New law punishes trolling with jail time

[scorpio]

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.


http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news

[Rascal]

Pathetic.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news
Stupid laws from stupid people.

[Crushaholic]

:kiddingme

We have a Supreme Court vacancy to fill and Congress is wasting time with this? I can't wait for the first case resulting from this law to make it to court...:crazy:

[brncs_fan]

Is this really that big of an issue that we need a federal law about it?

[Rascal]

I am really beginning to lose confidence in our represenatives. We need statesman and congressman...not politicians.

I am beginning to like the idea of a 1 six year term and then you are out.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Where's Bob? LOL

[Clockwork Orange]

Get ready to grab your ankles Bob.

[RaiderH8r]

Stupid laws from stupid people.
Are you kidding? It's now a felony to spam. RULE!!! And how can you object to the possibility that Boob will be some big man's beeyatch in the butt hut for his inane ramblings? Justice? I think so.

[SDChiefsfan]

Get ready to grab your ankles Bob.

Taco John is in BIG trouble over at ChiefsPlanet then. Heh.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Are you kidding? It's now a felony to spam. RULE!!! And how can you object to the possibility that Boob will be some big man's beeyatch in the butt hut for his inane ramblings? Justice? I think so.
I think you just annoyed me, I'm not sure but I'm going to have my attorney check into it. Maybe you and Bob can get together in Sing Sing?

LOL

[Old Dude]

This sounds as unconstitutional as hell.

[Priest Dante]

I'm tired of being ruled by people with heavy C.I.A. ties. Paranoid freaks want to become Big Brother.

[brncs_fan]

Are you kidding? It's now a felony to spam. RULE!!! And how can you object to the possibility that Boob will be some big man's beeyatch in the butt hut for his inane ramblings? Justice? I think so.
Until you make a post that "annoys" me and then you are off to jail too.

Big difference between annoyed and harmed.

[shaftedelic]

It's just the US government trying to make laws against a techonolgy they don't understand. Without first having a way to know who is making the post, there is no way for them to prove they lied about their idenity.

[Rascal]

This will not make it through the courts.

[RaiderH8r]

I think you just annoyed me, I'm not sure but I'm going to have my attorney check into it. Maybe you and Bob can get together in Sing Sing?

LOL
Once again, the Chiefs would be Broncos b!tch.

[Florida_Bronco]

Wow.....just wow.

[brncs_fan]

Did anyone sign up with their actual identity for anything on the interent ever?

[Hotrod]

Did anyone sign up with their actual identity for anything on the interent ever?

Pat Bowlin ;D

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Sounds like another good reason to return to our constitutional roots and have a part time citizen legislature. these guys have way too much time to dream up this crap.

[alkemical]

uhm, this is pretty scary. I mean, really think about this.......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Don't drop the soap, W*GS.

:D

[BroncoBuff]

HEY BOB! They're looking for you around here! Somebody said you're banned for 1 month?

PM me - or rep me w/ reply

[Rascal]

Don't drop the soap, W*GS.

:D

I wouldn't be talking. Ha!

[TheDave]

I am really beginning to lose confidence in our represenatives. We need statesman and congressman...not politicians.

I am beginning to like the idea of a 1 six year term and then you are out.

I couldn't agree more... With all the $hit this country is going through we have a group of representatives trying to grab the spotlight with the Teri Schiavo circus, Steroid hearings, and now Federal Trolling laws... It's time to can everyone of their asses, outlaw all political based TV adds (that will cut down the cost of campaigns real quick), and start fresh. Maybe we will get lucky and get a few statesmen in there.

[alkemical]

TheDave,

Do you think that if those in power feel threatened they will turn on us?

[TheDave]

TheDave,

Do you think that if those in power feel threatened they will turn on us?

not really, most if not all of these guys are already rich beyond any of our wildest dreams... JMO but early retirement would seem to be a better choice than going down as one of the S.O.B.'s that helped destroy the greatest Nation in the history of this world. Could they...Maybe... Will they...Most likely not.

[Rascal]

I don't think he was talking about our "representatives" but those people who have the power behind the scenes...and those people will fight to retain their power.

[TheDave]

I don't think he was talking about our "representatives" but those people who have the power behind the scenes...and those people will fight to retain their power.

Sorry... I don't speak conspiracy very well... who are the ones behind the scenes that we are talking about?

[alkemical]

Actually, no i was talking about our representatives. No conspiracy other than those that have the power will want to keep their power. And returning the power to the people is out of the question IMO.

Look at the laws, trolling - cellphone usage while driving - tax on this tax on that -

No conspiracy unless you count those who are working at keeping their power at the expense of the rest of us.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Actually, no i was talking about our representatives. No conspiracy other than those that have the power will want to keep their power. And returning the power to the people is out of the question IMO.

Look at the laws, trolling - cellphone usage while driving - tax on this tax on that -

No conspiracy unless you count those who are working at keeping their power at the expense of the rest of us.

I'm all for a law against these idiots driving around with a cellphone plastered to their head.

[alkemical]

I use a headset and drive and talk. But i never use my phone in the car while driving without a headset.

[REB]

Man oh man. The Libertarian Party just keeps looking better and better. www.lp.org

Hopefully that didn't annoy anyone :wave:

1-2-3 :Broncos:!!!!!!! :charge: :patslose: :smashpats

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wouldn't be talking.

Speaking of people who shouldn't drop the soap...

BTW, "troll" does not = "anyone who doesn't share my unconditional love for Bush."

[Rascal]

BTW, "troll" does not = "anyone who doesn't share my unconditional love for Bush."

Unconditional love...LOL...whatever dude.

Besides, it's obvious you haven't read the finer details of that new law.

[alkemical]

why this and no action on hackers?

[Rascal]

My guess is that some senator (or Bush I guess) had a burr up their ass, and they would only sign the bill if this was included. It's pretty lame.

[alkemical]

I just think this can be a greivous misuse of power. think about it, it's old skool sytle of reporting your neighbors you don't like to the SS or to the russian equiv.

[Rascal]

I just think this can be a greivous misuse of power. think about it, it's old skool sytle of reporting your neighbors you don't like to the SS or to the russian equiv.

I agree which is why I said it won't stand up in the courts.

[REB]

I agree with rascal here. The only way this could stand up in court is if they completely tore up the constitution, burned it and then buried it's ashes. Let's hope not.

1-2-3 :Broncos:!!!!!!! :charge: :patslose: :smashpats

[alkemical]

I agree which is why I said it won't stand up in the courts.


unless it would somehow fall into the patriot act v 3.0 somehow and gets tied to secret courts....

[GonzoLays]

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."

It's illegal to annoy
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."
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.

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?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

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.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

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?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Sweet, legislation that helps breed more thin-skinned pussies.

[Garcia Bronco]

Sweet, legislation that helps breed more thin-skinned pussies.


Very well true.

[Rock Chalk]

Its really stupid but any lawyer can beat that case. They will not get one conviction off this except in extreme cases where individuals actually broke other, more realistic and serious offenses via the internet.

[Kaylore]

Its really stupid but any lawyer can beat that case. They will not get one conviction off this except in extreme cases where individuals actually broke other, more realistic and serious offenses via the internet.
To say nothing of what a court will do with this one.

[Garcia Bronco]

Its really stupid but any lawyer can beat that case. They will not get one conviction off this except in extreme cases where individuals actually broke other, more realistic and serious offenses via the internet.


Yep///it's throw in...but it still shouldn't be on the books.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wish the law applied to douche bags who give you retaliatory negative feedback on eBay.

You know - those people who burn you and, when you leave negative feedback for them, leave the same for you in an attempt to blackmail you into retracting your feedback?

I hate that sh*t!

[alkemical]

You guys should see the bigger picture:

This is for the gov't to get their hooks into the internet.... FCC regulations, taxes, etc -

[Darkdoc]

From ZDNet: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6024695.html?tag=nl.e589

Commentary--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."

It's illegal to annoyA 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."
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."


This is beyond incredible, even if it means we can get rid of Bob - or at least he'll have to post under his real name.

A threat to message boards for sure, if it isn't challenged and revoked.

What are these fools thinking?

[24champ]

been posted before.

[SoonerBronco]

You may want to change that sig line 24Champbailey. It was not in 1986, it was '96. It was not the playoffs...just a regular season game.

[Darkdoc]

been posted before.
Sorry, didn't see it.

Moderator may delete.

[Bronx33]

Bob should be serving a life sentence..

[PatsRule]

Blame Al Gore, after all he did invent the internet....

[Victor]

Blame Al Gore, after all he did invent the internet....

Your post was annoying and you're going to jail, chowder.

[PatsRule]

Your post was annoying and you're going to jail, chowder.


I hate Chowda I really do..I dont even like seafood

[CBF1]

RIP Mock :)

[Haroldthebarrel]

How does that work?

Does the law apply if the server is in a foreign country, and would I and others that are not american be doing an international crime if i were to annoy you.
Would be amusing if i got a call from your consulate telling me that Ive been indicted in the USA?

[missingnumber7]

If thats the case what about rush or some of those other idiots...they annoy me...on and Ted Kennedy too.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"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."

In principle, this new law sounds just like that new gun law in Florida.

I can't remember all the specifics, but the jist of it is that you have the right to draw down on someone in public if you feel "threatened."

Too nuckin' futs!