Dont get sued.

[davi]

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."


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

[MoP]

Yeah, it's a pretty ridiculous law. They might as well pass a bill that says if you click your fingers or tap your toes in an annoying fashion while standing in a queue without revealing your full name, then you get fined.
Fortunately, it only applies to the USA, so I'm still free to annoy, abuse, threaten and harass people online without reprisals, sucker! :)

[dogfood]

Well, that's the internet for me.

See you guys later.

[flatliner]

I would LOVE to see some try and use this as a retaliation for getting annoyed. IMDB is gonna be full of people posting 'IM GONNA SUE YOUR ASS!!1!'.

[N D Hill]

MWAHAHA!!! You guys all suck! The phantom strikes again!

Oh shit. My signature.

[MoP]

Dogfood, for the sake of the entertainment of this entire forum, I will start a petition that will declare you officially above the law. Well, this law, anyway.

[Barret_wallace]

so if i were American, and i was typing this:
you are a fucking shit head.
i had to sign it whit my real name, like this:
Kjetil Farstad ?

[asoir]

Bwhaha, I love the feeling of safety over here. Wait someone's knocking on the do- holy shit, FBI FUCK bbs.

[dfacto]

Five words:

Never hold up in court

[S.C. Watson]

I'm curious as to how something like this will be used with an international medium. Like the Internet.

I think this is simply an instance of some lawmakers attempting to justify their existence and aquire yet another overbloated paycheck.

No. I'm not cynical. Why do you ask?

[AngetheSlayer]

I'm going to say that some of you guys have never really been abuse, threaten, or harass by someone on the Internet. Iam happy that they are starting to make laws for the Internet. Becuaes a while ago I was being harass on the Internet and there was nothing that I can do about . Belive me I evan called the cops and they told me that there aren't any laws about something like that happening .The cops were nice enough to talk to the guy that was harassing me and tell him to stop. dfacto yes this might no hold in court but remember you have to have something called Evidence . If you have enough then you may take it to court. So all you have to do is print out the things that the person is sending to you and make a court file out of it so they know your having some problems with someone on the internet. But I agree with you dfacto this will not stand in court Evidence.

[MoP]

AngeTheSlayer: It's more the wording that includes "annoy" which is the issue here. Yes, harassment is a very nasty thing, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but there's a big difference between "annoying" someone online, and actually harassing them.

Hell, for all I know, this post might annoy some people - does that mean I'm liable to be fined or even imprisoned if I don't disclose my full name and include it with the potentially annoying words that I'm writing?

Of course a case based on "annoyance" would never hold up in court unless there was something more serious attached, so I highly doubt anyone would use the law in that sense, but it's still a rather silly catch-all way of wording it.

[dfacto]

dfacto yes this might no hold in court but remember you have to have something called Evidence

Evidence will help you in court, but if that evidence is of someone being a leet speaking moron who has a penchant for dick jokes?

The problem with this law is that "annoyance" is so incredibly vague. I've been annoyed by something as simple as a post without a single comma, period, or capital letter. That isn't a crime though, and never should be.

Harassment, death threats, stalking, and such things are a real concern, and evidence of such would allow you to take someone to court, BUT those things are already illegal. An internet law for those kinds of things doesn't seem very necessary to me.

All in all, this rider is useless as far as I can tell. It will disintegrate as soon as an annoyance related case comes up, which I'm' sure some thin-skinned fool will gladly facilitate.

[LaPalida]

http://volokh.com/posts/1136873535.shtml

"Skeptical readers will be shocked, shocked to know that the truth is quite different. First, a little background. The new law amends 47 U.S.C. 223, the telecommunications harassment statute that goes back to the Communications Act of 1934. For a long time, Section 223 has had a provision prohibiting anonymous harassing speech using a telephone. 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C) states that

[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 . . . shall be [punished].

Seems pretty broad, doesn't it? Well, there's a hook. It turns out that the statute can only be used when prohibiting the speech would not violate the First Amendment. If speech is protected by the First Amendment, the statute is unconstitutional as applied and the indictment must be dismissed.

...It looks funny if you don't know the relevant caselaw, but in practice it simply takes the telephone harassment statute we've had for decades and applies it to the Internet."

Also (http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/archives/001318.html)

"If that doesn't ring a bell, you probably aren't familiar with the battle to define VOIP (voice over internet protocol). The previous law assumed that all phone calls would be made via a "telecommunications service" using a "telecommunications device". The FCC has consistently found that VOIP is an unregulated "information service", thus exempting it from all sorts of fees and services. A VOIP call may be functionally indistinguishable from a landline or cell phone call. Legally, though, it's not a telecommunications service and doesn't require the use of a telecommunications device. Adding the new text to the definition removes a potential loophole and ensures that VOIP calls will be treated just as any other telephone call."

Also, also (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000223----000-.html)

[_Mario]

I'm curious as to how something like this will be used with an international medium. Like the Internet.

I think this is simply an instance of some lawmakers attempting to justify their existence and aquire yet another overbloated paycheck.

No. I'm not cynical. Why do you ask?

At the moment that law only works in the US and US laws only apply for people who are in the USA (well most laws, some US laws apply for US citizen who are abroad) so people who are not in the USA are safe (if they don't have similiar laws in their countries).

[Blahm]

Exo do you want to bring the lawers into this? Ill see you in court!

[Kresh]

well there goes more of our tax dollars

[Advocate of Fate]

Hi, my name is Nick Weber.

just, you know, in case.

[JERI]

well there goes more of our tax dollars

and IQ by the looks of things.

[light]

Just one more thing people who dont want crits on their art can use as defense. BLAST!

[Chingwa]

Laws on the internet are a bad thing in general and this one is pretty scary. The fact that elected representatives sponsored this bill and piggybacked it off a defense bill to intentionally get it passed quietly makes my blood boil. It's simply them chipping away at privacy rights... slowly but surely....

[emily g]

Sheesh, did you guys read what LaPalida posted? It's just an extension of the already existing telephone laws.

emily

[MoP]

Well, the internet is slightly different than a telephone... I don't make daily phone calls to hundreds of people, unaware of their identities other than by an ethereal nickname.
Usually if you're on the phone to someone, they know who you are, or they have introduced themselves - and you are engaging in a real-time conversation that is actively being partaken of. Obviously if someone annoys you on the phone, you'll want to know who they are (hence why telemarketers always introduce themselves before they rant about the product or service they're trying to sell, so they don't fall foul of that law).

On the internet, any user might look at hundreds of different messages every day - there are at least 3 people reading these replies right now, what if one of those three gets "annoyed" by what they're reading? Does this mean that newspapers can be sued and journalists sent to jail if someone gets "annoyed" by what they read in their local paper? I don't think so!

I'd say that the internet is a medium more akin to a newspaper than a telephone - you can pick and choose what you want to read (on forums, anyway - email is slightly different) whereas with a telephone call, you are on the recieving end of something directed specifically at yourself.

See what I mean? It's fairly silly to append the same laws that apply to telephony as apply to online articles and forums. The methods of distribution of these media are completely different.

[Elwell]

Those of us who post under our real names can be as annoying as we want. :P

[emily g]

Ergg, let me quote this from the post LaPalida referenced:
It turns out that the statute can only be used when prohibiting the speech would not violate the First Amendment. If speech is protected by the First Amendment, the statute is unconstitutional as applied and the indictment must be dismissed. An example of this is United States v. Popa, 187 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In Popa, the defendant called the U.S. Attorney for D.C on the telephone several times, and each time would hurl insults at the U.S. Attorney without identifying himself. He was charged under 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C), and raised a First Amendment defense. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Ginsburg reversed the conviction: punishing the speech violated the Supreme Court's First Amendment test in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968 ), he reasoned, such that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to those facts. (emphasis added)
While the law looks like it could be used against anyone who is merely "annoying" you, it would require a specific set of facts and circumstances for anyone to actually be convicted under this law. A person can be annoying and even rude or insulting and would still be protected by the First Amendment.

I will admit that I could be wrong, but I really don't think this is the big deal that everyone's making it out to be.
emily

[MoP]

No, it's not really a big deal - my main point was how ridiculous it is. What's the point in passing a law that's never, ever going to get any use? I'm pretty sure there were already laws to cover harassment/stalking over the internet before that bill was pushed through.

Some people do seem to be making a big deal ("omg there goes my privacy!!1"), but to me it's more an example of legalese not equating to any real-world situation.

[bat]

I already ignore a bunch of laws anyone, what is one more?

This law, in conjunction with the average thin-skinned American's knee-jerk "I am terribly offended" attitude is going to make for even more frivolous lawsuits. Just what we need. I think I am going to move to Canada and start an active campaign of pissing people off. Instead of unintentionally annoying people I will start to do it in earnest.

[enigma]

Alot of people are gonna put their first person shooters away after this one =/

[magicgoo]

You can all stop worrying.

It's the president's job to uphold the Constitution. That means this law may exist, but it cannot be enforced.

Otherwise, the president would be denying us our right to anonymity which is clearly stated in the constitution.

And that conflicts with his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution before anything else.

[Elwell]

It's the president's job to uphold the Constitution.
Yeah, that makes me feel lots better :P.
Because the executive branch never does anything that might violate the constitu...
Oh, never mind (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060117/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_assisted_suicide).

[Monkeylizard]

Greg Sharits saysW
, OOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO WOOO OWOOOWOOWOWOWOOOWOOOOWOOOO WOO

[bwkeough]

Those of us who post under our real names can be as annoying as we want. :P


woohoo!