Wow. A whole law, just to deal with Akashanon. That's
some kinda fame... :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Dean Goodman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Fairfield Lifers,
>
> For the well-being and continuity of our group, I post the
> following information, from today's New York Times news reports:
>
> Annoying someone via the internet is now a federal crime.
>
> Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on
post-
> ing annoying web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages with-
> out 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.
>
> This prohibition is included in the "Violence Against Women and De-
> partment of Justice Reauthorization Act". Criminal penalties
include
> stiff fines and two years in prison.
>
> Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, a subsection
called "Prevent-
> ing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law
to
> prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his
iden-
> tity and with intent to annoy."
>
> Here's the relevant language:
>
> "Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to ori-
> ginate telecommunications or other types of communications that are
> transmitted, in whole or in part, by the internet... without
disclos-
> ing 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."
>
>
>
> My commentary:
>
> Since the law uses the vague word "annoy", along with the stronger
lan-
> guage ("threaten, harass, abuse"), the result for a discussion
group
> such as ours may be:
>
> 1. You CAN discuss someone's ideas anonymously.
>
> 2. BUT you must reveal your true identity if you push the argument
> very far, if you are perceived as "arguing", to where the other
> person could get "annoyed" with you - whether for your
perceived
> "resistance", your differing point of view, etc.
>
> 3. And you must certainly reveal your true identity if you move
> from debating his content (his ideas) to making any disparaging
> or even merely uninvited comments about the person himself -
in-
> cluding comments about his motives, state of mind, character,
> believability, qualifications, etc. - any of which could easily
> be predicted to be "annoying" to someone expecting polite
discus-
> sion of his ideas only, and some of which may move
beyond "annoy-
> ing" and into the realm of "threatening" or "harassing".
>
> The bottom line: by virtue of this new Federal law, we must each
either
> stop posting anything that could be reasonably expected to be
annoying
> to another, or continue posting these things but do it under our
true
> names (rather than anonymously). And the standard is low; it
doesn't
> take much to "annoy" someone. Probably a great majority of the
posts
> on our group would be considered "annoying" to someone that they
were
> directed toward.
>
> The solution is simple: stop posting anonymously unless you put on
kid
> gloves.
>
> Since I always post using my real name, this really doesn't affect
> me, but there are many anonymous or pseudo-named posters on this
> list, and often the posts get very contentious and many people's
> feelings get "annoyed" and beyond. ;)
>
> Since Yahoo is committed to preventing illegal behavior in its
groups,
> according to a number of sections of Yahoo's "Terms of Service"
(that
> we agreed to when joining up), Yahoo would have to discipline any
in-
> dividual poster (or group) that doesn't abide by this new Federal
law -
> anyone who posts potentially "annoying" posts anonymously or using
a
> screen name or pseudo-name. Yahoo would have to remove from its
service
> an individual who was reported to them as persisting in violating
the
> law. And a group like ours, if its leadership didn't self-police
the
> group by requiring posters who could possibly be perceived as
annoying
> anyone to post under their true names, would run the risk of being
> deleted by Yahoo without warning, should Yahoo get some complaints.
> From our past history, we can almost certainly count on Yahoo
getting
> complaints arising from our disgruntled or offended members using
this
> new Federal law.
>
> Although I, and many freedom-of-speech advocates, think the
language
> of this law is way too vague and over-reaching - it IS the current
> Federal law - and Yahoo pledges to uphold the law.
>
> Hope this info is of service.
>
> Namaste,
>
> Michael
>
> PARA - THE CENTER FOR REALIZATION
> and THE RELATIONSHIP INSTITUTE
> Michael Dean Goodman Ph.D., D.D., Director
> Boca Raton (Palm Beach County) Florida * 561-350-3930 * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Counseling * Workshops * Educational Session * Presentations *
Satsang
> Clients and programs throughout the United States, Europe, and
India
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
