Dubya signs another unconstitutional law - "ban on internet trolling"

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Yes, because big brother Dubya has nothing better to do (like fixing the Iraq mess), he decides to sign a bill banning trolling. As long as you disclose your identity, you have nothing to fear. :roll:

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."

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.

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.

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.

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']
How does one punish this sort of thing?[/QUOTE]

If used properly it will probably come up in cases where a victim is being harassed online by a previous stalker with a court order against them. Still it seems far to broad a law, although blaming this on Bush and not Bush + Congress seems a bit silly.
 
[quote name='guardian_owl']In other news, internet usage is down 85% percent and arrests are up 100,000%[/QUOTE]


Also add:

Ebay has unexpectedly gone out of business, along with Amazon.com. Thousands of US citizens now have to get real jobs.

Thousands of assholes and perverts flood the streets, physically harassing real people because they cannot get thier troll fix, or because their favorite internet porn site has gone out of business due to lack of traffic.


Uhh...wait a second...could this be considered trolling??? Better arrest me now!
 
wait a minute, Spam is annoying, they often don't probably identify themselves in the email...looks like they'll be getting about 2 million years in jail
 
Does anybody think that the basis for this bill has good intentions, but it awkwardly - and far too vaguely - worded?

I was discussing with a professor how people (children, I suppose) utilize technology to tease, harass, and otherwise fuck with other kids. Now, I truly think this is the domain of being punishable at the family or school level, and in no way should be considered a federal crime (perhaps there is a recurring troll scenario that doesn't involve high school kids I can't think of at this hour). Eh, I'm done here, I'm too tired to think any further.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I appreciate how we can let the ban on automatic weapons expire, but trolling is just going too far.[/QUOTE]
I think they're related to each other. ;)

Now, if we could privatize trolling, this would be a different story altogether.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Does anybody think that the basis for this bill has good intentions, but it awkwardly - and far too vaguely - worded?

I was discussing with a professor how people (children, I suppose) utilize technology to tease, harass, and otherwise fuck with other kids. Now, I truly think this is the domain of being punishable at the family or school level, and in no way should be considered a federal crime (perhaps there is a recurring troll scenario that doesn't involve high school kids I can't think of at this hour). Eh, I'm done here, I'm too tired to think any further.[/QUOTE]
Well, I think the internet is a lot different than being teased harassed in school, on the bus, at the bus stop, etc. For one thing, despite people saying you can "reach out and touch someone", it's pretty damn easy to filter out what you don't want to hear. On this forum, you can click the ignore button. On e-mail, you can redirect mail to a spam folder or delete it immediately. On AIM/MSN, you can block users you don't like. It goes on. Anytime someone (online) has decided it was a good idea to harass me, I've usually just blocked them and all of their machinations before it had time to really bother me. And, if push comes to shove, you can just get off your ass and away from the computer.

Conversely, you really cannot produce the same sort of isolation from bullying in real life as you can on the internet.

The idea that you can escape harassment on the internet quite easily really makes me think that you can't compare bullying on the playground, school yard or in class with bullying on the internet.

As for the basis of the bill, I think it aims to try and remove the last shred of Anonymity that we have in the world.
 
[quote name='evanft']Note how PAD hasn't posted in the thread yet.[/QUOTE]

I didn't realize I was required to be on this board 24/7 to respond to the 4-6 threads made daily wonder tard.

Campaign finance reform was a much bigger violation of the First Ammendment than this, he signed it too, and the USSC upheld it as well.

The court seems to have trouble with the Constitution given it's upheld McCain/Feingold, Kelo and Affirmative Action. Who knows what they'd do if this was challenged.
 
It's interesting to note the bias in that article. People seem to read the 1st amendment as your right to be an ass and general prick. If you want to drape yourself in the Constitution, there are more noble purposes.

I agree this law is misguided and its intentions could cause more trouble than not, but wow, I mean are people honestly defending a person's actions of trolling, spamming, flameing or an otherwise disfunctioning cancer on internet discourse?
 
[quote name='vherub']It's interesting to note the bias in that article. People seem to read the 1st amendment as your right to be an ass and general prick. If you want to drape yourself in the Constitution, there are more noble purposes.

I agree this law is misguided and its intentions could cause more trouble than not, but wow, I mean are people honestly defending a person's actions of trolling, spamming, flameing or an otherwise disfunctioning cancer on internet discourse?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Voltaire']
[font=arial, helvetica] I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
[/QUOTE]
[/font]
 
That Voltaire quote was actually made up by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, though V did write similar statements: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too," and the lesser known "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.''

And frankly, such sentiments are a copout. There are plenty of thoughts/expressions/words which do cause harm and which are therefore subject to punishment and restriction. It is not a black and white issue, and it is insulting to the affairs of men that hateful behavior even exists in the same realm which "speech" can be applied.
 
[quote name='vherub']That Voltaire quote was actually made up by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, though V did write similar statements: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too," and the lesser known "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.''

And frankly, such sentiments are a copout. There are plenty of thoughts/expressions/words which do cause harm and which are therefore subject to punishment and restriction. It is not a black and white issue, and it is insulting to the affairs of men that hateful behavior even exists in the same realm which "speech" can be applied.[/QUOTE]

Translation: If you don't say anything controversial, you have nothing to worry about.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']
How does one punish this sort of thing?[/QUOTE]

First, there was Air Marshalls, now there are Web Marshalls!
 
[quote name='vherub']That Voltaire quote was actually made up by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, though V did write similar statements: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too," and the lesser known "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.''

And frankly, such sentiments are a copout. There are plenty of thoughts/expressions/words which do cause harm and which are therefore subject to punishment and restriction. It is not a black and white issue, and it is insulting to the affairs of men that hateful behavior even exists in the same realm which "speech" can be applied.[/QUOTE]

Your "hateful behavior" is my "honest and blunt criticism." Some people feel religious people are hateful for describing homosexuality as a sin, or liberal politicans are hateful for describing black conservatives as "Uncle Toms." What is "hateful"? That's pretty difficult to define. And I would in any case defend the right for someone to be hateful. They may be stupid to be hateful, but they can say what they choose to say as long as it isn't inciting violence.

And I'm most interested in what thoughts you feel are subject to punishment and restriction. Are we going to have our brainwaves monitored for "hateful" thoughts any time soon?
 
[quote name='vherub']That Voltaire quote was actually made up by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, though V did write similar statements: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too," and the lesser known "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.''

And frankly, such sentiments are a copout. There are plenty of thoughts/expressions/words which do cause harm and which are therefore subject to punishment and restriction. It is not a black and white issue, and it is insulting to the affairs of men that hateful behavior even exists in the same realm which "speech" can be applied.[/QUOTE]

If we make all supposed "hateful" speach illegal then I would have been arrested for anti-semitism along with everyone who was either pro palestinian or anti zionist, as I've been accused of it more than once.

We could also arrest 90% of the male population for using the term homo, gay or fag as an insult.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I didn't realize I was required to be on this board 24/7 to respond to the 4-6 threads made daily wonder tard.

Campaign finance reform was a much bigger violation of the First Ammendment than this, he signed it too, and the USSC upheld it as well.

The court seems to have trouble with the Constitution given it's upheld McCain/Feingold, Kelo and Affirmative Action. Who knows what they'd do if this was challenged.[/QUOTE]


You're already in violation of the law, do I need to report you to homeland security?
 
Anti-online annoyance law may have no legs
By ELLIOT SMILOWITZ

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 (UPI) -- At first it seemed like an Internet hoax. "There is a new law against annoying someone on the Internet, but it can be repealed if you forward this to 25 people."

If you ask prominent online community leaders, the real law is about as legitimate as that.

"This is an example of the usual reactions that happen when politicians get involved in technology that they don't understand," said Drew Curtis of Fark.com.

"I do think there are going to be some large hurdles to overcome," said YTMND.com's Max Goldberg.

"I'm very hopeful that not much will come of this," said Kurt Opsahl, Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney.

Last Thursday President Bush signed into law the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. Included in the law is a clause that outlaws anonymously using the Internet "with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass."

"The law is different from the final versions of the bill in the House and Senate," Opsahl said. "It was a bill addressing a lot of other things, and this part was slipped in."

The chief problem with the law, Opsahl said, was the word 'annoy.'

"The word covers a much wider range of speech than threats," Opsahl said. "It goes beyond the cyber-stalking that proponents were worried about."

Curtis, whose Fark.com is a popular community to discuss various types of news, said the law merely addresses things that already have been settled legally.

"It's not illegal to be annoying in the United States," he said, "and physical threats are already illegal."

Matt Cerrone, proprietor of baseball blog and community site Metsblog.com, said the law's terminology is too vague to be understood.

"A clearer definition of the technology it applies to, as well as the definition of 'annoy,' is vital to the true heart of the law," Cerrone said. "As it is, without these clarifications, it comes extremely close to violating First Amendment rights."

First Amendment rights are precisely the reason the law may not stand up, Opsahl said.

"The courts historically have been very protective of the right to speak anonymously," he said.

Curtis concurred.

"The first time it gets taken out for a spin, it will get shut down legally," he said.

Opsahl said that even if the law is not enforced, it may have a chilling effect on speech.

"People may feel they cannot express their thoughts anonymously," he said. "Fear of this law might stop them from engaging in dialogue."

Goldberg echoed his concern.

"There are a lot of things people say using the anonymity shield of the Internet," he said, "and I hope that the law doesn't spill over and cause people to not voice their opinions."

Opsahl noted that America was founded on the sanctity of anonymous criticism.

"Ben Franklin wrote under a pseudonym in a way that probably annoyed the established British government," he said.

Aside from the new law, each community site has personal standards for the type of commenting that is and isn't allowed.

Curtis said he deletes comments that are not consistent with the thread of discussion, in order to keep the discussion on-topic. He also deletes unauthorized sharing of another user's personal information as well as any discussion of killing the president.

"Secret Service men read my site," he said. "That must be quite a job."

Goldberg said when users complain of harassment, "my policy has always just been to delete (the offending posts), even if they did fall under free speech."

Goldberg said that when his site first started, he allowed users to say and do anything that wasn't illegal. Now, he occasionally deletes racist or gruesome content.

"As time goes on, I think my patience for free speech has dwindled somewhat," Goldberg said.

Cerrone, like Curtis, aims to keep discussion as on-topic and insult-free as possible.

"Should a reader personally attack a fellow reader, in anyway, the reader's IP address will be banned from posting," Cerrone said. "Swearing, racial slurs, violent remarks and hateful comments ... do not belong on a Web site about baseball."

Cerrone noted that the money-making aspect of his site can have an effect on the way he runs it.

"I consider myself a libertarian, so I am not a fan of banning people on the grounds of what they say," he said. "However, I am also trying to run a business that is sustained on advertising, and advertisers are less likely to pay a site that features racial slurs and violent content."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top