NationStates Jolt Archive

It'll never stand up in court, mind you, but that doesn't make the law any less stupid (http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news).

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.
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."

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. I've got to admit--I'm at a loss here. I think I sprained my snarkmeter reading this one.

Wow. :eek:

...

:headbang:

That's because you're a farkign idiot, Nazz. A real kneebiter.


Signed-
David Campbell
213 Pennington Lane
Asheville NC, 29152

*taunts the jurisdiction of this law and farts in its general direction*

Wait, wait, wait.

Does that mean that it's now OK to threaten or abuse others over the internet as long as you disclose your identity?

*taunts the jurisdiction of this law and farts in its general direction*
My sentiments exactly. Though were I male, I'd also throw in a good genital waving at their mothers.

OK, it didn't pass on its own. It looks like an anti-stalking precaution to the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act.

It will still be funny seeing the trial for this one.

Wait, wait, wait.

Does that mean that it's now OK to threaten or abuse others over the internet as long as you disclose your identity?
I doubt it. This is kind of like the law that makes it an additional crime to disguise your features during the commission of a robbery. The robbery is still a crime, but making sure people don't recognise you is a further infraction.

I can kind of see where it is comming from and the general spirit of the law, ie its buried in a Violence against women act so IMO its designed to stop "cyber stalking", it could also be of use in text bullying cases if you have them in the states. It is probabaly being seen as a means of tightening loop holes in harrasment legislation and not a measure to stop silly internet arguements.

That's because you're a farkign idiot, Nazz. A real kneebiter.


Signed-
David Campbell
213 Pennington Lane
Asheville NC, 29152

Ahh! Thank you! My mail bombs need good homes.

LOL. I'm glad I live in Sweden. Legal immunity on the net, sweet!

I wonder if OSS, CIA, FBI, etc are excluded?

Signed-
Humprey B Bear

I blow my nose at Arlen Specter and co. I also proclaim their mothers to be hampsters and their fathers to smell of elderberries.

Sign up to my server now and post your flames via a Uk server, I will even include a random name & address in your sig from a hate list...

This is a fantastic law and couldn't happen to a better government... (smirking uncontrolably)

Well, I'm fucked. I'll try to stay in touch from Leavenworth. :(

Your dad is a pansy.

-signed
George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

I can kind of see where it is comming from and the general spirit of the law, ie its buried in a Violence against women act so IMO its designed to stop "cyber stalking", it could also be of use in text bullying cases if you have them in the states. It is probabaly being seen as a means of tightening loop holes in harrasment legislation and not a measure to stop silly internet arguements.Yeah--it's the use of the word "annoy" that makes the law so stupid. As the article noted, in its earlier form, it required that the person being charged cause something like intense emotional harm. That's a bit better, at least.

The government can kiss my shiny metal ass.

Signed,

Matthew James Francis Billings

does the law go into what exactly they mean by annoying?

because I annoy a lot of people just by being Christian, maybe I should have to disclose my identity all the time now?

that's not fair. :(

The government can kiss my shiny metal ass.

Signed,

Matthew James Francis Billings
Francis.

Hehehehe.

I wonder if OSS, CIA, FBI, etc are excluded?

Signed-
Humprey B Bear

Is that really you, Mr. Bear? I thought you were already the proud recipient of one of my mail bombs? I even laced yours with ebola pellets to take out the rest of the staff at your studio.

Curse you and your ursine resilience! Next time, Mr. Bear. Next time.

That's because you're a farkign idiot, Nazz. A real kneebiter.


Signed-
David Campbell
213 Pennington Lane
Asheville NC, 29152


Lol:D

Eh, how do we get to know if something we say is going to annoy someone ? Should we ask them first ? Is it ok if I just do a Lol to someone elses quoted post or could that be seen as an annoyance? I know, I'll change my real name to Daft Viagria. Anyway, this stuff we do on NS is no different to the bad mouthing the politicians do is it? (and some of our economies are better too)

My sentiments exactly. Though were I male, I'd also throw in a good genital waving at their mothers.

Who are hamsters and whose husbands smelt of elderberries!

(WB, by the by. I hope Cuba was nice.)

does the law go into what exactly they mean by annoying?

because I annoy a lot of people just by being Christian, maybe I should have to disclose my identity all the time now?

that's not fair. :(
It doesn't, which is a major part of the problem. And I think I annoy a considerable number of people by not being christian, so maybe we'll both have to come clean about who we are. :D

Francis.

Hehehehe.

I snickered, too. Awful people we are.

OK, it didn't pass on its own. It looks like an anti-stalking precaution to the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act.

It will still be funny seeing the trial for this one.
Do it For The Children!... or The Women!

Peh. What we need are fewer laws and thicker skins... And Women who aren't afraid (and are allowed) to shoot their stalkers.

Who are hamsters and whose husbands smelt of elderberries!

(WB, by the by. I hope Cuba was nice.)
Haven't gone yet...we fly out on the 19th. We got cheap flights, and can not bring ourselves to even go to the resorts. So we're backpacking it:)

It's too bad these forums are in the UK, or this would be a powerful new weapon for the moderators when dealing with trolls or flamers. "Not only will we DEAT you, we'll call the feds on your ass."

In case this annoyed anybody:

Signed,
Matthew James Francis Billings

Haven't gone yet...we fly out on the 19th. We got cheap flights, and can not bring ourselves to even go to the resorts. So we're backpacking it:)

And we had a thread about you having left and everything. If I can't rely on NS General for cold, hard facts, on whom can I?

Backpacking actually sounds like more fun than resorts.

It's too bad these forums are in the UK, or this would be a powerful new weapon for the moderators when dealing with trolls or flamers. "Not only will we DEAT you, we'll call the feds on your ass."

Would still be pointless for all us non-USians. You know, unless the CIA started kidnapping us off the street like they did to those people in Italy.

And we had a thread about you having left and everything. If I can't rely on NS General for cold, hard facts, on whom can I?

Backpacking actually sounds like more fun than resorts.
I don't know why, but I found that annoying. Name please

Yeah, well you know what ANNOYS me the most?

Those frickin' people around here that insist on debating points using substantiated facts!

I mean, really! How the fuck am I supposed to be a mindless sheeple if people are going to go and get all educated and shit? How can I possibly simple repeat talking points in complete oblivion to how baddly they've been twisted from anything remotely close to the truth if people feel some idiotic compelling need to go and do independant research?


Annoying! Annoying! ANNOYING!!!!!!!


So from here on in I expect all of you Yankee smart-asses who actually use anything remotely close to cogent prose to argue your points charged with violation of this act.



The truth is evil, and it must be stopped!

:D


Oh yeah. And spelling/grammer nazis annoy me too!

Fuck 'em.

I want names! I want addresses!


:D

I don't know why, but I found that annoying. Name please

Read the location field, beyotch. I am unconstrained by US law. :p

And we had a thread about you having left and everything. If I can't rely on NS General for cold, hard facts, on whom can I? A thread on it? Sheesh. *runs to search for it*

Backpacking actually sounds like more fun than resorts.
We got a crazy deal on airfare. $89 return, with taxes it's about $245. With the money we planned on spending in the resort being freed up, we can be living high on the hog, even backpacking it across Cuba. We're also taking 20 kilos of medicine courtesy of "Not Just Tourists (http://www.lagauche.ca/NotJustTourists-Edmonton/)" and all the excess Christmas toys our kids got. I can't bloody wait!

Does this mean that all of those that live in the land of the Free and the non paranoid litagous (ROTW basically) now have a license to Flame and troll, as a duty to weed out closet annoying Americans..

I'm glad to be in the UK, you fucking ignorant Roman soldiers.

Would still be pointless for all us non-USians. You know, unless the CIA started kidnapping us off the street like they did to those people in Italy.

I wouldn't be giving them any ideas. Flamers are a threat to national security, after all.

A thread on it? Sheesh. *runs to search for it*

I was gonna link you, but the search function is cross with me today.

We got a crazy deal on airfare. $89 return, with taxes it's about $245. With the money we planned on spending in the resort being freed up, we can be living high on the hog, even backpacking it across Cuba. We're also taking 20 kilos of medicine courtesy of "Not Just Tourists (http://www.lagauche.ca/NotJustTourists-Edmonton/)" and all the excess Christmas toys our kids got. I can't bloody wait!

La Gauche! Hah! :) I know a few med students who went to Cuba on a Global Medicine course and they did the same thing. Commendable of you for thinking of it, but those prices are insane. Allow me to commence a five minute period of resentment of you.

Flamers are a threat to national security, after all.

Story of my life...

Story of my life...
Nah Toots.. You're all about national insecurity... ;)

These guys can take this law and go fuck themselves! I highly doubt this would survive in a court case.

Signed
-Mt-tau

I am going outside to wait for those black choppers now. :D

Nah Toots.. You're all about national insecurity... ;)

I would be a poor anti-nationalist if I weren't.

Story of my life...

Ha ha! Double entendre.

Ha ha! Double entendre.

Ouais - je me tue...

Ha ha! Double entendre.
Zing.

Because if people get annoyed by anonymous opinions, THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON.

It'll never stand up in court, mind you, but that doesn't make the law any less stupid.



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.
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."

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.

I've got to admit--I'm at a loss here. I think I sprained my snarkmeter reading this one.

The key phrase is "..with intent to..", by which I can claim that I had no
intention to do any of those things, and free myself of this silly stricture.

Someone would have to PROVE that my intention was to annoy, abuse,
threaten or harrass.

Abuse, threat and harrassment could be more easily proved as the content of
the communication actually defines whether those conditions are met.

Annoying people, on the other hand, which is what I specialize in (I avoid the
others as they are "not nice" to do to people), is not provable as to intent if
the author has half the brain of a gerbil.

-Iakeo

Allow me to commence a five minute period of resentment of you.
Done?

If they take away the right to anonymously insult and degrade people over the internet, what's left?! I guess I'll have to start writing insults on cards and letting them go on balloons.

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/6403/internetserious8en.jpg

Done?

Done. I am now back to my normal attitude when it comes to you.

I wouldn't be giving them any ideas. Flamers are a threat to national security, after all.


of course they are. don't you remember the poor guy they busted for just making a joke about a "burning Bush"? the kind of paranoid psychotics who'd make a law like this aren't likely to know the difference between a "flamer" and a "flame-thrower".

:headbang:

...
I am going outside to wait for those black choppers now. :D

by all means, wait for them. here, let me show you how...


:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:

(I can't find any flame-throwers)

Zing.

I prefer burn. But my intent wasn't to insult Fass. It just worked out that way.

Wait, wait, wait.

Does that mean that it's now OK to threaten or abuse others over the internet as long as you disclose your identity?
Apparently, but when you disclose your identity you open yourself to being sued for libel, defamation of character and God only knows what else, which I suspect is the basic intent of the law.

The problem will be determining who the perpetrator is ( since only those who post anonomously are violating the law ), and then finding a competent jurisdiction in which to sue them ... and after that you still have to prove your case. Not an easy path to follow, IMHO.

It'll never stand up in court, mind you, but that doesn't make the law any less stupid (http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news).

I've got to admit--I'm at a loss here. I think I sprained my snarkmeter reading this one.

For once, I agree with you Nazz. Does this mean all of us here who are americans are guilty?

For once, I agree with you Nazz. Does this mean all of us here who are americans are guilty?

Pretty much. :p

I prefer burn. But my intent wasn't to insult Fass. It just worked out that way.

The thing is, I was the one playing with the double entendre from the get go. Kind of hard for me to become insulted then, wouldn't you find, my Bostonian chum?

If they take away the right to anonymously insult and degrade people over the internet, what's left?! I guess I'll have to start writing insults on cards and letting them go on balloons.

no! you'd kill the poor defenceless, when the balloons land on the water and the whales swallow them.

Read the location field, beyotch. I am unconstrained by US law. :p
Niether am I. I want your details for what sweden did to the rest of Europe in WW2.
(and why is it you guys name yourselves after a vegetable?)

My sig says it all. I hope it annoys everyone. Gday mates.

Niether am I. I want your details for what sweden did to the rest of Europe in WW2.

We did nothing. That's sort of the point.

(and why is it you guys name yourselves after a vegetable?)

You do know that Sweden , the English name for our country, is not the Swedish name for our country? Or that the true name for the vegetable "swede" is "rutabaga," that comes from the Swedish "rotabagge."