Flaming anonymously on the internet now illegal

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

This is a joke, right?

So creating a fake name and IMing someone for shits and giggles is now a Federal offense? :rolleyes: Though how would one find you?

I especially like this part:

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.)

Nothing like having to trust government "prosecutorial discretion" :rolleyes:

So my annonymous blog criticizing the Bush administration might annoy the Republicans and subject me to prosecution, while someone else's blog supporting President Bush might annoy me, but that could be OK? :p

I could understand making it illegal to harrass or annoy someone privately with emails or something, but this sounds a little ridiculous.

Maybe it's part of "The War on Terror"? :rolleyes:

Half the people online take fake names and act annoyingly.

At least Neal Pulcawer no longer hides behind a pseudonym.

Sounds like a form of communism if you ask me.

Could our representatives be that stupid as to allow something like this to slip by?

Personally, I think that this is all a hoax.


Don Cardi

Yet another of the stupid laws made lately.

That is utterly riciculous, but, I imagine this would only be use in extreme harrassment cases.

Would political parody be considered annoying to the target(s)? Because that's legal, and there's nothing they can do about it. Do we have to fear that, now?

Would it be okay if I said "This is J Geoff Malta, and I think President Bush is turning into a real fucking dickhead" be okay, if I use my real name?

I'm gonna say they finally are working for (all) The People. :p

Frankly, there is almost nothing that our representatives might do that is so stupid that it would surprise me.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. People need to grow up and learn not to be so fragile as to what is usually a complete stranger has to say--not even to their face, but--via internet.

And what am I supposed to do with my Thursday evenings now!?

"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".

Please, if any board members live in Pennyslvania, vote against Specter when he next comes up for reelection. He's becoming rather annoying.

Specter's one of the few good guys on your side.

I don't get it. I can surely see if you threaten someone or harrass/cyberally stalk someone, that it would be illegal, but what's annoying???? And who determines what is? If you sign your true name it's ok? They can't be talking about general discussions/debates no?

I read a while back on another site and blogs that something like this was coming, but I just thought everyone was paranoid. I would sure like to see more clarification because the impression this article gives of this law totally sucks!!! It can't be constitutional can it??? Let's see how much media coverage this gets, because I got a feeling it'll be gone shortly. Or at least til the first person is busted for calling some politician a "dickhead" and using a false name. :p Half the BB or more will be doing time.


TIS

I'm all for doing illegal stuff. What would be fun about it if it was legal? Hey, welcome to Iran.

So that's why the LAPD had my house surrounded today when I got home!! They were blabbing on and on about some "annoyance" of some sort, but I didn't really get it at the time. It's all clear to me now.

Okay, so which one of you jerks made the call?

I researched this even further and found out the following ;

SEC. 109. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223 (h) of the Communications Act of 1934 was amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:


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.


I found nothing that suggests, as the author of that article does, that "It REWRITES existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

It seems to me that all that was done was to add an amendment to a 72 year old law as so to modernize it by including the words other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet


From what I can see there is really nothing new here.

Why hasn't the author of this article made a big deal about the Communications act of 1934? It's been in effect for 72 years and no one, as far as I am aware of, has challenged the fact that the the language of the original act had already prohibited someone from annoyong or harrasing someone else without disclosing their true identity?

The writer of that article probably just needed something negative to write about.


Don Cardi

I'm so glad the politicans in Washington are working on keeping us safe with legislation such as this. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I figured you'd like the idea, JJ.

I'm sure it can somehow be tied into the "War on Terror." :p

Well, I think that in the case of cyberstalking and such, there obviously should be legislation to control and protect people, because sexual predation and identity theft is becoming too often a circumstance in todays world.

However, when it comes to things like message boards, instant messenger networks and chat rooms, the user is at his/her own risk. For instance, you had to accept the Terms of Service upon registration at the BB. Certainly the government has better things to do than prosecute "Double-J @ 72.18.953.12" for telling "Patrick @ 513.83.921.99" to fuck off. :p

Patrick might not see it that way, though....

Altho in this case, I have to agree with you

As I said earlier, this sounds like it could be an abridgement of free speech.

Didn't either of you read my post above? It's an ammendment to an already 72 year old law, which when originally written, was meant for the use and abuse of someone over a telephone. All they've done, as far as I can see, is ammend it to cover communication through the internet.


Don Cardi

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Cardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by plawrence:
So my annonymous blog criticizing the Bush administration might annoy the Republicans and subject me to prosecution, while someone else's blog supporting President Bush might annoy me, but that could be OK?