Go BottomDon t Annoy Me
 | metastable
Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 78 North Plains, OR 
|
2006-01-09 122480
Bush just signed a law that will restrict many of the messages on this and other sites as well as email.
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news
Basically, you face felony charges, a fine, and up to 2 years in prison if you annoy anyone anonymously on the internet. Assuming someone intentionally posts something annoying in an anonymous manner, does that mean the site owner faces charges too? I understand the "abuse, threaten, or harass" part, but not the "annoy".
So say what you want in these forums, but make sure you disclose your full identity. Bye bye 1st amendment...
Clip of the law:
"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."
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoDon t Annoy Me
 | harvey
Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 1551 Moravia, NY 
 Pics
|
2006-01-09 122482
I do not think anyone here can post anonymous.
Anyone who wants to write or send something should put up their real location and a good address.
I think it is a good law maybe it will help get rid of the spammers that hide their idenities thru various web sites and liberaly stolen legit e-mail addresses.
And for those who think "Uncle Sam" has never listened to any and all signals in the air, regardless of their origin or destination, needs to wake up.
My opnion and $.02 worth.
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoDon t Annoy Me
 | kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon 
Pics
|
2006-01-09 122483
This may be the law catching up to modern times. I'd have to read the text of the law to judge it since media reports are rarely accurate. Harassment and stalking laws have been on the books for years and this may just be the internet equivalent of those. Congress often writes laws that are oblivious to the constitution and the lazy bums rely on the courts to figure out constitutionality of them. I don't think it's right for people to have unlimited anonymity while they attempt to destroy someones reputation. The constitution does say you have the right to face your accuser. The ability to be totally anonymous while harassing someone with words is a fairly new phenomenon. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoDon t Annoy Me
 | kthompson
Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5278 South Carolina
Pics
|
2006-01-09 122485
Help me here...
What is anonymous here? Does that mean it is okay to do these things if your identity is known?
My wonderings are, most politicians are anonymous to me even if they give their name. AND they sure annoy me and they use the internet.
Bet this law is like the do not call law, oh they are exempt.
Being fully serious, there are a lot of junk email that are not true that is meant to hurt others it seems. That is not right.
kt ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoDon t Annoy Me
 | Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4301 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2006-01-09 122495
"The constitution does say you have the right to face your accuser."
Ken, that is what the Constitution says and I agree.............. in reality that went out the window LONG ago with traffic radar, Lidar, and now speeding and stop light flash camera's that annonymously take your picture and you get a nice strong arm letter in the mail to pay some outrageous fine. Think you have the right to face your accuser???????? Try going to court to contest a speeding ticket or stop light camera ticket and see how far you get. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoDon t Annoy Me
| kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon
Pics
|
2006-01-09 122498
Yeah, I hate photo radar and think it's unconstitutional. Government fund raising near or at it's worst. But it's not exactly anonymous. You know who is causing your grief. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoDon t Annoy Me
 | Iowafun
Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 955 Central Iowa 
Pics
|
2006-01-10 122552
It's my understanding that many school kids are facing anonymous bullying on chat rooms and such. The law may be intended to address that kind of activity. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoDon t Annoy Me
| kthompson
Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5278 South Carolina
Pics
|
2006-01-10 122558
I guess there is much more I have no idea about than I do know. You are saying a person can get into at least some chat rooms without anyway to truly know who they are? Dumb I guess on my part to be surprised at that. It is well know there are perverts that do just that with children.
Seems I am understanding a need for this law.
kt ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoDon t Annoy Me
| kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon
Pics
|
2006-01-10 122566
You'd be amazed. It's easy to be completely, 100%, untrackably anonymous online. You can even do things like get credit cards in the name of anyone you want. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoDon t Annoy Me
 | AnnBrush
Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 463 Troy OH
Pics
|
2006-01-11 122609
Key part of the bill is the INTENT part - intent has to be proven, you cannot be prosecuted for annoying someone if the communication had legitimate intent. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoDon t Annoy Me
| 091755
Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 143 brantwood wisconsin
|
2006-01-12 122631
AnnBrush
Both "ANNOY" and "INTENT" are going to be an attorney's joy. How does one prove or disprove either?
Our government is just 'carried' away and they all need to be 'swept' out and start over.
Hell, I get annoyed by people and things and even on the internet, daily, but I dont see a need to prosecute someone. Of course, common sense today is of limited use.
I also dont have to consider the 'intent', because I dont give a rat's ass.
doc ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoDon t Annoy Me
| kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon
Pics
|
2006-01-12 122635
Maybe lawyers shouldn't be allowed to make laws. Seems like a conflict of interest to me. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photo
Go Top
Share This