Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime!
 

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.

full story here: news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?foundBy=bleacheatingfreaks.com

PS.... SON OF A BUSH!

I don't really see what's wrong with it. Maybe I'm missing something though.

I'm glad I live in a place where American laws hold no sway. :)

well i guess crowquill/alexisonfire/misfitpunk is going to the big house cuz he annoys the f**K outta me:p:

wel let see....... BIG BROTHER maby?

good pic :yeah:

I'm sure Bush has lots more important things to worry about then fighting against the evil of annoying internet users.

Ah well, I don't live in America, what do I care?

I'm going to have SO much fun threatening people with this link. mwahah.

Bush signs more poorly written legislation. Congratulations america.

Its because its bush.

Define annoying.


"I find you annoying, therefore you are committing a federal crime"

It's bull****. It's designed to protect women from potential women but it opens people up to extreme sentencing for ... well. .. nothing.

What makes it worse is that they slipped it in as a porker - if a Senator votes no to the legislation they bring themselves into the limelight for vetoing another piece of important legislation which they would otherwise agree with.

Whoever said big brother is a joke.

And the whole point of it is to prevent cyber stalking. And the law is a joke, anyone charged with this could fight it and win probably with ease. Don't see where the big deal the comes in.

There shouldn't even be the option of wasting tax money on such court cases.

It SHOULD NEVER have been passed as a porker, it's abysmal that the US senate let it pass and indicative of how much they actually care about justice funding.

It could be MUCH better written. Why was it not? Again shows a general apathy on the part of the US senate.

Our tax money is wasted on stuff much worse than fighting stuff like this.

The government will be increasingly trying to get a greater hold of the internet and establishing rules for the internet as the internet is increasingly a growing part of our society.

I don't go around harassing random ass people on the internet, so I guess I'm not so effected by it. I could understand where if I did I would be upset like some of you are.

Which does, of course, make the legislation entirely acceptable? No. This thread is about this particular piece of legislation, not other money wasting initiatives. That they exist is a non-issue here.

And to be a pedant, if I lived in America this post could make me susceptible to a Federal crime. I'm following the issue, some people could find it annoying and take me to court over it with this law as backing. It's an extreme situation, but the court cases I've seen coming out of America and I wouldn't put it passed you guys to try at some point ...

The other problem is that the internet is incredibly hard to legislate. I live in the UK, thus should not be applied to by American internet regulations, yet their regulations will still invariably affect me.

Yet "The government will be increasingly trying to get a greater hold of the internet and establishing rules for the internet as the internet is increasingly a growing part of our society."?

The two don't seem mutually exclusive.

i agree with iamalejo. if you waste your life spamming, and harrassing random people on the net i hope you get put away, your stealing my oxygen.

Jibber can expect a call from my lawyer

Like I give a fuck.

Ditto

I believe in freedom. I believe in freedom of communication. It is widely held that mankind got basic rights. For the most part, those basic rights that are represented in the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution and copied by institutions around the world. Of those rights, two of those who I feel is most important, are the freedom of speech and the freedom to privacy. Both of these rights are the freedoms of communication and I believe strongly in those rights.

US government rights less available?

I definitively do. The Internet has been a societal revolution. The reason why the Internet has been a societal revolution is that is has changed the way fundamentally that we as a world-wide society communicate. Many people feel that the Internet is a free information communication medium, when in fact is not. The Internet as we know it today is controlled by the United States Government. And I am opposed to this.

How do they control?

The United States Government through its contracts and programs controls everything from IP address allocations to who has overriding authority over the domain name space. In addition they govern the way Tier 1 providers can do business. Ultimately this translates into total control of the Internet.
Eugene E. Kashpureff formely hacker.
( i rather have more respect for a hacker than BUSH!)

Freedom to privacy is so vaguely mentioned in the constitution that if Alito gets put on the court, I don't know how much I'd count on that "freedom" anyway.

Establishing rules and big brother.

Don't seem like the same thing to me.

However it would seem that america is establishing rules over something they do not have jurisdiction.

That comment annoys me ... you haven't declared your true identity. I'm taking you to court. This law is GREAT.

And you would lose in court.


How does America not have jurisdiction? Sure not over users from other countries they wouldn't be able to prosecute at all...but for American users. I don't get it.

does this mean i cant insult americans, i cant read the link, my pc is ****...

Yeah but I can still ban you.


Just kidding.

:D heh, ill get myself banned sooner or later. you wait and see.

Yea there are some super articles on this website too well atleast I think i read this same article here anyway, here biz.yahoo.com/bw/051214/20051214005365.html?.v%3D1

dang i dont have enough posts to do a url...

Sure. But look at 1) how much court time I've wasted and 2) how much tax payers money I've wasted in doing so. It would have been SO easy for them to better phrase the legislation so that this won't happen. This law is bull****. It is absurdly poorly written and does little to the end that it hopes to achieve while much more besides. The people who wrote the law realised this, which is why they attached it as a part of a vital bill - the Senate had to pass the Justice bill or they'd bring themselves into the spotlight for holding up important legislation. Is this how you want to see your countries legislation being passed? I severly hope not.

How do they not have Jurisdiction? Example:

1. The server is in Canada. A poster from England makes a post "annoying" a user in America. Whose law takes precedence?

2. The server is in Africa. A poster from America makes a post "annoying" a user in Russia. Whose law takes precedence?

3. The server is in America. A poster from Canada makes a post "annoying" a user in Australia. Whose law takes precedence?

The internet is FAR too complex to be regulated differently country to country because everybodies laws get mixed and intermingled. You need a neutral body to regulate all internet for anything to have any attempt at being called fair or unbiased.

I agree with Fal. Very logical... Indubitably so.

What next?

Fines for saying people are ugly on hotornot.com?

Well let's think. You say someone is ugly in real life, no problem.

You stalk someone in real life, you're ****ed.

1. No
2. I'm gonna say no, but it's iffy
3. Yes

But then America would have to prosecute the Canadian. Would the Canadian Government allow deportation of one of their citizens based upon an issue which is not a crime in their country? Should they?

It gets really tricky and confusing if they aren't breaking a law in their country and America has no jurisdiction there. Unless there's some international internet policing organization I don't see how much can be done.

Take for instance the file sharing thing. http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php Being a very comical example.

You know who should make the laws, and this is what i honestly think, I think USA should make the laws for the internet, reguardless of how did what, we invented the Internet, phones, cable-internet, and the computer you are useing it on. simply put we deserve to decide the fate of spamming.

Sorry, I didn't know the CERN were affiliated with America. Last I heard they were mostly in Switzerland ...

We invented Gravity, we don't give you the right to use it. Close down NASA, you guys are stealing our intellectual property!

Regardless of who didn't create the internet, that doesn't grant the right to censor.