|
|
|
Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right."
-H.L. Menken |
01-09-2006, 04:05 PM
|
#1
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 325
|
Is this a joke?
I really hope this is a joke, but sadly, I don't think it is. Just one more reason to dislike Bush.
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html
*Edit*
Post the article next time please:
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
By Declan McCullagh
Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PS
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."
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.
__________________
And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.
~William Shakespeare
Last edited by Empty_Purple_Stars; 01-09-2006 at 04:33 PM.
|
|
|
01-09-2006, 04:25 PM
|
#2
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbia, S.C. (USA)
Posts: 363
|
John Stewart would LOVE this!
__________________
~E.D.
~v~ ~v~ ~v~
"What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is it all you wanted to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks?
Would you find yourself [or]
Find yourself afraid to see?..." -NIN
|
|
|
01-09-2006, 04:27 PM
|
#3
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Right Here
Posts: 3,442
|
I think the first three words of the story clear your 'Is it a Joke?' question up.
I have very mixed feelings on this referendum. I have been the victim of several crimes via the Internet, unfortunately. The person involved on one occasion was prosecuted for Destruction of Private Property if I remember the final charge correctly.
However in another case, someone posted my private contact information and attained my DMV report illegally and I didn't have anywhere to turn. The local law enforcement wouldn't get involved, and neither would the FBI. This person intended to do me harm, and as a result someone acted on the contact info posted and actually tried to break into my house in the middle of the night. It was a terrifying experience. Even with all of the proof we had, system logs etc. we couldn't get anyone to prosecute or even charge this individual. I had to change my drivers license number as a result. Nothing was ever done, and they got away clean without so much as a slap on the wrist.
There DOES need to be more legislation in place to protect people who are stalked, harassed and otherwise victimized by people intending to do them some form of serious harm.
Is this that legislation? Without further research I just don't know.
Sure personal privacy is important, but NO ONE should have a total Carte Blanche to cause harm to another person in ANY way and get away with it just because the harm was done via the Internet.
It's nice to be self-righteous about your rights being taken away until your life and your childs life is in danger because of something that someone on 'Teh Intranet' did to you, just to be malicious.
My perspective is certainly permanently changed.
It will interesting to see how this all pans out.
At least someone, somewhere is taking the problem more seriously these days.
Because it IS a BIG problem.
*sigh*
Last edited by Empty_Purple_Stars; 01-09-2006 at 04:36 PM.
|
|
|
01-09-2006, 05:13 PM
|
#4
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 579
|
True story unfortunately - and to make matters worse the crime was committed on a pice of government equipment. But pretty much because the guy DIDN'T get into her house and DIDN't ****, maim, or kill her or her son there was pretty much nothing that local law or FBI was willing to do. Case closed. Yeehaw...
|
|
|
01-10-2006, 12:10 AM
|
#5
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,055
|
Maybe there could be legislation made that if an anonymous person is directly threatening your safety/livelihood then they can be prosecuted?
That would take care of death threats, the posting of personal addresses, and the like.
With telephone calls, if you can be tracked you will be prosecuted for threatening people but from what I understand the law differentiates between prank calls (which are still punishable) and actual threats.
Why can't that be used as a basis for internet harrassment?
|
|
|
01-15-2006, 04:52 PM
|
#6
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The moon. In a box.
Posts: 33
|
Baha, thats ridiculous.
|
|
|
01-22-2006, 08:57 PM
|
#7
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3
|
Although I don't live in the States and this certainly won't affect me, I do think that it is necessary to implement that. As some of you said, there's a great difference between 'annoy' and 'harrass'. I mean, what about freedom of speech? But still, a very good friend of mine was harrassed through the internet by some guy who had already tried to **** a friend of hers, so I think it is important make that distinction.
Twisted, morbid and clever rapists suck.
|
|
|
01-22-2006, 10:04 PM
|
#8
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 145
|
OK, let me get this straight were still aloud to flame so long as someone does not try to...hide that its them? So that means what, that I could post private info about others (or harass them) and so long as its possible to figure out its me I cant get in trouble? WHAT?? Im confused.
|
|
|
01-23-2006, 12:13 AM
|
#9
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 750 mi north of AZ equivalent to Derry, Maine
Posts: 673
|
I'm sure most of you know about this already, but for anyone interested in current, past, and proposed legislation regarding internet privacy, harrassment, or basically anything having to do with law concerning electroncic transmissions over almost any media, and especially freedom of speech over these media, check out the Electronic Freedom Foundation at eff.org. If you subscibe to their free newsletter, they will send you all kinds of info on the above subject and many related items, ranging from free speech to illegal wiretapping and unauthorized searching/ reading of your email. They have a lot of really useful, informative stuff. Check it out.
__________________
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with catsup." - unknown
question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormtrooper of Death
(shouts) WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG??!!?
|
answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows
Because some people are dicks. And not everyone else is gay.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:29 PM.
|
|