Don't Be Annoying Online - It's A Crime

Apparently.

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.

Comments

[splashtc]

Well that's a really stupid law. No one uses their real names! uhh even authors who write books use "pen names" C'mon Bushy you went too far on this one. Would't want us to start to teeter to the left now.

[*flo*]

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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I respect Sen Specter on many issues...however, my thoughts on this...I agree with the law supporting 'junkmail/spam'and 'Cyberstalking'...however this here is not the case...Why the hell are the reps allowed to hide bills? It would make sense to keeps laws structured so it would be easier and less costly for idiots to do their job...As Dole stated in his MLK tribute, 'many Bills are passed without ever being read and bypassing the courts, members of the House and Senate.'
Next thing you know, people will need to post their Social Securty #...all these folks need to do is contact the internet provider and get the users info...
There should be a law against slime tactics...

[Observer*]

More on this topic: Read about Blogs further down the list.

Figuring out exactly what Congress did takes a few minutes. But it's not too difficult.

First, go to the text of the legislation and search for Sec. 113. Note how Sec. 113. amends existing law by changing the definitions in 47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1).

Before the new law took effect last Thursday, 47 U.S.C. 223 explicitly said it "does not include an interactive computer service." The changes override that for the "to annoy" section and now say it applies to the "Internet."

Q: So what does the rewritten law now say?
The section as amended reads like 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."

Q: But that section is titled "Obscene or harassing telephone calls." Doesn't that mean only voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, is now going to be covered by the law?

That's one interpretation. But that's not how Congress actually wrote the law, however, and precise wording matters.

If politicians wanted to limit the law to VoIP, they could have followed what they did in other bills and actually used the term. They could have also limited the "annoy" requirement to contacting an individual person.

But they didn't. The law instead covers any types of "communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet"--not just VoIP conversations. Also, it covers any person "who receives the communications" rather than a narrower definition that could have been written as "an individual intentionally targeted as the recipient of the communications."

At the very least, Congress has an obligation to clear things up and fix the ambiguities in this law.

Q: Someone has been annoying me on the Internet, and it's getting serious. What can I do?
Keep in mind that the new law has only criminal sanctions, so you can't sue someone directly (unless they're already violating other laws). Also remember that it only applies to a person who is intentionally annoying "without disclosing his identity."

You'd have to contact your local FBI office or U.S. Attorney. But don't be surprised if they place you way down on their priority list.

Q: Some people, including law professor Orin Kerr, say the existence of the First Amendment means we shouldn't worry.
Kerr says that "if speech is protected by the First Amendment, the statute is unconstitutional as applied and the indictment must be dismissed... prosecutors know that they can't bring a prosecution unless doing so would comply with the Supreme Court's First Amendment cases."

That's correct as far as it goes. But it's not the whole story, because it amounts to trusting what lawyers call prosecutorial discretion.

The U.S. Justice Department made the same argument in its unsuccessful defense of the Communications Decency Act. Prosecutors claimed that the CDA was constitutional because the Justice Department would never apply it in an unconstitutional manner.

Judge Dolores Sloviter rejected that argument, writing: "The government makes yet another argument that troubles me. It suggests that the concerns expressed by the plaintiffs and the questions posed by the court reflect an exaggerated supposition of how it would apply the law, and that we should, in effect, trust the Department of Justice to limit the CDA's application in a reasonable fashion that would avoid prosecution for placing on the Internet works of serious literary or artistic merit. That would require a broad trust indeed from a generation of judges not far removed from the attacks on James Joyce's Ulysses as obscene."

Q: If the law does violate the First Amendment, why would Congress enact it?
There's no good answer to that question. When our elected representatives were drafting this law over the last few months, they could have cleared things up.

The law criminalizes certain acts intended to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person." Deleting the word "annoy" from that lineup would probably have eliminated the free speech problems. But Congress chose not to do so.

An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and only criminalized using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm." That was changed in the final version.

CONTINUED: What about blogs?...

Q: Wait a moment. I'm told this law merely updated an existing prohibition on "annoying" or harassing someone through the telephone.
That's what Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican, claims in a press release, and it's sort of true.

The old law criminalized making an anonymous telephone call that's designed to annoy someone, which sounds pretty reasonable. But the new law applies broadly to any form of Internet communication, and it is not limited to individual-to-individual communications such as e-mail or instant messaging.

It's hardly clear that the federal government needs to criminalize this sort of thing, anyway. State governments are more than capable of doing so.

Q: I read a post by Dan Solove that says the law is just antiharassment, so we shouldn't be worried. Is he right?
Solove, who's a law professor at George Washington University, says: "'Annoy' is part of the intent element of the statute--it requires the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass. Far from an antianonymity provision that applies whenever a person annoys another, it is merely a prohibition on harassment."

If all the law did was target harassment, nobody would care. Instead, it also restricts certain behaviors that "annoy."

Most people realize there's a difference between annoying someone and harassing them. If I stalk someone, impersonate them in chat rooms, and repeatedly call them at 3 a.m. and hang up, that's harassment. Nobody's arguing that should be legal.

But annoyance? If I set up an incendiary Web site that has a single purpose--say, to annoy some politician I dislike--that should be permissible. That's why the law is far more than an "antiharassment" law.

Q: It's not enough for someone to find the site annoying. I have to intend for it to be annoying, right?
Correct. The relevant section of the law uses the phrase "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." A thin-skinned reader becoming irrationally annoyed shouldn't be sufficient to trigger criminal liability.

Q: The law criminalizes certain Internet actions done to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person." That means someone has to do all four things, right?
Nope. It's an or connector, not an and connector. Violating any one of the four prohibitions would be unlawful.

Q: I've read a post by Ann Bartow, a professor at USC Law School, saying that e-mail and blogs may not be covered by the law.
This is a little complicated, but let's walk through it. Bartow writes: "I may be missing something, but I don't think either e-mail or Web logs would be considered 'telecommunications devices' that would be subject to the stated prohibitions (which, in fairness, are awfully vague)."

In general, for the relevant section of the U.S. Code, that's right.

But it seems that Congress intended a broader interpretation for the "annoy" prohibition. The new law sweeps in "other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet"--and the most straightforward reading of that would cover Web logs and e-mail.

If politicians wanted to limit the "annoy" prohibition to VoIP, they could easily have done so. But they didn't.

Q: What does the word "annoy" mean, anyway?
Vagueness is one of the law's problems. The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers two definitions of annoy. One is merely to "disturb or irritate," and the other is "to harass."

Q: Is this going to be challenged in court?
Maybe. Clinton Fein, who runs Annoy.com, has said he might. Fein has challenged a related law in the past.

But lawsuits are expensive, and there's no guarantee of success.

Q: If the "intent to annoy" law already was on the books for phone calls and hasn't been a problem, why should I be concerned?
There are two reasons. First, criminalizing anonymous annoying phone calls is a lot different from criminalizing anonymous annoyances on the Internet. Phone calls are a one-to-one communication to a specific person; blog posts generally are not.

Second, it's worrisome that the U.S. Congress chose to expand the scope of the existing law to the Internet. Instead, they should have limited it to comply with the First Amendment.

By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Published: January 11, 2006, 4:00 AM PST
Last modified: January 11, 2006, 8:57 AM PST
http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=st.num

[Robin Tyra Drob]

Uh, is this like really sophomoric stuff or what?

[L.]

I'm going to ignore that.

[Robin Tyra Drob]

Ignore whatever you like "L." I'm saying that it is odd that Bush chooses to spend time on stuff like this. And is "L" your real name? You must wear the same monogrammed sweaters as does Laverne of famed Laverne and Shirley. :)

[Tricia]

well, it's good to know when I post blogs on myspace to annoy my ex, I am not breaking the law since I am using my real name. lol.

[L.]

Robin, I meant to imply I was ignoring the new law... not what you said.

What kind of name is Drob??? Is that you real name? :+D

"L." is short for one of my many names. I can't imagined ever owning anything monogrammed other than towels, so no, I don't where the sweaters. But I do use the L to sign comments, posts, letters and emails.

[Observer*]

I have read this article a few times to get the gist of it. And it seems to me, it was in part created, for those that send malicious spywares, viruses, annoying and repeated unwanted emails that lead no where and are sent only to redirect. And also, even though the annoyance does not have to be sent to any one individual it can be an annoyance to be constantly hoaxed into downloading malicious files, or adware. It is such a broad spectrum that it can be applied to. It seems as though it was intended to "not" be used to curb freedom of speech.
I guess in the real world, it would be to refrain someone from knocking on your door...and running repeatedly. Or calling you at all hours and hanging up.
You can tell your post office to not include in your snail mail any "unwanted solicitation", and you can put on your front door "no pandering" You can also post on your property "no Loitering". This is just a form of that to stop us from enduring unwanted "attention".
If I am right it's a good thing. If I am off base.....someone correct me please.

Note* I have received repeated emails, where it says to "click on link" to remove your self, and after closer investigation, I see the link does not do that at all.....but it anonymously has collected data from my p.c.
And it actually goes "nowhere" to remove me. So then what? I have to actually go to the site....and find a place to write them to stop them, and 4 out of 5 times.... there is not one. At that point "I am annoyed" to the max. I have gone as far as running a site through "who is" to find its a hosting site.....and it ends up being an anonymous email sent from out side of this country. Who was paid to collect information, and which addresses are actually good (thats what happens when you click on the fake remove me link) it is used to just tell the sender....you hit it, I am a good address. And then your email is added to a list of good email addresses, and sold, so then......you get even "more" solicitations. It is annoying....Really.....Annoying. I certainly hope this new law address's that last issue. What do you think ?

[*flo*]

Observer...thank you for the info/link...
What about Blogs?
'But the new law applies broadly to any form of Internet communication, and it is not limited to individual-to-individual communications such as e-mail or instant messaging'

Don't think this law will go over well for many...period! Its like saying MSM journalist/experts can not debate news topics that would discredit any individual...this new law is really 'BAD'...and questions the 'good ol'e boys' personal agenda...the people in position of authority need to come to grips and get serious about protecting the rights of americans

[thealamo]

What looks like one small step for government is the "hop" before the big leap.

[Robin Tyra Drob]

If "Tricia" is your real name I feel a little sorry for you. Nobody takes Tricias seriously, nobody. "Tricia" is always the girl who wears her sweaters too tight, uses too much peroxide. She is always the girl who is sort of cute in highschool, an ugly, washed up, batwinged hoarse voiced waitress by 40. Still using the same peroxide, same lipstick, minus the same effect at 17. Have a great day, Tricia.

And Drob is my married name. I like it, don't you?

[Observer*]

I do not think (in my opinion) that blogs have anything to worry about. We are still protected under the freedom of speech. On those posts that seem aimed at someone, and can get rather nasty from time to time, that is up to the moderator to do with them as they wish. A person is still entitled to their opinion.
I would guess, that for those who have blogs, this will give them the upper hand on those that are out there intending on causing an annoyance and repeatedly cause annoyance with "that" intent and are successful. Those who switch names often posting under anonymous, that would be up to Dan as an example, as it is his hassle to read and be annoyed by that type of individual. I would imagine it would have to be on a continuing basis and worth it to the blog beholder to seek a case.
I think it is intended to control the things I wrote about in my last post, email etc. I think if you read that statement pointed the other way,

and it is not limited to individual-to-individual communications such as e-mail or instant messaging'

If you apply that to a person or business.....who sends out masses of email spam, it would apply to them, they would be breaking this new law. Especially if it is in the context of what happened to me, I couldn't find the originator. Sent out in masses, with links that keep track of "us" out here....with the sole intent of remaining anonymous...and having us, click away to rid ourselves of them and getting nowhere, only to end up as a verified address to be sold...over and over. Mind you, some places get paid by how many times.....you *click or go to their site, even if your just trying to find a responsible person to get your self removed.
I think because Blog's are moderated in most cases, they are of no concern. And correct me if I am wrong. On here, even if you try and remain anonymous....your i.p. will find "you out" by Dan as an example. I do believe Dan as most blogs have the ability to read, adjust and block as needed those annoying individuals. Dan would have to comment to address that, as I am not sure.
But, those spam emails that come....you cannot do anything about them. And now, I think we can =)

[NikName]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

[*flo*]

re:
"The law instead covers any types of "communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet" Also, it covers any person "who receives the communications" rather than a narrower definition that could have been written as "an individual intentionally targeted as the recipient of the communications."

and

"it seems that Congress intended a broader interpretation for the "annoy" prohibition. The new law sweeps in "other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet"--and the most straightforward reading of that would cover Web logs and e-mail."

"At the very least, Congress has an obligation to clear things up and fix the ambiguities in this law."

[poorpaulannj]

"Don't Be Annoying Online - It's A Crime"...........
Well, let's just hope this is a segue for "don't be annoying in person - it's a crime." Wouldn't that be a great law. ;)

[lsdoone]

I say, lock them all up, take their money, but leave little old me alone.

It will be interesting to read about the first troll prosecuted.
Since the government's in charge, I'd say the first violater of this mini law will be less obnoxious than most.
I know there are people online who cause aggravation, reactive responses and occasionally tears, but to go so far as incarcerate and fine them..
well....that amay lead to problems.
Internet law, it's here and will only grow.

I plan on posting only sweetness and light posts from here on out. Example-My response to your comment is that you are the most astute typist ever to come along and your years of life experience have enriched me. Rock on sister/brother or alien. Blah,blah.

If anyone wants anarchy online, let the feds outlaw spell-check, that would really get the semi thinkers enraged.
PS
I love everyone.

[COLUMBO]

What looks like one small step for government is the "hop" before the big leap.

HAHAHAHA....yeah, next they'll want to get rid of SPAM....goosesteppers....

[carly]

I'm a Canadian being harassed by two american women online. I've searched and searched for help, but no one will help me. I am, however, prepared to visit the police tomorrow (office has been closed over the weekend - I called and called but no answer). These women publically posted my personal information in a chatroom. I've contacted the owner and the monitors of this chatsite. One monitor is behind these women feeding them my information (but I can't prove it as to be seen, as this monitor can be invisible at all times and they contact each other via messengers). The other monitor, on the other hand, replied to my letter of complaint but all he did was banned them for half a day. The owner of the site is not interested one bit in this site he made and he never answers his emails. Soooo...where do the victimes go from there? If they're not dealt with - they'll do it again. They have threatened to expose another friend of mine publically. What's it going to take to stop them? That is not right. Now I sit here petrified as I'm scared I'll get an anonymous phone call, or someone will knock on my door that I don't know, etc. the list goes on and on!

I have stopped going to that chat site, needless to say, but it won't correct the harm they're inflicting on innocent people. They prey on people and they, under the influence of alcohol, continuously harass and stalk the innocent.

So much for law! It totally sucks and this world seems to be going to hell in a hand basket! No wonder, as we look at our leaders, both in the US AND Canada!!! Go figure!!