Looks like 2006 might not be such a great year after all, if the following news excerpt carries any bite with it. It's aimed mainly at people using "sockpuppets" to flame others on the internet, but it could easily lead to a similar clamping down on many domain names and/or their "annoying" content:
"January 9, 2006
Being "Annoying" On Internet Now Federal Crime
On Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition regarding posting annoying web messages or sending annoying email messages without disclosing your true identity.
Meaning that you are now only allowed to "flame" someone on a mailing list or in a blog, as long as you do it under your real name. This prohibition, which would likely endanger many thousands of online users, was buried in the 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.'
The new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the internet, you must disclose your identity. Here is 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.'
Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan was to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure, and the tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There is 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 some sense. But why should merely 'annoying' someone also be illegal? There are perfectly legitimate reasons to write something incendiary on a message board or set up a domain website without telling everyone exactly who you are.
And how would such 'annoyance' ever be decided conclusively? Be that as it may, becoming a proven 'annoyance' to (presumably anyone making an accusation) is now enough to make that action a crime. The Justice Department does not have the manpower to file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is never reassuring.
Many are already claiming the law is unconstitutional, but it will be quite awhile before it becomes overturned, even if everyone wanted to right now. The wheels of justice are always slow, if they're even seen turning at all, in such cases. Meanwhile, all those using the internet had best stay clear of deserving to be called an 'annoyance,' at least for the time being."
"January 9, 2006
Being "Annoying" On Internet Now Federal Crime
On Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition regarding posting annoying web messages or sending annoying email messages without disclosing your true identity.
Meaning that you are now only allowed to "flame" someone on a mailing list or in a blog, as long as you do it under your real name. This prohibition, which would likely endanger many thousands of online users, was buried in the 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.'
The new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the internet, you must disclose your identity. Here is 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.'
Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan was to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure, and the tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There is 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 some sense. But why should merely 'annoying' someone also be illegal? There are perfectly legitimate reasons to write something incendiary on a message board or set up a domain website without telling everyone exactly who you are.
And how would such 'annoyance' ever be decided conclusively? Be that as it may, becoming a proven 'annoyance' to (presumably anyone making an accusation) is now enough to make that action a crime. The Justice Department does not have the manpower to file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is never reassuring.
Many are already claiming the law is unconstitutional, but it will be quite awhile before it becomes overturned, even if everyone wanted to right now. The wheels of justice are always slow, if they're even seen turning at all, in such cases. Meanwhile, all those using the internet had best stay clear of deserving to be called an 'annoyance,' at least for the time being."
Last edited:
)
