Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

[Clara T]

Perspective:  Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

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.

<snip>

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."

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news

[silverweb]

1. Already posted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2030893

[Clara T]

4. Well that's annoying

Time for a class action lawsuit.

:toast:

[silverweb]

14. LOL

:toast:

I'm interested to see how this will play out when first tested in court!

:popcorn:

[Petrushka]

31. But . . . how do you prove an "...intent to annoy...."? [eom]

[MissWaverly]

2. it would be interesting to see how this plays out

I think its purpose is to prevent cyber stalking, you sending anonymous and harassing
e-mails to someone.

[SmokingJacket]

3. Right, but the language is so vague, it could apply to a lot more

than just stalkers.

It's interesting, because the original language of the bill was much stronger. Why to they want to make it easier to shut down "annoying" voices?

[MissWaverly]

9. No, I don't think so

Look, how is what we post here any different from a magazine article or a letter you would
send to your local newspaper. Yes, some of the abusive, crappy stuff will have to go, but
I never thought it was a good idea to post that material in the first place.

[bpilgrim]

10. we are like cable...

censor free - or at least that's the way it was and should be.

peace

[MissWaverly]

16. agree

also if we e-mail a government office, as citizens, I don't see how that can be banned either.

[SmokingJacket]

12. It isn't any different. But the law as written only applies to the

Internet. Take a look: it's a very strange law.

"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."

Annoy?

Why can't that apply to any opinionated website?

Apparently you can still write annoying letters and magazine articles -- just not on the internet.

WEIRD.

[MissWaverly]

15. it says sending to someone, not posting

bush, et al is not receiving our posting, this is a bulletin board really

[bpilgrim]

18. MissWaverly

please confirm receipt of this MSG :evilgrin:

peace

[MissWaverly]

29. this is not a message

it's like an electronic post it note, a message is something I rec'd in my in-box with my
other mail, only members log in here. Bush is not going to "receive" one of these postings.

:-)

[applegrove]

5. I agree. Stalking is a serious matter.

[bpilgrim]

19. applegrove

boo :evilgrin:

peace

[applegrove]

20. Come on. You don't think the internet should be policed in any way?

How many times have the police had to intervene already? Come on. We humans need to live with some regulations on law & order.

[sproutster]

21. Your opinion annoys me - FBI on speed dial.

I find it offensive you think it's ok to imprison someone because of "annoyance." I am seriously annoyed.

[applegrove]

22. oh - with stalking it is a pattern. They repremand teens to "annoy"

& bully a kid unto death. Don't ya think when you get into adult world it should be a crime?

You have no idea.

[sproutster]

23. Still annoying me. Oh you only want this to apply to "other" people.

[applegrove]

24. What other people? I'm not stalking anyone. I'm in a discussion forum.

I email only to people I know. What in god's name are you talking about?

Are you trying to say that it will be used by Rove to shut up discussion about him? I think it is clear it is to stop stalking. That repeated pattern of trying to contact a specific person to mess them up. I don't think politics qualifies.

As to me annoying you - it happens on the boards. Try not responding. ;-)

[sproutster]

25. Read the law - You are breaking it by annoying me.

"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."

What you think, and what is AUTHORIZED AND LAW are two different animals.

[applegrove]

26. Criminal stalking and harrassment says you cannot keep tabs on

a person for the purpose of doing a criminal act (harrassment counts). Annoy - is it so wrong to say one person cannot abuse someone elses email? Surely you have seen the trolls about. Not so much on this site but they pop up at lots of places. And if that is their main passtime - should there be no recourse?

You know the evil ones who spend their lives diminishing others cycle bigger and bigger. You nip them in the bud. They look for excitment by joining the army or something.

[sproutster]

28. Dude, do you REALIZE how many people WE annoy??

How can you POSSIBLY give this a pass?! I didn't give you a random senario, I gave you what the law states.

Harrassment is another animal. Stalking is another animal. ANNOYANCE IS A FACT OF LIFE. It's NOT JUST EMAIL - It's boards like these, it's online video games, it's anywhere there is a discussion involving two or more parties. It's defined grey enough, that I'm sure under the postings above I would be within the law calling the FBI on you.

What are you annoyed by? Is it worth two years in prison because I disagree with your point of view?

[applegrove]

30. We are not contacting some person or site to annoy. We are at this

site to argue politics. And to have a place to go. We are minding our own business.

[bpilgrim]

27. not by big bro, hell no.

and who decides what's 'annoying' :shrug:

peace

[undeterred]

6. Bush annoys me via the internet, the radio, the television, the newspaper

there's gotta be a crime in there somewhere

[kcass1954]

8. He's committed lots of crimes. n/t

[bpilgrim]

7. Go FUCK yourself, Mr. Cheney!

Dr. Ben Marble: "Fuck You, Mr. Cheney!"
Physician who told off Cheney lost home in Katrina, arrested, selling video on eBay

Dr. Ben Marble, a young emergency room physician who plays in alternative rock bands and does art on the side, needs our help. Since he was the one who told Dick Cheney to "go fuck yourself" on Thursday, that's the least we can do.

video...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-2238

audio...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-2236


more...
http://globalfreepress.com

peace

[Hugin]

11. Well, here it is...

Anti-Freeper legislation.

[dusmcj]

13. I wonder who blew this in the administration's ear

some cleverboots mental masturbator who thinks all those little subversives on the internet should be more forthright and manly (or womanly as the case may be) and more HONEST. And GRATEFUL. I hope this post annoys them even though I didn't intend it to. 'dusmcj' is my legal name. My direct message to them is GFY - there's a 'Go' at the beginning, and a 'Yourself' at the end, fill in the blank.

[SoCalDem]

17. Spo the annoying weirdos who e-mail me "offers" will be going to jail?

Where do I forward their spam emails:)?

[951-Riverside]

32. If you can find the specific section of the law you could overload the FBI

...with complaints about spam. :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. They've lifted the language from existing telephone law

makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications
device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues,
without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy,
abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or
who receives the communications;

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl47/ch5/subchII/ptI/sec223.html

They have added "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" to the definition of 'telecommunications device'.

The existing law seems fair enough with a phone call - just having your phone ring for the purpose of annoying you is aggravating, and it's easy to imagine threats growing from it.

But it does seem to me that "receives the communications" includes "reads it on a bulletin board", becasue that is software used to orginiate other types of communications transmitted by the Internet. It's possible that the intent of the law was to include voice over IP software in the definition of a telephone call; or that and email; but it seems to catch anything on the Internet. I agree this could be a huge problem for bulletin boards - there's loads of communications, intended to be read by specific people, designed to annoy - here alone on DU, let alone on Usenet or Yahoo groups.