New law: illegal to annoy someone via internet-could this affect our work?

[Amaryllis]

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

By Declan McCullagh

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.

<snip>

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."

For the rest:
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail...


Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

I posted this on GD pollitics also, but decided to post here since it could affect our work even though it's not directly related to election reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2448719&mesg_id=2448719

[DemInDistress]

1. what is the true definition of "annoy?..nt

[Ready4Change]

2. So, Bart Simpson using VOIP to make a prank call...

would be risking 2 years in jail?

[Dolomite]

3. "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy"

His identity?

His?

Ain't that somethin'?

[guruoo]

5. And what is their definition of "true identity"

[guruoo]

4. I doubt it will stand for long

It's too vague, and overly encompassing.

[dusmcj]

6. directed communications vs. publication

there are amusing legal issues here.

For one thing, the law which was amended was intended to protect victims of electronic stalking. It revolved around prohibiting inappropriate communications directed at a particular party. I.e. the object of aggression was the receiver of the message.

Bulletin boards and other internet public fora by contrast usually involve criticism of third parties - like on DU, "hey that Cheney, he's a Big Dick, eh?" I.e. this is a communication between two parties about a third, and negative content in it is directed at that third. Since it's a public forum the suggestion is that copyright law may apply (since your posts here are essentially publication) and that precedent from there will govern whether anonymous or pseudonymous publication can be constrained.

It seems perfectly appropriate for the expert community to seize on this as another instance in which busybodies asserting that their "common sense" qualifies them to have opinions worth considering on subjects they know little about, are using legislation to control things they don't understand, and creating Constitutionally unviable law in the process.

Somehow I don't see anybody worrying _too_ much about what they say. Which must spoil Big Dick's party, fond as he is of mouthing off "you have to watch what you say, there's a war on". But then as we all know, he can go fuck himself.

[guruoo]

8. It's like taking slapsuits from the civil to the criminal level -n/t

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP_suit

Strategic lawsuit against public participation
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is
a form of litigation filed by a large organization or in some
cases an individual plaintiff, to intimidate and silence a less
powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of
a legal defense that they abandon their criticism. The acronym
was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors
Penelope Canan and George W. Pring.

[applegrove]

7. Really - I think this makes sense. Flame me. But I don't think it affects

discussion forums. And I don't think it affects signing petitions. Or letters of the editor. It just means you have to use your real name.

I think spammers and political spammers are the ones who will be affected.

Think of how the newspapers are cutting back on journalists and how desperately we need them - even if all they report is the bare facts.

Think how expensive it is to answer & make sense of all emails like letters to the editor. At least if someone has a consistant email address you can categorize them as (already heard from this guy). Makes it less expensive.

I would really like to see those freepers who called the Congressional Black Caucus after Katrina to have their wings clipped.

Perhaps I am naive.

I'll admit that.

[foo_bar]

9. the "annoy" clause violates the 1st amendment, or should

But it doesn't even apply to discussion forums, from what I gather:

If the new "annoy" provision of the Telecommunication Act goes unchallenged, says EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl, it opens very substantial restrictions on Internet users' First Amendment rights. (Note that the law excludes "Internet computer services,"so the concern is chiefly with VoIP services. The law makes illegal anonymous communications "with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person … who receives the communications."

Opsahl argues on the EFF site that restraint on anonymous speech is cause for concern. <...> Most importantly, the use of "annoy" is considerable broadening of the earlier law. http://government.zdnet.com/?p=1927

As a final note, the new law still excludes "interactive computer services" from the definition of telecommunications device (223(h)(1)(B)), meaning that anonymously using online services such as blogs and message boards may be unaffected by the change.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004308.php

Edit for primary source:

(h) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
(B) does not include an interactive computer service.
(2) The term “interactive computer service” has the meaning provided in section 230 (f)(2) of this title. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000223----000-.html

(f) Definitions
As used in this section:
(1) Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2) Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html#f_2

[Einsteinia]

10. The last bastion for us is the internet

and they know it. We all know it's the last chess piece on the board.