anti-skippy legislation?

[stevew]

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...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."

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.

[GrantDawg]

"Annoy" as a legal term? This couldn't possibily cause problems.

[digamma]

That's really annoying.

[rkmsuf]

"Did you injure your body in any way or were you hurt by his words?"

"We'll he said some mean awful things and I was initially hurt by his words and then I fell down some stairs and my shoes fell off and I hate that."

[Cringer]

I just saw this about an hour ago on another sight. It is pretty sad. I love our government.

[st.cronin]

I don't think 'infeasible' is a word.

[rkmsuf]

Damages will probably be like 10 dollars and annoyance.

[KWhit]

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.

This practice is used all the time and it pisses me off!

[kcchief19]

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. One of our FOFC lawyers will have to speak to whether or not the technical details are accurate.

I think this is a a case of someone getting overly excited about text in a bill and then selectively choosing which portions to quote to make it sound more menacing. If you want to see the result for yourself, this is the Telecommunication Act of 1934 as it was last amended before last week's amendment. The second link will take you to details over what language was changed:

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf (page 34)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...VIjIho:e91030:

In essence, the only thing the law did was to add Internet to existing laws that govern harrassing and obscene phone calls. There are some obvious flaws in the law -- there's not definition of revealing identity; I think anyone could make a pretty fair case that on a moderated message board with user names or using e-mail addresses that you have "revealed" your identity. But other than that, the law is still pretty narrowly defined that I don't think there are too many things that would fall into this. You still have to prove intent to annoy; are people just jerks or are they being annoying?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Lemme see here, taking the reality check that kcchief just added with the snippets of info gleaned from the original post ... hmm ... sounds to me like they've just signed an anti-trolling measure into law.

Damn, finally we get a law that we can really get some good out of.

Eh, who am I kidding? The enforcement will be botched as often as not, the cases will be jurisdiction shopped to death, and it will ultimately just be one more great idea that doesn't accomplish a damn thing.

Me? Cynical? WTF gave you that idea?

[Subby]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Damages will probably be like 10 dollars and annoyance.

You''ll be hearing from my lawyers you annoying prick.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Chris

You''ll be hearing from my lawyers you annoying prick.

That's annoying. Countersuit.

[SFL Cat]

This whole thread is annoying and should be shut down. Do it or I sue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

This whole thread is annoying and should be shut down. Do it or I sue.

That threat is annoying ... see you in court

[Daimyo]

Given that there is a lot of annoying shit on this forum and almost no one uses their real name... does that mean we all lack integrity for participating in a forum that facilitates illegal activity? Or does that only happen when you (legally) attempt to trade used games here?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Given that there is a lot of annoying shit on this forum and almost no one uses their real name... does that mean we all lack integrity for participating in a forum that facilitates illegal activity? Or does that only happen when you (legally) attempt to trade used games here?

See I'm covered here. I use my real name so I can annoy the crap out of anyone I want to.

[vtbub]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

See I'm covered here. I use my real name so I can annoy the crap out of anyone I want to.

Ok, Ann Jones

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't think 'infeasible' is a word.

Oh, but it is. Just like "inconceivable!"

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

This whole thread is annoying and should be shut down. Do it or I sue.

I find frivolous lawsuits annoying. The authorities have been notified.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Oh, but it is. Just like "inconceivable!"

It's perfectly cromulent.

[panerd]

Just contacted my lawyer. You are on your last days wearwolf threads!

[flere-imsaho]

This new law is great! I just ran down to my local police station to press charges against Dutch, JiMGA & Cam!

[Coffee Warlord]

I'm changing careers to bounty hunter. I'm gonna get rich tracking down all the criminally annoying and hauling their asses to jail!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This new law is great! I just ran down to my local police station to press charges against Dutch, JiMGA & Cam!

No worries, I believe intent is part of this & I can honestly say that I've never posted a single thing specifically to annoy you.

(As far as I can tell, "not giving a flying fuck whether it annoys you or not" is different than "intentionally annoying you" ... )

[Airhog]

dammit, did skydog go to washington?

Maybe we need a remake of the movie Mr. Smith goes to washington

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

It's perfectly cromulent.

It's good to see someone embiggened to use that word.

SI