Thanks to Queen Anthai for drawing the following to my attention: According to a brand spanking new law, it is now illegal for internet denizens to–get this–“annoy” people while posting under fake names.
Now I’ve been an outspoken critic of people who snipe from anonymity. But it would never have occurred to me to ask the government to step in and do something about it. I’d just as soon leave it in the hands of resourceful guys like Glenn. As much as the notion of sending X-Ray to the lock-up for a couple years appeals to me, certainly this has to be a travesty of First Amendment inteference. I can just see it:
“What are you in for?”
“I shot and killed a Federal agent. What about you?”
“I pìššëd øff Peter David on his website”
Did anyone tell Bush that there are amendments other than the second that he’s supposed to protect? Read more at:
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=nefd.top
• 
OMG, she is gonna be so tickled that you mentioned her in your blog! I wonder how long before she posts about it in hers… 😀
1Come on, this is the interenet. If you can’t some good clean annoymus fun here, where can you have it?
P.S. Love Ted Stevens Hulk tie
Josh
If it is an anonymous annoyance, how exactly will they know who to prosecute? Will the act of simple annoyance be enough to get a search warrant?
On the plus side, I think it makes MySpace illegal.
Idiotic law, sure to be overturned.
Bush should not have signed it, no excuses there. Of course, when it gets buried “into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice” it’s easy to slip crap like this through.
If only Bush were the problem…it passed the Senate unanimously. Not a single vote against. Wow.
And not to further discourage my liberal friends but the list of cosponsors of the bill read like a who’s who of (coff) progressive voices: Conyers, Jackson-Lee, Nadler, Waters, etc. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03402:@@@P)
Sadly, the only hope is that Bush will direct the justice Department not to enforce it. Looks like both the liberals and conservatives let us down big time on this one.
Oh yeah, and since I use my real name…SCREW YOU ALL!!! Ah ha ha ha ha ha!
Seriously though…imagine X-Ray in prison, surrounded by tough cons, hard men all (booyah!), having to tell them how he got there. “I called Peter David a bad name.” Yeah, THERE’S some mad street cred.
Only the U.S. Government would equate a prank call at 3AM with a post on some website at 3AM. One wakes you up while the other makes you just shake your head. It’s laughable.
I’m with you about anonymous and pseudonymous trolls. I like the idea of this legislation, but I can’t really see it being enforceable. It’s like anti-spam legislation – pass all the laws you want, there will always be someone from Nigeria or its ilk wanting you to send them your bank account number…
Now I wonder, as a lowly Canuck, will I still be able to snark with impunity? Perhaps extradition and a Cuban vacation would be in order. You guys have got to retake the castle before all this damage is completely irreversable. The law against impure thought will surely be tabled soon.
On the plus side, I think it makes MySpace illegal.
BWAHAHA.
Ahem.
What’s the big deal? The government is monitoring all our communications anyway so no one is anonymous any more.
When I first read of this on another site, X-Ray was the first thing I thought of also. For a cowardly little šhìŧ he/she certainately made an impression.
Besides, I think this law is aimed more at going after stalkers than trolls.
—————
Did anyone tell Bush that there are amendments other than the second that he’s supposed to protect?
Like he does the fourth?
“I pìššëd øff Peter David on his website”
They all moved away from me on the Group W bench…
“…and creating a disturbance” and they all came back and we …
(I’m too lazy right now to google the rest)
So, is writing annoying fanfiction/erotica/erotic fanfiction a crime under this law? And would it really be that bad?
Seriously, this law won’t stand. Some people view the freedom of the Internet as a danger to be regulated while it can; I suspect it won’t be long at all before the Internet enjoys the same freedoms as print and, well, maybe not television…
Hëll, I’ll be among the first to admit that I post under a pseudonym, and am unashamed to do so, since, at least around where I live, the people most likely to be “annoyed” by what I have to say are the same type of people who burn crosses on people’s lawns. If it were just me, I wouldn’t worry so much, but I’ve got a family to think about now.
Heck, just last month I wrote a letter to the editor about the so-called “War on Christmas,” and “Good Christians” started calling my home. No thank you, not again…
-Rex Hondo-
You mean that isn’t your real name? That’s too bad, Rex Hondo would be great. Especially if you were a member of the Jonny Quest team.
Ok, before we all go off with pitchforks and torches and those large rake things the villagers always carry in the Frankenstein movies, there may be less to this than meets the eye. A few other sites have been blogging about this and some are claiming that this is a tempest in a teapot.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/09/flame_someone_anonym.html
Uh, try again. Maybe you guys should read the text of the bill… this is a wildly inaccurate interpretation of the bill, in which the word “annoy” appears not once. The word “annoy” appears in *existing* legislation (Communications Act of 1934) and it does not include any communication a recipient might find annoying. Furthermore, the identity provision is not specified in the amendment discussed. Your article is, indeed, a joke.
followed by:
Your latest reader comment has it exactly right. The anonymous harassment provision is the old telephone-annoyance statute that has been on the books for decades. It was updated in the widely (and in many respects deservedly) ridiculed Communications Decency Act to include new technologies, and the cases make clear its applicability to Internet communications. See, e.g., ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 829 n.5 (E.D. Pa. 1996), aff’d, 521 U.S. 824 (1997). Unlike the indecency provisions of the CDA, this scope update was not invalidated in the courts and remains fully effective.
In other words, the latest amendment, which supposedly adds Internet communications devices to the scope of the law, is meaningless surplusage.
So….if I’m understanding this, the law basically does to emails what has long been the case with phone calls. “Annoy” is an awfully vague word. I haven’t seen many prosecutions over annoying phone calls, which is why my Uncle Mort walks the streets a free man still.
Shouldn’t apply at all to blogs. It applies to “transmissions”, not to Internet sites that someone must seek out. Of course, a publicity seeking judge could rule broadly enough that anything could be considered a transmission but I think we might be able to breath a bit easier.
Hey, where are our resident Legal Minds? Is this mountain or molehill?
No legal mind here, but basically the argument for the law is that the internet goes through phone lines, therefore the government can regulate.
However, wi-fi will probably make all this very messy.
going off on a tangent, to show how screwy the law is, (and on this I speak from experience), you can threaten a person face to face & the police can do nothing, but if you call the person on the phone & make the same threat, then the police can take action. At least here in New York.
Good catch, Bill – my husband also pointed out that it was the old telephone statute expanded. I’m frankly amazed at how knee-jerk incensed some of my fellow progressives got at this legislation. In my 10+ years online I’ve been at the receiving end of some very nasty trolling by pseudonymous cowards, and as far as I’m concerned the First Amendment doesn’t enter into it, since these trolls aren’t actually standing behind their own words when they attack others. Meanwhile not a few members of the liberal blogosphere are busy twisting themselves into knots misinterpreting the word “annoying” to refer in theory to themselves, which is oddly telling…
Soooo, is Peter David your real name? I bet I could get you sent for 20 years in the cooler for the “freedom” clock alone. ; )
There’s a number of thoughts that can be made about this…
Is this law intended to be anti-spam? Or is it something else?
With Bush, I can’t rule out the possibility that this is another pot shot toward political dissidents and so forth.
Like PAD said, Bush has shown a complete disregard for 9/10ths of the Bill of Rights, so this might not be any different.
Here’s to hoping Alito is filibustered in the name of individual rights.
The problem with simply expanding the existing telecommunications act to email and message boards is that, as somebody pointed out, a telemarketer calling you at 3 am or just as you’re about to eat dinner is an interruption. Spam may be annoying, but it takes about 1/2 a second to delete and you only see it when you access your account.
What is the average age in the Senate? 60? 65? Maybe they don’t understand that these are completely different kinds of communication media.
Reading the article that Peter linked to, I saw that the word “annoy” appeared in the Communications Decency Act, but the courts ruled that it only applied to obscene materials.
Now we just need someone in the government to define obscene.
Another point: How does one stop an “annoying” email from Nigeria? Is that guy who keeps offering me half of $5 million going to be extradicted? Or just “extraordinarily renditioned”?
I find this creeping idea that the government can simply declare that certain media are publicly owned, therefore, the 1st amendment doesn’t apply. Already, we have senators who want to extend the FCC’s undefined decency standards to cable TV. Satellite radio will undoubtably be next, so don’t get comfortable, Howard Stern.
What’s next? Hey, most trees in this country are harvested on federally owned land, why not declare that anything printed on paper is “publicly owned” and therefore has to conform to what the FCC thinks is “indecent”?
Does this mean if I spell my name wrong in a rush to post something, and someone out there deems my post annoying, I can be prosecuted?
Lord help the dyslexic, and Lord help the semi-literate, one-eyed, pipe-smoking, spinich-eating sailors.
“Yer honor, I canks helps meself that me spellin’ ain’t so good when I use the compuker. I yam what I yam!”
A real shame people don’t read all the replys before posting.
Be interesting to see how it pans out.
Personally, if I’m prepared to say something in public, I’m prepared to put my name to it, and Gawd knows there are enough irritating little sods out there sniping from the undergrowth that dámņ near anything that thins their ranks does have a certain appeal…
Then again, that ‘burning crosses’ post does raise a valid point!
So basically this means that on all those gaming site message boards (example: City of Heroes, Biowares Knight of the Old Republic) where you can sign in as the name of a character, and your real name is hidden…all those people can prosecute if they get flamed????
Judge: why are you here today?
Annoyed Person: he said my wookie was underpowered and ugly!
Instead of taking PAD’s word for it (or some hack columnist), why not go to the actual text. What a concept! So here we go: the original text. As you’ll see, the word “annoy” (caps mine) was in the U.S. Code before the new law was passed:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000223—-000-.html
TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part I > § 223 Prev | Next
§ 223. Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications
(a) Prohibited acts generally
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;
(B) 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 or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to ANNOY, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
The new bill that Bush signed into law amends the above thusly:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109Cu0e7D:e91030:
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.
As near as I can tell, what the amendment does is make it clear that a “telecommunications device” can be a device that uses the Internet. This strikes me as an uncontroversial bit of news, although in the hands of one in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome, it of course becomes scandalous.
-Dave O’Connell
Dave, I would suppose that your reasoned interpretation of the new statute would carry more weight if you didn’t accuse anyone who disagreed with you of having a mental illness. I’d like to know your qualifications as a psychologist.
I still have issues with lumping the internet in with other telecommunications devices like phones because the nature of the medium is very different. How is an “annoying” email defined? How do you enforce it when the sender is in another country? Grafting internet regulations onto existing telecommunications law shows a complete lack of understanding of the internet on the part of our lawmakers.
Yeah well, it’s ONLY the 1st Ammendment. We have to keep striving for that sterile environment where no-one has negative or unpure thoughts. A society that does not question it’s government because it acts in it’s best interest at all times. We must move away from blogging and free thought and questioning our neocon masters and spend more time in church and slaving to the media. *Okay…I’ve gone overboard. HEHE* My real problem is are we ever going to seriously get to a point where crap doesn’t keep getting slipped into other bills? Things like this, happen all the time. Sometimes, I just bang my head into the wall…I keep hoping one day, maybe I’ll turn into the Hulk and fix things. LOL. 🙂
Ok, it’s an expansion on the limitation of free expression. That’s bad. But it’s an expansion only in the means of limitation, not the kind of limitation. Which is, not so bad?
Den, I agree, it does speak of congress’ rather flip assumption that it can regulate internet communication. Which, when we’re talking about e-mail, and not message boards liks this, amounts to private conversations. And that should be troubling to everyone, because it does open the door further to government regulation of what people can and can’t say to each other in a private conversation.
But I think too many people are focusing on the term “annoy” here. Making an annoying statement isn’t enough: it also has to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent.” Annoy plays into part of the intent of the maker of the statement. Good luck proving that in most cases.
It’s a flag raising issue, to be sure, but only the tiniest of flags. And probably something that suggests that Capitol Hill folks have way too much time on their hands. They can barely get a defense bill passed on time, but then can pass this kind of tripe?
How much would this affect the first amendment?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
You still get to do all that, so long as you put your real name to it.
Funny, my copy of the first amendment doesn’t have the clause “but only if you use your real name” in it.
I wonder why Samuel Clemens was never charged with “annoying” politicians in his day. He certainly made many of them the butt of his satire under a fake name.
Making an annoying statement isn’t enough: it also has to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent.”
Still waiting for that FCC regulatory definition of “obscene”.
Dave, I would suppose that your reasoned interpretation of the new statute would carry more weight if you didn’t accuse anyone who disagreed with you of having a mental illness. I’d like to know your qualifications as a psychologist.
It’s more of a rhetorical device than anything. I don’t expect the AMA to officially classify it as a disorder. But to trump up any old thing to get at somebody (as this columnist did) does indeed strike me as “deranged.”
-Dave O’Connell
This wouldn’t apply to internet forums. Check the phrase “any person … who receives the communications.” E-mails are received, discussion on internet forums is willfully *retrieved*. At the very worst, the host of the forum could be forced to provide users with ignore-filtering capabilities. But more than likely, the the complainant will just be told “if you don’t like it, don’t read it.”
“Still waiting for that FCC regulatory definition of “obscene”. “
You’ll know it when the FCC sees it.
I don’t expect the AMA to officially classify it as a disorder.
Well the AMA wouldn’t, because it’s the American Psychiatric Association (APA) that publishes the DSM-IV, the book that lists all officially recognized mental diseases and disorders.
But to trump up any old thing to get at somebody (as this columnist did) does indeed strike me as “deranged.”
Bush signed the law. Peter had some objection to it based on what he had read. Are you saying that anyone who interprets the law differently from you is deranged? Maybe his interpretation was a little mistaken, but how does that make him deranged? That just makes you sound spiteful and contemptuous of anyone who doesn’t share your view of the current president.
Personally, I think a case can be made for charges of harrasment if you continuously email someone once they’ve made it clear they don’t wish to speak to you (and even then, don’t law makers know about Block Sender and Exlcusivity settings?), or perhaps computer trespass charges for trolls and spammers who visit sites once they’ve been banned, but what does it matter if the sender is anonymous? What does that have to do with anything?
Den wrote: “I still have issues with lumping the internet in with other telecommunications devices like phones because the nature of the medium is very different.” … “Grafting internet regulations onto existing telecommunications law shows a complete lack of understanding of the internet on the part of our lawmakers.”
Are you claiming the two mediums are different from a technical standpoint or philosophical standpoint? If it’s the former, then I strongly disagree with you. Fundamentally, both mediums operate by manipulating electrons to facilitate one- or two-way communication; both involve a transmitting and a receiving device; and both are housed in a person’s private residence.
I’m saying they’re different from a usage standpoint. When you receive a phone call, your phone rings and you are distracted from what you were doing at the time. That’s why telemarketers are so annoying.
Emails are sent to the inbox created by your ISP and downloaded when you choose to access your account. Spam may be annoying, but accessing it doesn’t interrupt what you were doing.
I suppose an argument could be made that someone who fills your inbox to the limit is causing you genuine harm. You may be missing essential communications when you hit your limit.
At any rate, let’s just be happy that what seemed to be a big deal apparently turns out to be considerably less than one.
But as Luigi already pointed out, unless that person changes email accounts daily, blocking the sending solves the problem of trying to overflow a person’s email account.
How many emails would one person have to send in order to do that anyway? My free Yahoo email account has a 1 GB limit. It has over 1300 undeleted messages (I haven’t bothered to clean it out in a few years) and according to the indicator, that’s only 5% of capacity. Someone would have to set up a server to continuously bombard your box. Hackers might try that against a large company, but to target an individual like that would take some serious hate.
And the solution that is to simply change YOUR email address.
I really don’t know if this is a problem that’s common but I did have my email service shut down once-not because they filled up the inbox but because somebody had it rigged up that I was receiving an unbelievable amount of email in a matter of seconds. The server shut me down and it took a while to straighten it out. The purpose of this escapes me.
Sure, you can change your email address but that’s like saying that the solution to obscene phone callers is to get an unlisted number.
I suspect the impetuous for all this was the rise in cyber stalking and cyber harassment–I see stuff like this in High School more and more, people using text messaging to really bully some kids. Mostly girls torturing some other poor girl. I don’t think it’s something I’d send them to jail for…maybe a good kick in the ášš. (of course if it were one of MY girls being targeted my solution would involve pliers and blowtorches).
And the solution that is to simply change YOUR email address.
Oh, but that argument can be made against things that are very clearly harassment. “All you have to do is [change your job, move, get an unlisted phone no., etc.]”.
If someone is taking actions where your only means of being able to live your life involve a change among the above, I think that qualifies as harassment.
As for this — I’m glad that this appears to be a not especially huge deal. As for “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, Dave … well, my apologies if the administration’s previous blatant impositions on freedom of speech make me sensitive to spotting other potential ones. I’m glad this one doesn’t appear to be; I won’t apologize for being vigilant, however, and you should not expect same.
TWL
I don’t buy your usage argument, Den, because if one owns an answering machine and sets it to screen one’s calls, the telemarketing calls (Spam) are queued up and waiting when one opts to check — just like e-mail on a computer. Fundamentally, there is no difference, in my opinion.
Most ISPs these days offer multiple email addresses, so requesting a new address is a lot easier then changing your phone number or moving.
And Maheras, sure you can setup an answering machine, but your phone is still going to ring and disrupt your day unless you turn the ringer off. And what if you’re expecting an important call? Even if you have caller ID -and most telemarketers block their ID- you still have to check it. And if it’s blocked, you have to pick it up and find it that it’s some áššhølë that wants to talk about your auto insurance.
Yes, spam is annoying, but not to the degree that telemarketing is. Email is also text-based, not sound. Somebody calling you up and blowing an airhorn into the phone is infinitely more “annoying” then an email offering to sell you a vibrator.
To me, this law is mostly a solution in search of a problem.
And Tim, I agree, Bush has definitely primed the pump for people to assume the worst from the government these days on freedom of speech and the right to privacy. I’m sad that some people feel that being extra-vigilant about our freedoms is a sign of “derangement.” I guess that’s the times we live in.
Yes, this law is limited to harassment (or annoyance) that actually causes distress or damage to the recipient.
And FISA limited no-notice wiretaps to those obtained with a warrant – even one after the fact. And this administration still managed to expand their interpretation to make warrants unnecessary.
If the trend continues, how long until some neocon “public servant” expands the definition of this law to include, say, any mass mailings on behalf of a non-Republican politician? After all, if the neocons are the only ones truly serving our country, as they maintain, then “tricking” someone into voting for a different politico would be harming their best interests, right?
Speaking of stupid laws…
How about this one out of the UK getting back into the news: British men face trial over “Al-Jazeera bombing” leak.
The two were arrested under Britain’s Official Secrets Act. Yet, while the White House has called this memo “outlandish” and Blair has denied that Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera, the British government is putting these two men on trial and have threatened the media with arrests should they leak the memo any further.
If there’s nothing to it, why is there a trial?
“Still waiting for that FCC regulatory definition of “obscene”.”
From the FCC FAQ pages…
What makes material “obscene?” Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.
Now, what would the FCC have to do with this anyway?