Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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

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.

Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's Washington, D.C., correspondent. He chronicles the busy intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

so um....yeah....thoughts on this?

So if I say : "George Bush is a ****ing *******" In six consecutave posts and threads the I have commited a federal crime ?

Originally posted by GCG
So if I say : "George Bush is a ****ing *******" In six consecutave posts and threads the I have commited a federal crime ?

well...if people feel "annoyed"....then i guess yes. unless of coarse you submit your personal info with every message that may be deemed "annoying"

But this site specifically says or suggests that we should not give personal information on the net.


--"George Bush is a ****ing *******"

Good maybe this law will help clean up KMC once and for all.

No one should flame anyone, with that said, no one should restrict talking (writing) on the Internet.

Originally posted by GCG
But this site specifically says or suggests that we should not give personal information on the net.


--"George Bush is a ****ing *******"

sticky situation huh?
and what of the webmaster? would they be charged with aiding and abetting for having a troll as a member?

Originally posted by Echuu
Good maybe this law will help clean up KMC once and for all.

i found this post to be annoying

*calls FBI hotline*

It says so in the rules: rulez



Think before you post or speak: Do you really want to put your address or telephone number on a public discussion forum? We encourage you to keep personal information personal.
In the same vein, do not ask for personal information from others. Discussion forum posts that request members to submit personal information to another party will be removed. If you must give this out for any reason, please do so privately.

Please note: It is a bannable offense to request information on any minors on the board.

I know its more of a guideline other than a rule, but still this does not make sense does it ?

--"George Bush is a ****ing *******"

Originally posted by PVS
i found this post to be annoying

*calls FBI hotline*

The fact that you were annoyed offends me.


*picks the phone up to call FBI, but the "I don't care" factor kicks in, and I hang up the phone.*

God bless not being ammerican...

Originally posted by PVS
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

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.

Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's Washington, D.C., correspondent. He chronicles the busy intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

so um....yeah....thoughts on this?


Ooooohhhhh .... I'm shivering I'm little space boots !!!!!!!!!!!!

I cant really see the CIA, tracking me down for 'trolling'

Hi, my name is Jackie Malfoy. I live in New Jersey.


F*** YOU ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I HOPE YOU ALL DIE! ESPECIALLY YOU, PVS!

Originally posted by botankus
Hi, my name is Jackie Malfoy. I live in New Jersey.


F*** YOU ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I HOPE YOU ALL DIE! ESPECIALLY YOU, PVS!

Agreed .... although death maybe a bit extreme ?

The presupposition this article makes is disturbing, but it seems its just a less dubious matter of the letter of law not accurately corresponding to the spirit of it. Since the third sentence specifies this law is part of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act it seems obvious that this type of prohibited use of the internet only applies when its being used to harass victims of violence against women. (The second definition of 'annoy' on dictionary.com is 'To harass...'.) Certainly a meritless claim by someone who was just 'slightly irritated' (the other basic definition of the word 'annoy') by a web post somewhere would not make it very far in the court system.

The article references a good example of this scope of reference when the owner of the site Annoy.com felt his site would be impacted by the Communications Decency Act, but the courts ruled that this only applied to obscene material, not that which he was delivering. Scope of reference from the letter of the law to the spirit of the law established.

Using common sense to interpret slight ambiguities wouldn't leave much for pundits and lawyers to do, though, would it? Makes for a good read though, especially when its never been hipper to be anti-establishment.

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
Ooooohhhhh .... I'm shivering I'm little space boots !!!!!!!!!!!!

I cant really see the CIA, tracking me down for 'trolling'

there always has to be someone who quotes the entire damn article, doesnt there?

Originally posted by PVS
there always has to be someone who quotes the entire damn article, doesnt there?
Quotes the whole article and adds, at most, two lines to it.

Originally posted by General Envy
The presupposition this article makes is disturbing, but it seems its just a less dubious matter of the letter of law not accurately corresponding to the spirit of it. Since the third sentence specifies this law is part of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act it seems obvious that this type of prohibited use of the internet only applies when its being used to harass victims of violence against women. (The second definition of 'annoy' on dictionary.com is 'To harass...'.) Certainly a meritless claim by someone who was just 'slightly irritated' (the other basic definition of the word 'annoy') by a web post somewhere would not make it very far in the court system.

The article references a good example of this scope of reference when the owner of the site Annoy.com felt his site would be impacted by the Communications Decency Act, but the courts ruled that this only applied to obscene material, not that which he was delivering. Scope of reference from the letter of the law to the spirit of the law established.

Using common sense to interpret slight ambiguities wouldn't leave much for pundits and lawyers to do, though, would it? Makes for a good read though, especially when its never been hipper to be anti-establishment.

wording of law is very important and cant simply rely on "common sense".
the article doesnt presuppose anything and makes it clear of the law's intentions, but also makes it clear that the wording, which was originally submitted to clearly refer to extreme harassment and stalking, was intentionally reworded to be more vague...i kinda find that disturbing.

im sure kidrock is safe from being prison raped for his annoyance of everyone, but the question remains: how slippery is the slope? what does "annoyance" mean in this law, and why was the proper wording changed to something so vague?

Originally posted by botankus
Quotes the whole article and adds, at most, two lines to it.

even better

Yup, Bush has no clue at all to how the real world operates...

So.. Does he make some money out of this or something, or is he just doing as his whiny dad (or other geezers with power) tells him to?

i just smell agenda.

i mean, what if opinionated blogs can be considered "annoying"?
it seems that republicans have been desperate to find a way to silence those
practicing their 1st ammendment rights.

or maybe its just a matter of laziness and idiocy on the part of our government...which is certainly not to be ruled out.

Originally posted by PVS
there always has to be someone who quotes the entire damn article, doesnt there?

And this matters because .... ?

All those dumb rules anyway.. Not everybody can fight this nonsense if they're actually confronted with it..

The people will get more and more frustrated by being powerless to do anything and America will probably eventually self destruct by these kind of governments.
It's truelly depressing that the people of a country have to be defended against their own representatives.

And then Americans still wonder why the rest of the world holds them in such low regard. IT'S YOUR DAMN STUPID REPRESENTATIVES!

Just start with the basic idea of a government again...

Originally posted by overlord
And then Americans still wonder why the rest of the world holds them in such low regard. IT'S YOUR DAMN STUPID REPRESENTATIVES!

and where are you from.

im completely sick of high and mighty people acting like their representatives piss rainbows and crap sunshine. it is indeed 'hip' to hate americans. so trendy to blindly hate an entire nation of people because you consider us to be simple minded and accept any gross sweeping generalisations we hear...did you just smell the irony? you should have.

now quit being prejudice and please lets not turn this topic into "AMERICA sux0rz111!!!!!11!"

Originally posted by PVS
and where are you from.

im completely sick of high and mighty people acting like their representatives piss rainbows and crap sunshine. it is indeed 'hip' to hate americans. so trendy to blindly hate an entire nation of people because you consider us to be simple minded and accept any gross sweeping generalisations we hear...did you just smell the irony? you should have.

now quit being prejudice and please lets not turn this topic into "AMERICA sux0rz111!!!!!11!" It's just freaking stupid that only two parties have an actual chance of ruling and representing the people and that they're both almost equally right wing in comparison to other countries.
And who are the people anyway who are on the top voting list? Right.. Some rich war veteran, flashy/cool cowboys.

But the main thing that is wrong is a government just getting away with rushed and dumb wars and all asskissing wich my country's representative performs.

But I wish it was all just prejudism.. The system is just flawed and nobody can do anything about it.

Originally posted by overlord
asskissing wich my country's representative performs.

which of coarse makes your country not a damn bit better than mine,
considering 'you' elected the lips that kiss the ass that 'i' elected...

Yeah, well don't take it personal.
I just don't like the election ritual performed constantly by America, I have nothing against America or the people nor even the actual parties.
I just wish you all had more choice and that actually the majority would even care to vote because they all fully realise that it's all useless anyway.

America's government is still a very important aspect in the world.

Originally posted by overlord
Yeah, well don't take it personal.
I just don't like the election ritual performed constantly by America, I have nothing against America or the people nor even the actual parties.
I just wish you all had more choice and that actually the majority would even care to vote because they all fully realise that it's all useless anyway.

America's government is still a very important aspect in the world.

we do have third party choices but people fear voting for them because that basically gives a vote to the opposition. thus president bush even being in office thanks to nader. people voted for nader because they held to the same ideals, which i agree with. but once those ideals are applied when voting, the outcome is never what was desired, in fact the complete oposite.

but we digress

Yeah, in my case, the opposition is fairly big in Holland where I live.
They basically stop the most extreme of rules being forced but I fear what would happen if the roles were turned.

That's still a very tricky part in politics and I don't know too much about it to judge unfortunately.

The problem is that such law-making is essentially trying to deal with the extension of laws that cover stalking and harrassing behaviour over the phone, and to reframe them so that they cover the internet. The difficulty is that while there is anonymity for 'stalkers', there will generally be a similar lack of disclosed identity of the person being 'stalked'. For that reason it's not completely the same issue.

I think that it is important to cover such behaviour in the instances where a person is attempting to circumvent legislation via the internet, but it's a fine line to tread.

As regards the problematic use of 'annoy', generally these kind of legislative ambiguities are addressed by case law, although clearly it is too early for this to have happened.

It's true, all mods have been given batons and handcuffs...all of which are being misused in a horrible manner by almost everyone.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's true, all mods have been given batons and handcuffs...all of which are being misused in a horrible manner by almost everyone.

whistling

My username was previously my real name...

Originally posted by BackFire
It's true, all mods have been given batons and handcuffs...all of which are being misused in a horrible manner by almost everyone.

actually, you would also be in handcuffs for aiding and abetting a criminal

No one takes offense to this common so here it goes...

...There is nothing worse in the world than a troll blaming another troll.

Those sneaky bastards!

meh

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No one takes offense to this common so here it goes...

...There is nothing worse in the world than a troll blaming another troll.

Those sneaky bastards!

Yes I blame PVS j/k

Awesome news.

It won't be enforced, though.

P.S. There's a difference between practicing your first amendment rights and being an idiot (actually, often times, they coincide). Saying, "I don't think Bush is a good president because..." is legitimate. Saying, "BUSH SUCKS! BUSH SUCKS! BUSH SUCKS! BUSH SUCKS!" (or the like) is not. Well, I suppose it is legitimate, but it's still annoying.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Awesome news.

It won't be enforced, though.

P.S. There's a difference between practicing your first amendment rights and being an idiot (actually, often times, they coincide). Saying, "I don't think Bush is a good president because..." is legitimate. Saying, "BUSH SUCKS! BUSH SUCKS! BUSH SUCKS! BUSH SUCKS!" (or the like) is not. Well, I suppose it is legitimate, but it's still annoying.

Yes, people have the right to be stupid.

I would love to see someone get drawn to court!

ComicBook Kid: well he started it your honour... Honest! He was like "yer is ep 21 pg3 Wolverine is referd to as the chosen one..."I was no, he could of been... but scott and jene were in the background.. so I called him a gay...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I would love to see someone get drawn to court!

ComicBook Kid: well he started it your honour... Honest! He was like "yer is ep 21 pg3 Wolverine is referd to as the chosen one..."I was no, he could of been... but scott and jene were in the background.. so I called him a gay...



btw i find spammers to be annoying. we should lock them up too.

Originally posted by botankus
Hi, my name is Jackie Malfoy. I live in New Jersey.


F*** YOU ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I HOPE YOU ALL DIE! ESPECIALLY YOU, PVS!

How can someone make these kind of vague laws anyway?
Next step is probably arresting people who act suspicious or something.

Oh wait! Sending people to correctional facilities because of them being 'annoying' or odd..

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
God bless not being ammerican...

You're going down for life for that post.

But I agree

How does this work anyway? The US government is going to track down people all over the world? How are they supposed to find you if they can only prosecute you if you withhold your information? Wow, this has more plot holes than Attack of the Clones....

IP addresses!! fear

idea

Proxies Addresses

That's it, I'm done for

Originally posted by Syren
You're going down for life for that post.

But I agree

Theres just some times in life I'm glad I don't live over there... Sure we have silly laws too, but "being annoying on the internet" isn't one of them...

Is it an enforced law then? Currently in place?

My comment was mearly on the tital of the thread... That they would actually concider this, and think they could do it....

Gotcha

The term annoy is very subjective. If it is a matter of perception then literally anything could be considered annoying.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom


As regards the problematic use of 'annoy', generally these kind of legislative ambiguities are addressed by case law, although clearly it is too early for this to have happened.

Who is annoying on the internet