Posted on 01/09/2006 8:52:31 PM PST by Lathspell
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.
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."It's illegal to annoy
"Duplicate posts are annoying."
But irony is not! :)
Hmmm, I just posted something annoying on another forum: at least it's only two years' max!
Liberals annoy me. Should we shut them down? We can start with DUh.
Not to mention this piece of crappy legislation just lets the lawyers (oh wait, that's most of our gubermint) have more reasons to sue and waste the people's monies, while making themselves rich.
Hurray for Gigantous, the government bureaucracy of no end and its legion of the billion laws....yup, surely each and every one of us in the Land of the Formerly Free, is a criminal of one stripe or another. After all, a government has no power over a free and innocent man.
That's great.
I'll be able to post annoying comments from Canada
but no one in the US using a fictitious screen-name
(i.e. everybody)
will be allowed to annoy me in response.
That one statement has said it all.
I really don't think this would stand up in court, but I could see an administration abusing this law to no end until such time that it was overturned.
Hilary? Did you vote for this so you'd have it for the future?
Wouldn't you know.
The main problem with these types of laws is that they make no attempt to define what constitutes harassment, they purposely leave them as broad as possible to allow the possibility of using them to crush anyone who deigns to vociferously disagree with the anointed ones.
Sounds sort of like a self-extinguishing law. If you didn't disclose your identity, how would they find you? And if they found you, it would be only because you'd disclosed your identity (inadvertently or not) so....
I'll probably end up in jail...LOL
Hey, my name isn't fictitious, I just haven't given my last name!
(P.S. Your mother dresses you funny!) ;p
Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
My whole damn life is one big e-annoyance. If it weren't for FR, I'd move to the gulf and live on my boat with nothing more high-tech than a VHF radio.
It will be tossed on First Amendment grounds. Sadly, Snarlin' Arlen will still be around pushing more bilge. Gee, I hope I didn't annoy him with this post...actually I hope I did. Let him prosecute.
The Nigerans have "insulted" many with their spam. Does this ruling affect them too?
Admin Moderator: Please delete this duplicate posting, thanks.
public apologies are really annoying, too
(relax)
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.