Anonymous flames and negative feedback with "intent to annoy" now a felony?
yENC Man
"Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy" is now a
felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on message boards
or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a felony...unless you use your
real name. And I guess a case could be made that since most feedback is left
on eBay using "handles" other than the "real name" of the user, negative
feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure that this
law has all kinds of good intentions.
Via CNet News.com
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
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.
...
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.
...
There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved
in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by
comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to
cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying
someone be illegal?
(More at the link.)
philo
"yENC Man" <yen...@hotmaildot.com> wrote in message
news:_kEwf.805$ee6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
> "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy" is now
> a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on message
> boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a felony...unless you
> use your real name. And I guess a case could be made that since most
> feedback is left on eBay using "handles" other than the "real name" of the
> user, negative feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a
> potential felony?
>
> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure that
> this law has all kinds of good intentions.
>
yes
that's why i always use my real pseudonym!
rjn
> ... prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing
> his identity and with intent to annoy."
What in the Constitution grants a "right" to be un-annoyed?
Until recently, I'd suggest that because this is blatently
unconstitutional, the first test case would get it tossed.
But then Kelo and BCFR are unconstitutional too.
What the Senate needs to be asking SCOTUS nominees is:
1. Do you read and speak English?
2. Have you actually read the Constitution?
... because it's clear a majority presently on the Court have not.
--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:na...@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
Ed Mars
> Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
Don't miss "Intent To Annoy" from Paramount pictures
starring Ben Affleck, Roseanne Barr, Lewis Black and
that Hilton broad.
Coming soon to a theater near you.
Ed
Toolman Tim
philo spewed forth:
<VBG>!!
--
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
Toolman Tim
Leythos spewed forth:
> In article <_kEwf.805$ee6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> yen...@hotmaildot.com says...
Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?
Toolman Tim
Leythos spewed forth:
> In article <u2Fwf.539$VG5...@fe05.lga>, frack...@no.spam.invalid
> says...
Well, since the news article is "quoting" text from the new law, and use the
word "annoy" in part of the quote, I'd bet that it's in there. Or Cnet News
could find themselves in trouble...
Be that as it may, I guess I'd better start using my real name, since I
*know* I annoy people all the time <G>
Oh - wait - my name *is* Tim. Go figure...
Toolman Tim
Leythos spewed forth:
> In article <vfFwf.541$VG5...@fe05.lga>, frack...@no.spam.invalid
> Annoy. It the parts that they suggest and the parts that they quote,
> it's not that same.
Nope - check it:
<quote>
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."
</quote>
That looks like they quoted it from the text.
--
Pursuant to Public Law No 109-162 I hereby certify that it is not my
intent in any way to irritate, frustrate, bother, provoke, gall,
disturb, vex, exasperate, ruffle, harrass, harry, pester, bedevil, piss
off, piss on, or in any other way annoy the reader of this post.
pcbutts1
--
The best live web video on the internet http://www.seedsv.com/webdemo.htm
NEW Embedded system W/Linux. We now sell DVR cards.
See it all at http://www.seedsv.com/products.htm
Sharpvision simply the best http://www.seedsv.com
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:JgFwf.15365$%D1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <vfFwf.541$VG5...@fe05.lga>, frack...@no.spam.invalid
> Read what they actually posted, and read it where they use the words
> Annoy. It the parts that they suggest and the parts that they quote,
> it's not that same.
>
> --
>
> spam9...@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
FML
http://www.rules.house.gov/109/text/hr3402/109hr3402_text.pdf
Kadaitcha Man
disphoric turd-packer who likes savage indoor sports with weasels, and
whose partner is an old bag with a sickly quivering mound of love
pudding, wrote in <_kEwf.805$ee6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
> "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy"
> is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on
> message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a
> felony...unless you use your real name.
Oh, shut the fuck up, you brain-dead shittard.
--
Cooking tonight: Outrageous gnats accentuated by wretched axolotl
blister with corn preserve and loathsome droppings with revolting used
cat litter chips and giraffe duodenum dressing, cooked in a chilled
casserole brimming with small whole green bean and squares of cabbage in
dog pee, a side of pickles and a few ounces of koala vaginal secretions.
variou...@yahoo.com
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> yENC Man <yen...@hotmaildot.com>, the piddling idler and gender
> disphoric turd-packer who likes savage indoor sports with weasels, and
> whose partner is an old bag with a sickly quivering mound of love
> pudding, wrote in <_kEwf.805$ee6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
> > OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
> > "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy"
> > is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on
> > message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a
> > felony...unless you use your real name.
>
> Oh, shut the fuck up, you brain-dead shittard.
You're right.
new identity
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
........
<snip>
So how does this relate to SPAM?
I know I get constantly annoyed by it.....
Can I claim compensation?
Can I steal Toolman's sig?
<GG>
Pogonip
> yENC Man <yen...@hotmaildot.com>, the piddling idler and gender
> disphoric turd-packer who likes savage indoor sports with weasels, and
> whose partner is an old bag with a sickly quivering mound of love
> pudding, wrote in <_kEwf.805$ee6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>
>>OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
>>"Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy"
>>is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on
>>message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a
>>felony...unless you use your real name.
>
>
> Oh, shut the fuck up, you brain-dead shittard.
>
>
>
number for the U.S. Attorney......
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth
Kadaitcha Man
manager who likes destructive seed implanting with rat snakes, and whose
partner is a girl of the game with a tight mushy mushy, wrote in
<43c3...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
At the rate the U S of fucking A is going, within a decade, Communist North
Korea will be able to claim that its utterly crushed population has more
liberties.
Steve n Debs
> In news:CaFwf.15319$%D1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com,
> Leythos spewed forth:
>> [59 quoted lines suppressed]
>
> Well, since the news article is "quoting" text from the new law, and use the
> word "annoy" in part of the quote, I'd bet that it's in there. Or Cnet News
> could find themselves in trouble...
>
What, you mean someone will be annoyed!
Scraggy
> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
> "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy"
> is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on
> message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a
> felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case could be
> made that since most feedback is left on eBay using "handles" other
> than the "real name" of the user, negative feedback that is left with
> the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?
Its still OK on out bit of the net though. So fuck off. :)
--
I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as
members. Groucho Marx
Aratzio
<fuck-you...@kiss-my-big-black-ass.com> transparently proposed:
>yENC Man <yen...@hotmaildot.com>, the piddling idler and gender
>disphoric turd-packer who likes savage indoor sports with weasels, and
>whose partner is an old bag with a sickly quivering mound of love
>pudding, wrote in <_kEwf.805$ee6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
>> "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy"
>> is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on
>> message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a
>> felony...unless you use your real name.
>
>Oh, shut the fuck up, you brain-dead shittard.
That *law* makes me happy.
--
AHM Wanker Stomping Award - 2005
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - May, 2005
Hammer of Thor - July, 2005
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 10-22-2005
Message-Id: <slrndlk3ae....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
"But it is not isolated AUK has a massive impact the rest of usenet."
Morton Davis
"yENC Man" <yen...@hotmaildot.com> wrote in message
news:_kEwf.805$ee6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Then you'll be the first one arrested, eh?
Toolman Tim
"new identity" <indee...@ntllostworld.com> wrote in message
news:MOJwf.1091$o7....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
Sure - and maybe add a few synonyms of your own <g>
Toolman Tim
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> In article <wqFwf.543$VG5...@fe05.lga>, frack...@no.spam.invalid
> says...
>> > Read what they actually posted, and read it where they use the words
>> > Annoy. It the parts that they suggest and the parts that they quote,
>> > it's not that same.
>>
>> Nope - check it:
>>
>> <quote>
>> 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."
>> </quote>
>>
>> That looks like they quoted it from the text.
>
>
> I found the link, please see that what you read int he MEDIA is hype,
> not factual information.
>
That text is incomplete. It doesn't contain the additions from after Sept.
15th, 2005.
Toolman Tim
boots66 spewed forth:
> on or around 09 Jan 2006, reportedly in
> news:y7GdnQYgAK8Tpl7e...@comcast.com, FML
> <NoSpa...@Invalid.xxx> was rumoured to have supposedly alleged:
>
>>>> You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?
>>>
>> Here you go, have fun:
>>
>> http://www.rules.house.gov/109/text/hr3402/109hr3402_text.pdf
>
That isn't the final version of the bill as voted on and passed. The final
version is not even posted at the Library of Congress yet. The entire
section being discussed here wasn't in the original bill as proposed - it
was added later, probably in committee, and until I see *that* version, I
will believe that CNet News has accurately portrayed the literal text of the
bill.
Toolman Tim
Kadaitcha Man spewed forth:
Okay, I won't usually respond to posts made by the illustrious Kadaitcha,
but in this case you get a whole-hearted agreement.
redleg
No biggie folks, the State of California will execute a blind man in a
wheel chair on Jan 17th. Yeah he's guilty....but geez.
Toolman Tim
boots66 spewed forth:
> on or around 10 Jan 2006, reportedly in news:VeUwf.69$Pu...@fe03.lga,
> "Toolman Tim" <frack...@no.spam.invalid> was rumoured to have
> supposedly alleged:
>
>> That isn't the final version of the bill as voted on and passed. The
>> final version is not even posted at the Library of Congress yet. The
>> entire section being discussed here wasn't in the original bill as
>> proposed - it was added later, probably in committee, and until I see
>> *that* version, I will believe that CNet News has accurately
>> portrayed the literal text of the bill.
>
I keep checking:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03402:
--
Pursuant to Public Law No 109-162 I hereby certify, assert, testify,
warrant, and affirm that it is not (nor has it ever been) my intent,
aim, objective or purpose in any way to irritate, frustrate, provoke,
gall, aggravate, bother, bug, chafe, fret, irk, nettle, peeve, put out,
rile, bait, beleaguer, beset, plague, tease, torment, worry, disturb,