Are you a criminal now?

[Ravenstorm]

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.. (http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news)

Pertinent quotes:


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.

...

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."

Some of you are SO screwed. Why's this in politics?


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.

Mid term elections, folks.

Raven

[SpunGirl]

So what you're saying is that Teeoncy, Atheana, etc all went and cried to Uncle George to make the meanies stop.

-K

[Artha]

The way I see it, they were the ones with intent to annoy.

[Alfster]

:pig: would have so been arrested

[HarmNone]

Heh. I can think of any number of people who might be enjoying a close encounter of the Bubba variety if something like this comes into being and is taken seriously. :whistle:

[Ebondale]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Ebondale
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin

seems like a bad law to me

the quote is:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

with all those quailfiers it seems to me that it says very little

Franklin denied it's attribution

C/Valth

[Jazuela]

Whoever wrote that article should do his fact-checking better. I just looked at the new law (HR 3402) and this is section 113 in its entirety:


SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
‘‘(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection
(a)(1), 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of
the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).’’.
(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This section and the amendment
made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning
given the term ‘‘telecommunications device’’ in section 223(h)(1)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date
of the enactment of this section.

Looks like the section exists just to clarify and/or edit a previous section in a pre-existing law.

Section 114, however, looks like the one they were referring to:


SEC. 114. CRIMINAL PROVISION RELATING TO STALKING.
(a) INTERSTATE STALKING.—Section 2261A of title 18, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
‘‘§ 2261A. Stalking
‘‘Whoever—
‘‘(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within
the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent
to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent
to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in
the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person
in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury
to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person,
a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115)
of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person;
or
‘‘(2) with the intent—
‘‘(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance
with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause
substantial emotional distress to a person in another State
or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or
H. R. 3402—29
‘‘(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction,
or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death
of, or serious bodily injury to—
‘‘(i) that person;
‘‘(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined
in section 115 of that person; or
‘‘(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;
uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any
facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a
course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress
to that person or places that person in reasonable fear
of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the
persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph
(B);
shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.’’.

It refers specifically to interSTATE stalking, not interNET stalking. Maybe the author of the article mixed the two sections up together, added the word "annoy," and decided it would make for good press?

[Wezas]

I can just see that severed NC head that I photoshopped coming back to haunt me.

First stalking restraining orders from Jesae, now this.

I lose at the internet.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Wezas
I can just see that severed NC head that I photoshopped coming back to haunt me.

First stalking restraining orders from Jesae, now this.

I lose at the internet.

Your days of internet stalking are drawing to a close.

[Drew2]

<<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.>>

Hi, my name is Drew.

You're a fucking cuntrag. (etc, etc.)

I disclosed my identity. I win.


Unless you reveal your first name, Wezas, I'm going to report you to the authorities everytime you say something harassing.

Looks like you lose x2 at the internet.

[Edited on 1-11-2006 by Tayre]

[Hulkein]

Seeing as you only know him as Wezas, he'd probably be fine.

Now, if he made alternate screen names and wanted to make fun of you, he'd have to identify himself as you know him -- Wezas, not necessarily by his legal name.

At least that's my take on it.

[Wezas]

Pretty sure I've only insulted him as Wezas.

[Drew2]

His identity is not Wezas. His alias is. I can't sue him for harassment, even if he came under a different name and I later discovered it, as "Wezas".

[longshot]

It's like all the sucky people that use the report post feature got together and made a law...

[Renian]

This is where we all pack up our bags and move to Canada.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Tayre
His identity is not Wezas. His alias is. I can't sue him for harassment, even if he came under a different name and I later discovered it, as "Wezas".

The point is that you do not know him as any other identity. He could give you his real name (assuming you do not know it) and it would be more vague than the name 'Wezas.'

The only way you know him is as 'Wezas.'

[Edited on 1-11-2006 by Hulkein]

[Nieninque]

Was reading some links on this law/not-law and this one made me laugh...

http://news.zdnet.com/5208-1009-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=16567&messageID=328718&s tart=-1

[Nieninque]

And more seriously...

The bill was an amendment, the word annoy appears in the original bill
Section 113 of this law called "PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING" is the specific section in question (from HR 3402). It amends a previous law (Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)).

It is this previous law that contains the "annoy" language. The very important thing this story left out is that the communication act says that the annoying content MUST ALSO BE "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent".

So this law does not apply to just normal annoying criticism. It only affects anonymous annoying communications that are filthy, lewd and obscene.

The relevant law that was changed is available here: http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

here is an excerpt of that:

------begin section 223 of 1934 Comm. Dec. Act

SEC. 223. [47 U.S.C. 223] OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) Whoever--
(1) in interstate or foreign communications--
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly--
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or
other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or
indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another
person;

-----------end of Sec 223 of 1934CDA-------

The following text is the relevant text from the new law that amended the 1934 CDA so that internet communications are now included:

--------------begin section 113--------
SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
‘‘(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection
(a)(1), 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of
the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).’’.
(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This section and the amendment
made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning
given the term ‘‘telecommunications device’’ in section 223(h)(1)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date
of the enactment of this section.


http://news.zdnet.com/5208-1009-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=16567&messageID=328987&s tart=48

[Edited on 11-1-06 by Nieninque]

[Jazuela]

Ah so that's where the word annoy appears. I didn't check deeper than the HR 3204 or 3402 or whatever it is. Thanks for doing the research.

It should be noted, this law, according to the law itself, was enacted in 1934. The only significant change, is to reflect internet use, which didn't exist then.

Basically it sounds like a "crank calls are illegal" kind of thing with more specific wording.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Jazuela

Chomp Chomp Chewey Chomp



If annoyance was punishible by law, you'd be logging in from death row by now.

Yes, I'm serious.