Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Anonymous flames and negative feedback with "intent to annoy" now a felony?

Reply
Thread Tools

Anonymous flames and negative feedback with "intent to annoy" now a felony?

 
 
yENC Man
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2006
OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
"Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy" is now a
felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on message boards
or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a felony...unless you use your
real name. And I guess a case could be made that since most feedback is left
on eBay using "handles" other than the "real name" of the user, negative
feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure that this
law has all kinds of good intentions.


Via CNet News.com

http://tinyurl.com/czaml

Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

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.

....

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.

....

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?

(More at the link.)








 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2006

"yENC Man" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:_kEwf.805$(E-Mail Removed) k.net...
> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
> "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy" is now
> a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on message
> boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a felony...unless you
> use your real name. And I guess a case could be made that since most
> feedback is left on eBay using "handles" other than the "real name" of the
> user, negative feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a
> potential felony?
>
> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure that
> this law has all kinds of good intentions.
>



yes
that's why i always use my real pseudonym!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
rjn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2006
yENC Man wrote: >

> ... prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing
> his identity and with intent to annoy."


What in the Constitution grants a "right" to be un-annoyed?

Until recently, I'd suggest that because this is blatently
unconstitutional, the first test case would get it tossed.

But then Kelo and BCFR are unconstitutional too.

What the Senate needs to be asking SCOTUS nominees is:
1. Do you read and speak English?
2. Have you actually read the Constitution?
.... because it's clear a majority presently on the Court have not.

--
Regards, Bob Niland (E-Mail Removed)
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Mars
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2006
yENC Man wrote:
> Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.


Don't miss "Intent To Annoy" from Paramount pictures
starring Ben Affleck, Roseanne Barr, Lewis Black and
that Hilton broad.

Coming soon to a theater near you.

Ed
 
Reply With Quote
 
Toolman Tim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2006
In news(E-Mail Removed),
philo spewed forth:
> "yENC Man" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:_kEwf.805$(E-Mail Removed) k.net...
>> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
>> "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy"
>> is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on
>> message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a
>> felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case could be
>> made that since most feedback is left on eBay using "handles" other
>> than the "real name" of the user, negative feedback that is left
>> with the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?
>>
>> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure
>> that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
>>

>
>
> yes
> that's why i always use my real pseudonym!


<VBG>!!

--
All that glitters has a high refractive index.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2006
In article <_kEwf.805$(E-Mail Removed) t>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
> "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy" is now a
> felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on message boards
> or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a felony...unless you use your
> real name. And I guess a case could be made that since most feedback is left
> on eBay using "handles" other than the "real name" of the user, negative
> feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?
>
> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure that this
> law has all kinds of good intentions.
>
>
> Via CNet News.com
>
> http://tinyurl.com/czaml
>
> Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
>
> 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.
>
> ...
>
> 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.


You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.

--

(E-Mail Removed)
remove 999 in order to email me
 
Reply With Quote
 
Toolman Tim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2006
In news:LZEwf.15222$%(E-Mail Removed),
Leythos spewed forth:
> In article <_kEwf.805$(E-Mail Removed) t>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
>> "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy"
>> is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on
>> message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a
>> felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case could be
>> made that since most feedback is left on eBay using "handles" other
>> than the "real name" of the user, negative feedback that is left
>> with the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?
>>
>> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure
>> that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
>>
>>
>> Via CNet News.com
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/czaml
>>
>> Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> 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.

>
> You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.


Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?

--
All that glitters has a high refractive index.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2006
In article <u2Fwf.539$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid
says...
> In news:LZEwf.15222$%(E-Mail Removed),
> Leythos spewed forth:
> > In article <_kEwf.805$(E-Mail Removed) t>,
> > (E-Mail Removed) says...
> >> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
> >> "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy"
> >> is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on
> >> message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a
> >> felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case could be
> >> made that since most feedback is left on eBay using "handles" other
> >> than the "real name" of the user, negative feedback that is left
> >> with the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?
> >>
> >> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure
> >> that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
> >>
> >>
> >> Via CNet News.com
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/czaml
> >>
> >> Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> 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.

> >
> > You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.

>
> Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?


Nothing electronic.

--

(E-Mail Removed)
remove 999 in order to email me
 
Reply With Quote
 
Toolman Tim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2006
In news:CaFwf.15319$%(E-Mail Removed),
Leythos spewed forth:
> In article <u2Fwf.539$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid
> says...
>> In news:LZEwf.15222$%(E-Mail Removed),
>> Leythos spewed forth:
>>> In article <_kEwf.805$(E-Mail Removed) t>,
>>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law
>>>> clearly. "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent
>>>> to annoy" is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting
>>>> comments on message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is
>>>> now a felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case
>>>> could be made that since most feedback is left on eBay using
>>>> "handles" other than the "real name" of the user, negative
>>>> feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a
>>>> potential felony?
>>>>
>>>> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure
>>>> that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Via CNet News.com
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/czaml
>>>>
>>>> Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.

>>
>> Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?

>
> Nothing electronic.


Well, since the news article is "quoting" text from the new law, and use the
word "annoy" in part of the quote, I'd bet that it's in there. Or Cnet News
could find themselves in trouble...

Be that as it may, I guess I'd better start using my real name, since I
*know* I annoy people all the time <G>

Oh - wait - my name *is* Tim. Go figure...

--
All that glitters has a high refractive index.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2006
In article <vfFwf.541$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid
says...
> In news:CaFwf.15319$%(E-Mail Removed),
> Leythos spewed forth:
> > In article <u2Fwf.539$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid
> > says...
> >> In news:LZEwf.15222$%(E-Mail Removed),
> >> Leythos spewed forth:
> >>> In article <_kEwf.805$(E-Mail Removed) t>,
> >>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> >>>> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law
> >>>> clearly. "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent
> >>>> to annoy" is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting
> >>>> comments on message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is
> >>>> now a felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case
> >>>> could be made that since most feedback is left on eBay using
> >>>> "handles" other than the "real name" of the user, negative
> >>>> feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a
> >>>> potential felony?
> >>>>
> >>>> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure
> >>>> that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Via CNet News.com
> >>>>
> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/czaml
> >>>>
> >>>> Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.
> >>
> >> Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?

> >
> > Nothing electronic.

>
> Well, since the news article is "quoting" text from the new law, and use the
> word "annoy" in part of the quote, I'd bet that it's in there. Or Cnet News
> could find themselves in trouble...
>
> Be that as it may, I guess I'd better start using my real name, since I
> *know* I annoy people all the time <G>
>
> Oh - wait - my name *is* Tim. Go figure...


Read what they actually posted, and read it where they use the words
Annoy. It the parts that they suggest and the parts that they quote,
it's not that same.

--

(E-Mail Removed)
remove 999 in order to email me
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mistakes, Criticism, and Flames Garrett Smith Javascript 3 08-28-2010 03:38 PM
adding some oil into the flames ;-) Bernhard Sturm HTML 13 01-27-2005 10:43 PM
Latest version ready for flames Richard HTML 62 01-21-2005 09:28 PM
Negative setup and Negative hold prem_eda VHDL 5 10-11-2004 12:14 PM
Flames John Haithwaite @ Blue Case Solutions Computer Support 2 07-08-2003 09:11 PM



Advertisments