Being "Annoying" On the Internet Now a Federal Crime

Redleg

The fire is everything
Staff member
Being "Annoying" On Internet Now Federal Crime
The U.S. Congress passed, and President Bush signed, a law that makes it a federal crime to post messages on the Internet that are annoying, if you do so anonymously.

Buried deep within the Department of Justice Reauthorization Act, in the Violence Against Women section, are criminal penalties of up to two years in prison for posting annoying messages on web sites or sending annoying email messages. The section reads:
  • "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."
http://crime.about.com/b/a/234339.htm

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


So behave now, or else... :twisted:
 
Please stock the fridge with beer first.

2005-11-2-ptir6027958.jpg
 
Cold beer... do it now or I'll be annoying again, you don't want that now do you?! That's what I thought.
 
Here's another person's take on it.
let's look at the law in question, and address some of the words and their meaning. First, the changes (I've put new additions in bold):
(h) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) The use of the term "telecommunications device" in this section—
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter;
(B) does not include an interactive computer service; and
(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)).'.

Note this very important point: subparagraph (B) still excludes "interactive computer service" from the definition of "telecommunications device." But what is happening to subparagraph (C) subsection (a)(1)? First, let's have a look at that subsection, which occurs under "Prohibited acts generally." (Note that the bolded subparagraph (C) above is not the same as subparagraph (C) subsection (a)(1), which I am about to quote.)
(C) [Whoever] 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;
As a quick note, it should be pointed out that "annoy" here has a much more limited meaning here than mere everyday annoyance. Rather than cite scores of precedent, we need to only look at how the law has played out before the manner of communication was addressed with this new bill. Suffice it to say that previous to this bill, it was already illegal "to annoy" in this manner (namely, with intent) using a telephone, and yet we all know that the black helicopters won't come swooping in because of merely annoying phone calls, be they commercial in nature, pranks, or from your in-laws (if your in-laws annoy you, of course). The bar is high, as they say, and there has to be intent to cause someone else emotional stress. (Of course, that won't stop lawsuit-happy people from trying, but what does?)
Building on that, we need to put this law into context, and I think that is where things become more clear. Anonymous speech per se is protected by the First Amendment (see McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission for a recent SCOTUS-level decision), but anonymous speech has also been subjected to legal scrutiny, such that Internet Service Providers and the like have been pressed to reveal the identities of anonymous individuals who have been accused of defamation and other such "speech crimes." This is to say that, even prior to this law, it was possible for a party to serve discovery on an ISP or a forum provider to turn over whatever information they had on a poster for the purposes of pursuing claims.
So, given that "annoy" has a higher bar than its everyday meaning, and given that it was already possible to try and do a hatchet job on someone online posting their opinions, what does this law really add to the situation? Without a doubt, the statute is extremely vague and confusing, and some interpretations would give it a meaning so broad as to be unconstitutional. But that's where the intent qualification comes in: there has to be an appearance that someone is trying to be malicious to achieve a negative end. Could this law be used for abuse? Sure, but then, so are so many laws (the DMCA comes to mind). But I think it's not quite accurate to say that forum posts and blogs are going to come under fire if someone finds them "annoying."
If I could boil my reading down to a few sentences, it would be as follows: the statute makes it illegal to send communications with the intent to "annoy," when those communications are sent anonymously. Previously, it was already illegal to attempt to annoy others with telecommunications services, anonymous or not. Now anonymity is explicitly addressed, but incidental annoyance is still not the same thing as intentional annoyance, which often requires a pattern of abuse to establish (since it is often otherwise very difficult to establish someone's state of mind when engaging in a particular behavior). Yet this has been illegal for some time. In fact, this entire amendment to the statute is only updating a rather old prohibition against malicious telephone usage.
In a phrase: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Why add this language then? That's a good question, and if I had to guess, I would say that this looks like a rather lame attempt to address the burgeoning VoIP world, which will soon include all instant messaging clients supporting making calls to Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS). But this bill does not make anonymity illegal, nor does it make everyday annoyance illegal. However, if you attempt to hide your identity while engaging in a campaign to annoy someone electronically, you could find yourself on the other side of a lawsuit. But this was already possible before this bill was passed.
SOURCE
 
The problems are that, first, being "annoying" is too bloody subjective.

Second, if I get annoying emails from Nigeria is the US going to extradite the bugger to stand trial in the US?

Third, if the site of the annoying messages is on a server in Norway does the US law have any jurisdiction if I am viewing it in the US? Or in China??

Fourth, if someone in Norway views a message on a server in Uzbekistan from an anonymous member in the US can he file charges? What if the server is in the US?

This is another screw-up wherein some nitwit politician added in a clause for some pet project of his onto a bill guaranteed to pass on a completely unrelated issue without ENGAGING his/her brain and thinking it through.
:roll:

On the upside it does add a bit more humour to the world. By the way if any of you are annoyed by this, come and get me... na na na na na!!!
:)
 
If this is a federal law *scrolls back up* yep, then jusrisdiction does not matter. It is applicable all over the U.S. Why do you think so many people outsource to different countries? Not only for cheaper labor but also to get out of some of the laws. Of course it would seem to me that if said company had any kind of address or license in the U.S. then they can be held accountable in the U.S. either be revocation of their license or by fines.
 
The Cooler King said:
I always thought everyone on the internet was somewhat anonymous.

You're (almost) never anonymous on the internet.. ;)
It's actually possible to find out a great deal about you..

Go to www.spyber.com to see some simple examples of "traces" you can leave on websites you're visiting..
 
DTOP, thank you for that lovely quote, I am sure everyone here understood it.

This is why so many lawyers are politicians, they are used to BSing their way through life and know how to word things to confuse the average person, which leads to the politicians being able to skim millions from social security, legally.
 
Well, if that's the case. I must have at least two life stentences for all the crime I have caused.
 
You're (almost) never anonymous on the internet.. ;)
It's actually possible to find out a great deal about you..

Go to www.spyber.com to see some simple examples of "traces" you can leave on websites you're visiting..

Wow...good thing my ISP is registered to an address 5 hours from my physical location. . .
 
Back
Top