Flaming Can Get You Jail Time

Ren · January 9, 2006, 3:35pm

Nope, not a joke, read the article here:

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

and the bill here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03402:

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.

ALDurr · January 9, 2006, 3:51pm

You’ve got to be kidding me! If this is the case, T-Nation forums may as well shut down now.

BigRagoo · January 9, 2006, 3:57pm

What dripping wet pussy of a bitch came up with this nonsense. How fucking insecure and babyfied can one be as to prompt such an action? I say we kick the fuck out the person responsible just out of principle. People are losers, wet, oozing losers.

anon31651765 · January 9, 2006, 4:14pm

Well, there is your Republican “We of the small government” Party, now dictating what can be said on the internet. Fuck Bush.

Wait, so is it a crime if I say that, being as if he sees it he may be annoyed? Hold on, I hear a knocking at my door…

Zap_Branigan · January 9, 2006, 4:34pm

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Well, there is your Republican “We of the small government” Party, now dictating what can be said on the internet. Fuck Bush.

Wait, so is it a crime if I say that, being as if he sees it he may be annoyed? Hold on, I hear a knocking at my door…[/quote]

I didn’t see the Dems protesting it either.

kroby · January 9, 2006, 4:54pm

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Well, there is your Republican “We of the small government” Party, now dictating what can be said on the internet. Fuck Bush.

Wait, so is it a crime if I say that, being as if he sees it he may be annoyed? Hold on, I hear a knocking at my door…[/quote]

he he, he said bush he he he (Butthead voice)

ALDurr · January 9, 2006, 4:54pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Well, there is your Republican “We of the small government” Party, now dictating what can be said on the internet. Fuck Bush.

Wait, so is it a crime if I say that, being as if he sees it he may be annoyed? Hold on, I hear a knocking at my door…

I didn’t see the Dems protesting it either.

[/quote]

That’s because the Dems have no balls either. They have demonstrated that time and time again. Fuck both parties! I’ve said it before, we need to clean house!

SkyzykS · January 9, 2006, 4:58pm

It would probably have to be some serious harrasment to warrant legal action. Stuff like death threats, disgusting pictures and the like.
Not anything that a normal or even mildy screwed up person would need to worry about.

So what are you guys worried about?

kroby · January 9, 2006, 5:16pm

AlDurr, who is that as your avatar? Spawn? Evil Ninja Batman? An Avenger?

As I’ve declared my new party as Conservative Anarchist (CA), I’ve been calling for revolution for years, my man! It’s not just the boneheads in office, it’s the lobbyists buying our freedom away from us for political favors. Take the money out of politics, and what do you get? No incentive for abuse of power. Responsible government. rant over.

k_elkouhen · January 9, 2006, 5:39pm

[quote]Ren wrote:
Nope, not a joke, read the article here:

[/quote]

I’m pretty sure that this law was misunderstood by news.com.com

You can’t put someone in jail because he’s is “annoying”.

etaco · January 9, 2006, 5:40pm

So does this mean we should start organizing our prison gang?

Given that intent to annoy is enough…
Wanna read the most annoying sound in the world NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

ALDurr · January 9, 2006, 5:42pm

[quote]kroby wrote:
AlDurr, who is that as your avatar? Spawn? Evil Ninja Batman? An Avenger?
[/quote]

It’s the Black Panther. A Marvel Comics character. He was one of my favorites because he was a strong, proud King of the African nation of Wakanda (It doesn’t exist, but it sounds cool) that was totally devoted to the welfare of his people. According to the comics, that nation was one of the most technologically advanced in that comic world.

I realized I just geeked out on you. It happens on occassion. LOL!

BigRagoo · January 9, 2006, 5:53pm

[quote]k.elkouhen wrote:
I’m pretty sure that this law was misunderstood by news.com.com

You can’t put someone in jail because he’s is “annoying”.[/quote]

I would hope not, but the trend these days is when censorship is applied, it is to the max.

nephorm · January 9, 2006, 6:13pm

[quote]k.elkouhen wrote:
You can’t put someone in jail because he’s is “annoying”.[/quote]

Is that a professional legal opinion?

You sound like a girl I dated once. We were talking about traveller’s checks, which you generally have to pay your bank for, and that you are generally charged to cash in whatever country you present them. Her: That’s not legal!
Me: Yeah, yeah it is.
Her: No, it can’t be. My dad’s a lawyer, and he always says ‘they can’t get you coming and going.’
Me: Yes, they can. Is there some legal precedent I’m unaware of?

Moral of the story: just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

vroom · January 9, 2006, 6:15pm

Clearly the law is missing an important piece!

Somewhere is should state that if you “annoy” the wrong person you are in fact a “terrorist”.

Fuck, I think “terrorism” has replaced the “bogeyman” as the main instrument of fear in the 21st centuery.

P.S. Extra kudos to Zap for pointing out that democrats didn’t catch this little republican addition. That’s putting the blame where it belongs alright! Good work talking point boy.

thabigdon24 · January 9, 2006, 6:25pm

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Well, there is your Republican “We of the small government” Party, now dictating what can be said on the internet. Fuck Bush.

Wait, so is it a crime if I say that, being as if he sees it he may be annoyed? Hold on, I hear a knocking at my door…[/quote]

whoah

kroby · January 9, 2006, 6:31pm

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

I realized I just geeked out on you. It happens on occassion. LOL![/quote]

Not at all. I’m a current Marvel member, Hulk being my primary interest (but knowledgeable in X-Men, Spiderman, Avengers…) 37 and still loving comics more than ever.

vroom · January 9, 2006, 6:32pm

Seriously, everybody in this thread is annoying… go report to the nearest police station please.

Matthew_Weeldreyer · January 9, 2006, 6:39pm

Wait, wouldn’t this also send our beloved TSBers to a cell date with Bubba?

BostonBarrister · January 9, 2006, 6:41pm

[quote]
Ren wrote:
Nope, not a joke, read the article here:

k.elkouhen wrote:

I’m pretty sure that this law was misunderstood by news.com.com

You can’t put someone in jail because he’s is “annoying”.[/quote]

Without drudging through the statutory text, if it’s as represented, the law would likely be ruled unconstitutionally void because the definition of the crime is too vague.