Reply
Mon 9 Jan, 2006 10:07 am
Hey, we now have a law that allows us to get rid of annoying posters here unless they post under their real name.
Oh, wait... Is this constitutional?
SOURCE
Quote: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." ...
I delight in being a pest, so I'll volunteer as a test case.
And you are very good at it.
John Smith
Although it's your inalienable right, you could never be annoying, Phoenix! Even trying your best...
Yep, I think we've all annoyed someone here at some point. But since I enjoy it so, I will post my real name. It is Prof. BillyBobJoeBobSueBob, PhE (which stands for Perty Highly Edjecated). So I guess I'm safe now. Whew, what a relief. Won't be no g-man comin to my door.
BBB
I've spent most of my life annoying those in power, so why should I change in my old age?
ANNOYING WOMEN OF THE WORLD UNITE!
BBB
Phoenix
Phoenix32890 wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:I've spent most of my life annoying those in power, so why should I change in my old age?
ANNOYING WOMEN OF THE WORLD UNITE!
BBB
Hey BBB, maybe we should picket Washington! I don't think that they would dare use water cannons or stun guns on a bunch of old ladies. If they did, boy could we make a noise in the newspapers!
Rather than get soaked in the cold winter time, what do you think about mooning the nincompoops instead? I could throw my right breast over my shoulder for an encore.
BBB
If all you babies would grow up , follow my lead and take a mature attitude and approach to your interactions with others, this kind of thing wouldn't be necessary. Have you learned nothing by my example?
Bear
blueveinedthrobber wrote:If all you babies would grow up , follow my lead and take a mature attitude and approach to your interactions with others, this kind of thing wouldn't be necessary. Have you learned nothing by my example?
Yep! We learned to moon and fling breasts from our favorite rascal.
BBB
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."
Ye gods.
So, if one takes an "annoying" photo, and a third party transmits it, can one still be fined?
No way will this thing survive review.
Not likely to be any review. Who knows about it besides us? No coverage in the media.
Hey, maybe it can just apply to A2K?
This actually does not differ from existant statute which prohibits harrassing telephone calls. Note that the statute refers to specifically targeted communications--which is to say, emails. It does not apply to a bulletin board such as this.
Which is a damned good thing, since all of y'all annoy the Bejeebus outta me . . .
Actually, it is also meant for the "net" in general, since it can also apply to blogs and the like where threats (or annoyances) can be relayed. I think the idea was to expand the domestic violence law to include the internet, and I would extrapulate that to mean all forms of communication within.
(Work with me, Dog. We gotta do SOMETHING!)
BBB
I wonder if the new law would impact pedophiles using the net to attempt to achieve contact with young people? I would certainly consider such to be a lethal annoyance.
BBB
It seems to be that a fairly good case could be made that this statute does indeed apply to forums like A2K.
To the extent that this statute represents a threat to free speech there is a far greater chance that it will manifest itself in the form of a law suit filed by some crank than by the government.
This is just what we need, another manufactured right: To not be annoyed.
The fact that so many people, on this thread, are so ready to bellow "Bring it on!" to The Man, tells us more about the minimal threat of The Man, at least in this regard, than of their courage. It amazes me how many armchair revolutionaries there are among us.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace