Carlbrook

[Antigen]

Absolutely!

[Anonymous]

Perspective:  Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. And that irritates CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh.
By Declan McCullagh

Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST
See all Perspectives
TalkBack E-mail Print del.icio.us Digg this
 
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without 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. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called 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."

It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's 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."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's 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 sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

A law meant to annoy?
FAQ: The new 'annoy' law explained  
A practical guide to the new federal law that aims to outlaw certain types of annoying Web sites and e-mail.Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.

Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.

[Anonymous]

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

:tup:

[Anonymous]

Poop prank defended as free speech

SINCE REP. MARILYN MUSGRAVE GOT A FECES-LADEN PACKAGE, IT'S UNLEASHED A BIG STINK IN THE COURT
By Monte Whaley
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 01/18/2007 08:32:17 AM MST

Greeley

What Weld County prosecutors see as the misuse of a rancid pile of dog feces, Kathleen Ensz's defense attorneys see as an expression of the First Amendment.

Ensz is accused of going into her backyard in May, obtaining a piece of excrement, placing it in an unwanted political mailer and slipping in under the door of U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's office.

Ensz's attorneys argue that her conduct was a form of political protest that deserves protection and is as sacrosanct as Thomas Jefferson's railing against the king of England.

They also cited Mr. Hankey, a television character on the adult cartoon show "South Park," as evidence of how commonplace feces is for expressing disdain.

Mr. Hankey is a talking piece of human waste that shows up every Christmas Eve to deliver presents to good boys and girls whose diet has been high in fiber.

"What she did was probably crude and boorish," said Patricia Bangert, one of Ensz's attorneys. "But when Thomas Jefferson said there should be no kings and queens and we should be a free nation, that was considered obnoxious and horrible at the time."

Bangert also cites Mr. Hankey as part of her argument that feces is often used as an angry expression shielded by the Constitution.

"Etiquette and propriety aside, it is commonplace in today's society to equate a distasteful or disliked person, situation or thing to feces," Bangert said.

Ensz, a Democrat, was angered by repeatedly receiving mailings from Musgrave, a Republican whom she does not like. She decided to vent her frustration by packaging and presenting the feces, according to court filings.

Prosecutors have charged Ensz - a 63-year-old retired French professor at the University of Northern Colorado - with misdemeanor "use of a noxious substance."

Ensz's attorneys say they will probably call both Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck and Musgrave to the witness stand for an April 18 pretrial hearing.

They claim Buck, also a Republican, pursued criminal charges against Ensz, with the backing of Musgrave, because Ensz strongly supported Democrats in last fall's election.

Ensz displayed signs at her house for both Angie Paccione - Musgrave's Democratic opponent - and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter. Police contacted a staff member in Musgrave's office and asked if Ensz should be prosecuted, according to court papers.

Musgrave and Buck talked, and charges were filed against Ensz, said Bangert.

Later, Musgrave sent out news releases claiming Paccione was linked to the incident.

"It all begins to look like a conspiracy because immediately after she is charged, Marilyn Musgrave immediately goes to the press," Bangert said.

Buck couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday.

Musgrave spokesman Aaron Johnson said: "Right now, this issue is between Ms. Ensz and law enforcement officials."

Ensz also couldn't be reached for comment.

A trial date for Ensz has been set for May 15.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5034519?source=rss

[psy]

Karen.  Shame on you if you try and use that unconstitutional drivel to get your way.  Whoever wrote that bill should be hung in my opinion.  Undermining the constitution is a traitorous crime.  You and I both know that the Supreme Court would rule that legislation unconstitutional.

[exhausted]

She came 'ere and 'as admitted a bit of fings she's found 'ard ter admit, try ter understand that program parents 'onestly believe they are doin' the bleedin' right fin' at the time, right, no muvver wants ter be seperated form 'er kid, yer've al said yorself that kids, parents and staff are manipulated in the same way, as a parent she were sucked in along wiv the bloody rest of yer! Struth! I 'ave said this about TSW, that 'e were as Michael Cainewashed as evry geezer else into believein' 'e were doin' the right fin', the same goes for Karen, she is only 'uman, yor showin' double standards, 'oh TSW is so cool because 'e spots 'e were Michael Cainewashed and got out of it' why can't yer let the bloody same apply ter Karen and The 'oo, right, they are blokes, blokes make mistakes, right, her son is okay, and she now won't advocate CB - be grateful that she 'as decided CB ain't a place ter recommend, yer lads did that, yer achieved yor goal and then run 'er off the board?? Personally i would 'ave liked ter see 'er continue postin', wot she 'ad ter say about it all were right insightful, especially ter the bloomin' parent(s) 'oo were/are on the verge of sendin' their kids oray, i know, I were one of them, yer've done yor Uncle Bob and she 'as been 'onest about it all, basically between you lot, yer've pretty much Chas'n'Daved two kids from the same fate, I 'ope I never spot any fairy else discouraged from postin' 'ere frough the same divvyic treatment, right, encourage program parents 'ere, right, talk wiv them and let them coe round ter the bloody same realisation Karen 'as ravver than kick them about.

I'm not a Cockney, I was born and raised in Sussex, I speak nicely, get it right

[Anonymous]

Whatever...like I care. :roll:

Anyway, that was 3 days ago.

Next...

[Anonymous]

What-eva!

[exhausted]

Whatever...like I care. :roll:

Anyway, that was 3 days ago.

Next...

If you don't care, why write it stupid

Sorry it took 3 days to reply, I don't spend all day every day on the net, on account of having a life

[Anonymous]

Look you argumentative Brit-cunt, let's settle this right now, shall we?  :rofl: My dialect program only has one built-in British mode, and that's Cockney! So you better get used to it.  ::bwahaha::

[Anonymous]

A true Cockney would have more respect for a woman than to call her a cunt

[Anonymous]

He'd call her a bint instead.

[Anonymous]

A true Cockney would have more respect for a woman than to call her a cunt

 :rofl:

[hanzomon4]

What's a Cockney?

[Froderik]

What's a Cockney?

What about a knee-cock?

How about a knock-kneed Cockney?