, though.

I do think the steps he takes to attain power are very "European". And I think he forgets, we are Americans, first. Transplanted Europeans, maybe - but different.

We know when we have been screwed, and we invented "tar and feather" politics.

America is slow sometimes. But not stupid. In the end, it really is about Karma.

And this guy has some serious issues coming around.

Be patient. It is coming around right now.

Joe

[Kurovski]

9. So where are all the Republicans who screeched about getting Govt.

off our backs for the past 30 years?

We sure would love to hear a little outrage about what "the man you'd love to have a beer with" is doing these days...

[Trish1168]

18. I was a republican, until we went to war in Iraq

Woke me up out of a deep sleep. It especially made me aware of how far the media had been corrupted. I mean, that the war was rigged was obvious. Attacking Afghanistan was understandible, but Iraq? And when we throw away a 50 year old foreign policy of attacking only when provoked (notable exceptions were Granada and Panama....but we didn't occupy those countries)....and when our new found militaristic imperialism is only saluted by the media....well, it doesn't take a genius.

From now on....only grass roots outside the beltway non-corporatists (meaning...no DLC-ers) get my financial support for elections (and my vote, if I have that choice).

I changed to an independent this past year (officially), but my sympathies are to the left (I was always a social liberal....the the GOP has proven disastrous on spending and government growth, so I'm leaning left there too).

Time for big changes.

[Kurovski]

27. Amen, sister.

I'm sorry that your party let you down.

Happy independence to you and yours! :patriot:

[orleans]

43. just curious....why were you a republican? n/t

[Ian David]

15. Here's the quick and easy way to kill this law

1) Go into an AOL chat room for five minutes.

2) Wait for someone to annoy you.

3) Go to your local courthouse and file a Civilian Criminal Complaint.

4) Subponae AOL to provide the identity of the person who annoyed you so they can be prosecuted.

5) Have thousands of people all over the country do this simultaneously.

6) AOL decides to lobby congress to repeal the law, rather than have to flood their legal departments with subponaes every day.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

[onenote]

16. the description of this law and how it came to be enacted are wrong

in so many ways its hard to know where to begin.

1. The provision in question was not hidden or slipped into the law. It was part of the Violence Against Women reauthorization act as introduced this past summer in both the House and the Senate and was voted on back in September and October. As introduced, the bill in the Senate had 60 sponsors, including 40 Democrats. In the House there were more than 100 sponsors, the majority of them Democrats (including Conyers and Frank).

2. The ACLU sent a letter to the Hill expressing strong support for the VAWA bill (which included the cyberstalking provision that has the OP so upset). The letter made no mention of or raised any concerns about the cyberstalking provision.

3. Existing law currently (and has for years) prohibits telephone harassment. The amendment apparently was intended to extend that prohibition so that it covered VOiP.

4. Admittedly, the provision is hard to understand...a problem that occurs whenever Congress decides to write legislation relating to technology matters that they don't know how to describe. And that is a problem, since unclear laws can produce absurd results. But the chances of this provision resulting in prosecutions because someone is annoyed by an internet posting are next to zero. AMong other things, whether the recipient is annoyed or not is basically irrelevant. The issue is whether the sender of the communication is using the telecommunications device with the intent of annoying (i.e., harassing) the recipient.

In other words, chill.

onenote

[WePurrsevere]

21. Agreed, Thank you. n/t

[Kurovski]

28. This is of course good to know.

It has been mentioned that it adds to a sense of hesitancy for some in expressing opinions on-line.

Bushco would find that a benefit, we shouldn't really be helping the right-wing to spread that sort of perception.

Thank you for your post, and now I'm off to stand in the cliff and conclusion-jumping reactionary's corner. :-)

[dusmcj]

17. this is not a done deal, don't spread FUD

this is by far not a done deal. First off, because there's no interpretation of the vague language. Second, because if it does get overbroad interpretation, it'll fall on its ass on its first court test.

The key problems:
- bulletin boards are not point-destination communications. They contain discourses about subjects, not messages directed at particular individuals (except for the "Poster X is a pedophile and Holocaust Denier" crap, which is already subject to libel/slander/defamation laws).
- our dear politicians are public figures. Precedent says that satire and even offensive commentary about them is protected
- there is no exception in the First Amendment against speech that annoys.
- the law, as it existed and as modified contains an exception clause which removes "interactive computer service" from the venues in which the offensive communications are prohibited. whether bulletin boards and the like fall under this definition is under review.

There are various trends here, including a desire to smack the usual suspects for attempting yet again to chill speech by implying that protected speech is prosecutable. As well as the usual suspects and their usual lackeys trying to establish that "you have to watch what you say, there's a war on", and generally demanding respect instead of earning it (it doesn't come free with rank or title).

Given all this, I don't think we should be in any rush to curb our legitimate non-defamatory commentary here or anywhere else online. Let's see what happens.

[Trish1168]

19. Thank you. You've made me feel better.

I will continue my legitimate inflammatory but non defamatory comments, and will continue to give aid and comfort the enemy (the adjective terror) by speaking out against the war.

[gordontron]

23. poke

[gordontron]

24. poke

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/poke.php

[gordontron]

25. hah hah hah

poke



poke









poke



poke the penguin this time instead of the bunny

http://www2.gamesville.lycos.com/html_poke/poke_penguin.htm

[OKthatsIT]

26. This is the least of our worries

Annoying? I'll leave that up to the Mods to control.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

29. A-hem! I can't be prosecuted

no matter how annoying I am.

See that name up there? Real name.

[McCamy Taylor]

30. This thread annoys me. Posters keep posting. ACLU dying to take

your case if anyone is silly enough to try to use this sorry excuse for a law. Versions of the law that apply to the written word have been struck down as unConstitutional so it is highly unlikely that a court would rule differntlyt just because the words are posted on cyberspace. "Annoy" is not even a legal term, not in the good old USA where we do not have a Constitutionally protected right not to have our fellings hurt.

So, keep on doing what you are doing. Dont STALK anyone which is what the law is supposed to be for. Dont THREATEN anyone, which is something that Right to Life crazies and Nazis and Freepers do, not DUers. Just engage in good old fashioned free speech.

If the thread title was changed, I would find it much less annoying. It has such a fear provoking title, almost as if it is designed to frighten people away from the board.

[AnnieBW]

31. Arrest the Freepers!

Not only are they annoying, but they can't spell, either! Morans... :D

[Silverhair]

32. I greatly doubt that it covers messages on an internet discussion group.

It might, however, cover PMs that we use. It would certainly cover e-mail.

So saying that the next post on DU may send me to jail is greatly exaggerated.

That does not mean I like the bill. It means that I think you should be accurate in what you say about it.

[rocktivity]

33. "'Preventing Cyberstalking'...rewrites existing telephone harassment law

to prohibit anyone from using the Internet 'without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy.'"

Of course, the legal definition of "annoy" will have a lot to do with it, not to mention "intent." Is trying to argue your opinion in a debate "intent to annoy?" Coming up with a good snarf or snap may make someone FEEL annoyed, but if all you're trying to do is win the argument, can it be called intent?

The Internet nearly did Georgie in back in 2004. They don't want an encore because they know how powerful it is, especially for us. This is just step one in neutralizing it just in time for the November elections, and of course, 2008.

:argh:
rocknation

[Warren DeMontague]

34. (singing) "I've got a song that'll get on your nerves, I've got a song

that'll get on your nerves, I've got a song that'll get on your nerves..."

[txindy]

38. What is it? What is it? What is it?

What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it?
What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it?

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

[Dan]

36. does this apply to public figures

such as the asswipe Bush.

[Auntie Bush]

37. Hey! You are annoying me with posts like that! Watch out!

I must report you to Agent Mike!


Is it necessary to say, "sarcasm"?

Will I get arrested for annoying you?

Please don't report me...I promise never to do it again...without telling you my real name.

[flaminbats]

39. Otium sine litteris mors est et hominis vivi sepultura..

or in English "Leisure without literature is death, or rather the burial of a living man."

Republicans live in such a protected dreamworld, screaming to be free of any criticism or the facts of life. They enjoyed it when they could criticize Democrats as tax and spend liberals, nation-building globalists, and corrupt puppets of special interest groups. Now these same officeholders must live up to the impossible standards that they set for the Democrats, or they can tune out their critics.

[Catrina]

40. Well, it does say 'with intent to annoy'!

So, if someone tells a freeper the truth with the intent to inform, but he gets annoyed by accident, the truth-teller is not to blame. No one would tell a freeper the truth just to annoy him even though everyone knows that freepers don't like the truth, would they?

I hope this post doesn't annoy any lurking freepers because that was not my intent. And, 'anonomously' means without a name. Does that mean there needs to be a blank where a name would normally appear? I used to be on a board where one poster left the space for his name blank. We used to call him 'no name'. He could be in trouble now.

[LittleClarkie]

41. Your careful choice of words annoys me greatly

You politically correct liberals make me sick! Oh INTERNET police. Sic em!