New Llaw passed, Please read.....

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by NewsGuy, Jan 10, 2006.

  1. NewsGuy

    NewsGuy Guest

    PERSPECTIVE: CREATE AN E-ANNOYANCE, GO TO JAIL.....
    http://news.com.com/Create an e-annoyance, go to jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=fd_carsl
    By Declan McCullagh
    Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST

    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.

    ************************
    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.
     
    NewsGuy, Jan 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. NewsGuy

    Guest

    Re: New Llaw passed, Please read.....[ninnyboy] [jerry]

    [PREFACE: Anyone reading my posts, would you PLEASE killfile me if you
    haven't already. Ever since Jerry Howe both criticized me for being an
    idiot because his "manual" didn't work, and then also berated and
    ridiculed me for being a dog abuser when my Malamute died of a blood
    clotting disorder, I'll continue to write to him and warn others of
    this brutally evil entity until he leaves. Sorry for the
    inconvenience.]

    Hey AssHowe - what do you think about THIS?

    Just about 99.9% of what you write is harassment, and you can be damn
    sure your posts will be forwarded to the authorities.

    HOW do you like that, Chief?

    Who's gonna sue who???

    Mail us from prison...

    -Pat
     
    , Jan 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. everetjo

    Re: Lunar New Year. Please read!

    everetjo, Jan 21, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    413
    everetjo
    Jan 21, 2004
  2. Lencome

    Lunar New Year. Please read!

    Lencome, Jan 22, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    504
    Lencome
    Jan 22, 2004
  3. Biz
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    845
  4. kemp
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    725
    Frisbee®
    Oct 13, 2006
  5. larya
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    558
    thanatoid
    Sep 11, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page