A word to Trolls... (by our Pres.)

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."
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."

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.

Meh...unless their are people who's specific job it will be to enforce this then it's just another law on the books that'll go unenforced. I gotta admit I like the idea of being able to prosecute people who grossly abuse online communications BUT...if people would use IGNORE options once and a while we wouldn't have these issues to begin with.

This is what happens when people get lazy...the feds step in and overblow it.

he's just mad because he wants to figure out who's been calling him a tard on all the forums.. i bet the conversation went like

Bush Jr: "um...dad....these people are making fun of me"
Bush Sr: "Come on barbara...clinton got to stain a dress..wha? whats that son?"
Bush Jr: "These...socialists...terrorists...are making fun of the Dubya...and they go under these monikers..handles...fake...names if you will...like..XxXClicheEmoKidXxX...and....Kerry4Eve r...."
Bush Sr:" Grow some balls son. I didnt have Desert Storm to make you cry because people dont like you! Sign a bill...it makes people follow it...make it so you have to see their real names"
Bush Jr: " Hrm...*pulls out rolled $100.00 bill..unrolls it...wipes off white dust..* *signs it*.... like this?
Bush Sr: "*sigh* Son...I know your no Jeb..but I meant a bill of rights!
Bush Jr : "Your the smartest dad I know! Now Dubya gonna get revenge on ya'll...lookie out there!
Bush Sr: "Barbara......BARABRA!...... BARB!...
Barbara: " What?!"
Bush Sr: " Wheres my pie...? WHERES MY PIE!"

Or something like that...ya..im tired ;D

well the thing is theyll have a hard time prosecuting if they dont know your real identity ir course you can trace an IP back to the ISP but that doesnt always work and masking your IP isnt exactly difficult

i want pie.
that entire law makes no sense at all... like kidthorazine said, theyre gonna have a fuckin tough time finding out who people are... and when they do find out who someone is... theyre gonna end up being some 13 year old kid with too much time on their hands.

I am just wondering how they would enforce things we say over the net anyway.. cause i thought we had "freedom of speech" and

What is the LEGAL definition of Annoying?

BC

v. an·noyed, an·noy·ing, an·noys
v. tr.

1. To cause slight irritation to (another) by troublesome, often repeated acts.
2. To harass or disturb by repeated attacks.
v. intr.
To be annoying.

Encyclopedia:

Annoyance
Annoyance is an unpleasant mental state that is characterized by such effects as irritation and distraction from one's conscious thinking. It can lead to emotions such as frustration and anger. See also irritation.

An annoyance is a stimulus that can produce a state of annoyance in a person. It can include things like persistent and mild physical pain or the continued hinderance from achieving a goal.

It's only one small part of an anti-stalking bill.

It's intended to be prosecuted in situations of stalking,
not prosecuted upon the internet as a whole...

this is laughable! seriously though, the laws have started to go against themselves. just need one that makes it illegal to do anything an we are set

Your talking about the man who's done this : (actual pictures btw)

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/images/desecration.jpg

and did this video when "off camera"
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/images/incidents/flip.jpg
(video)1 finger victory salute

and waved at Stevie Wonder when Stevie sat down to play the piano on a ABC broadcast.

are you fucking serious he WAVED at stevie wonder?! god damn.

Thank you Voldta for that informative information...

W. is two midgets in a suit

just think of us poor brits we have a total muppet (blair)running our great country

they are making a horror film about him THE TONY BLAIR (WITCH) PROJECT 11 about tony going down to the woods thinking of ways to ruin the U.K then this taking bush(in the wood)called Goerge tells
him do as i tell you and the world will hate you to :1orglaugh

bye mike :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDeathKnight

It's only one small part of an anti-stalking bill.

It's intended to be prosecuted in situations of stalking,
not prosecuted upon the internet as a whole...

---

I doubt it will be read that narrowly by courts. Provisions are often added to ominous bills to quash debate on them. Conversely, I doubt it would apply to most "flame wars". It would apply mostly to ongoing defamation and harassment of private citizens. Law in effect 1/3/2006 (or when it was actually published). Would not apply to anything before that.

OEC