Posted on 01/09/2006 10:26:02 AM PST by Halgr
Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
By Declan McCullagh
Story last modified Mon Jan 09 04:00:00 PST 2006
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.
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.
It's a matter of making sure there are plenty of new lawsuits to keep the Lawyer class in stocks and bonds.
ping
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1554663/posts
More action on this thread.
LOL!
You're right. I've been here a long time and just never thought about it.
It's like spitting on the sidewalk. You shouldn't be doing that anyway.
And yet, what damage is caused? If it is public property and the property is not damaged, is a crime committed? These victimless crimes are a great way to control the population, just like hate crime laws.
In the case of internet stalkers, there could be either victims or property loss or both. Bush probably suspects that if he can scare off just 10% of the pencil-necked, four-eyed, greasy little twerps it'll save the government billions.
By diverting assets from the FBI and local authorities from such things as real cyber stalkings and child porn and by running endless government funded trials and counter trials. Yup, that'll help the bottom line, except it'll only be the lawyers' bottom line.
Probably the same guys.
The law appears way too broad and should be thrown out in the courts. You give politicians an inch they take a mile and that's what the USSC did with campaign finance reform, they opened the door to this kind frivolous legislation.
I tend to not believe anything a reporter writes until I have some sort of corroboration indicating that it is true.
I've tried to find this wording on all the government sites and I can't. Has anyone else actually found this?
"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."
The end of NYT unnamed sources pissing me off?
"What department is the guv going to create to handle the millions of complaints that will flood in"....I suspect this is actually the only way to make a point would be to flood the feds daily with millions of complaints....unless they would regard that as annoying!!!!!
Flooding your Congressman's email box with complains will result in your prosecution? It isn't done annonimously, which makes it that much easier for the gov't to prosecute you.
Screw you! Internet Police! (how many years is that worth)
And Yes, my real name is Wolfcreek........just Wolfcreek!
That's what it's ultimately going to be used for, to shut people up politically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.