Thanks for the cite. I was thrown off by poster's misleading timeframe. The bill was signed Jan 5, while the post implies it was "last thursday" aka 1/26. I didn't look far enough back in the archives.
1/28/06 post: "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 posting annoying web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages with out disclosing your true identity." Such "abuse" language cannot stand up in courts. It is contrary to so many free speech and privacy precedents. The "naivite" of the original post still holds -- its view on implications. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand Paul Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://news.com.com/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=nl > easier-to-use URL > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand Paul Mason" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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/
