Annoying someone on the internet is now a federal crime

[Ben Kenobi]

intent to annoy. It doesn't matter whether someone is thin-skinned and easily annoyed, what matters is the (provable according to the rules of evidence) intent of the poster.

MtG:

This is apolyton. Folks come here for the specific intent to troll.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


MtG:

This is apolyton. Folks come here for the specific intent to troll.

whoa

[Japher]

i don't

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
i don't

[Ben Kenobi]

yeah, whudathunk?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Better to allow the former than the latter, frankly. KKK rallies are always political speech.

Bingo. You'd be hard pressed to argue KKK rallies aren't political speech, which are protected most of all by the 1st Amendment.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Not necessarily - not all speech is protected (i.e. slander, for one example).

It's still a bit of a because there's that one little bugaboo the press article missed: intent to annoy. It doesn't matter whether someone is thin-skinned and easily annoyed, what matters is the (provable according to the rules of evidence) intent of the poster.

That was my point as well when I read the OP. Annoying people is irrelevent if there is a necessity that the annoyance be intentional.

So you can unknowingly be as annoying as you want but face no charge.!!!

"Annoying" still seems like the wrong word here. . .. I think they are mainly after very intrusive, abusive types thimgs. Heck . . . almost every post in a cap/com thread is an attempt to "annoy" someone else

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I dont care for the vagueness of words like "intent to annoy", its too open to selective, ie political prosecutions. Its like "community standards" and "obscentiy". Could Pat Robertson be prosecuted for violating some community's standards? No, its an ideologically based law.

Community standards essentially was given the boot here in Canada in a case about what was indecent by our Supreme Court. In case you missed it, sex clubs are now just fine here in Canada

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Bingo. You'd be hard pressed to argue KKK rallies aren't political speech, which are protected most of all by the 1st Amendment.

So then political speech on the Internet could still be legitimate even when it annoys other people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
So then political speech on the Internet could still be legitimate even when it annoys other people.

Duh.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Annoying someone on the internet is now a federal crime

Originally posted by Bill3000


Link

We're doomed. DOOMED! No more annoying people on the internets without saying our real names!

My BS detector finally went off.

I guess if you cite a link, you can lie all you want. The article is a crock of bull****. The author either outright lied to get attention, or just took some paranoid rumor or hoax and published it without checking.


Point 1: The little sidebox with the quote of relevant language including "utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted" is a fabrication that uses separate pieces of unrelated language and cobbles them together.


Point 2: Section 113, in its entirety, reads:

"SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(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)).'.

(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section."

Point 3: The relevant section of the statute in question provides definitions of a "telecommunications device" in relation to offenses regarding:


§ 223. Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications

(a) Prohibited acts generally

Whoever—

(1) in interstate or foreign communications—

(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—

(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and

(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—

(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and

(ii) initiates the transmission of,

any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;

(C) 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;

(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,

shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.


The effect of the current bill language is nothing more than to include VoIP telephony, IM and related technologies within the existing statutory framework prohibiting obscene or harassing phone calls across state lines.

Why should anyone have a loophole allowing them to harass a specific targeted individual by IM or Vonage or Skype, when the same conduct by telephone or fax is already illegal and has been for years?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Duh.

Thanks for your polite answer.

[Odin]

I was on DU earlier and most of the people there were certain that this bill was aimed at stifling dissent, even when someone pointed out it exempted blogs and message boards.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Odin
My name is in my profile, so I'm covered.