This post is pretty funny. If not sad. Its sounded so odd that such a
major bill could pass congress and be signed without any controversy
in the media. It a major Free Speech issue.
So I checked the last 50 or so Technology arttices in the NYTimes. And
the last 50 or so articles in the "Washington" section. Could't find
anything close to what the poster cited. So I did a search on
"anonymous" and seperately on "annoy". There are no articles in the
past week containing these words that appear to have anything to do
with what the poster says he read.
Please post the article or links to it.
Beyond the "no media controversy" and "no article" issues, the post is
quite naive in its logic and its view of the world.
"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."
Was Due Process suspeneded with this bill? No police investigation? No
DA deciding if the case has merit? No trial? Just some angry person
says "He abused me" and it means that the alleged law was broken? Oh my!
This post is simply creepy in its unsupported claims, phantom article,
naivity, etc. I hope the students at THE CENTER FOR REALIZATION are
better served.
--- 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/
