CNET NEWS Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail By Declan McCullagh 9th January 2006
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3- 6022491.html?tag=nl --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctor_gabby_savy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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/
