Internet Trolling is Now Illegal

[China]

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

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."

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.

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.

Click on the link for the full article

[Thiebear]

I think that is fantastic:

ALL of the spam I get is from make believe email address so you can't block them with the junk mail.. They just change it over and over with fake accounts.

IF they are required to use a real address and they bust a couple of these people I can then see the amount going down...

[SkinInsite]

I'm more annoyed that some idiot congressman managed to put this piece of crap on a bill called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act.

Way to go Pennsylvania.

[PokerPacker]

have i ever mentioned that i hate politicians?

[Mad Mike]

Dumb. It will be fixed in time of course. But still dumb. :doh:

[Walking Deadman]

This thread is annoying me and emotionally hurting me.......you're in trouble now mister

Just joking, but this is the problem when government and law starts interferring with things, it all gets out of hand sadly.

Anybody who goes to Rant boards and trolls or ghosts better beware.......

[chomerics]

Dumb. It will be fixed in time of course. But still dumb. :doh:

For one we agree!!! :laugh: What a piece of crap legislation. Keep the damn government out of the internet, they've been trying to get their hands into cyberspace for far far to long, now they backdoor'd their way in. Bunch of SOB politicians, that's all I can say. :mad: :finger: :redpunch::hammer: :shot: :doh1: :whippin:

[mistymjohnson]

Wait a minute... Why hate politicians for getting involved in the internet?

Didn't Al Gore (a politician) create the internet? *winks*

[Destino]

I think that is fantastic:

ALL of the spam I get is from make believe email address so you can't block them with the junk mail.. They just change it over and over with fake accounts.

IF they are required to use a real address and they bust a couple of these people I can then see the amount going down...

Spam is already illegal. This has nothing at all to do with that.

This law is vague which automatically IMO makes it bad. Allowing different people to interpret the law as they see fit creates problems. People no longer know for certain what is considered legal and what is not. Dumb law, and the people that write crap like this shouldn't be elected because they should know better but do it anyway.

[Ancalagon the Black]

I cannot imagine this would be enforceable.

[DButz65]

This thread is annoying , im pressing charges!!

[spanishomelette]

They'll have to completely shut down cowboysnet, igglesphan, and ganggreen now.

[Ancalagon the Black]

There's some clarification here: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/09/flame_someone_anonym.html

The original article is misleading, especially on the "annoying" part. It appears to be not such a big deal.

In a comment to my co-blogger's post, I point out problems with Declan's article. I write: Declan's article is misleading. The provision extends a telephone harassment law to apply to email. Declan describes the provision as applying whenever a person "annoys" another: "A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity."

But that's not what the law says. Instead it provides: "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."

Note that "annoy" is part of the intent element of the statute -- it requires the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass. Far from an anti-anonymity provision that applies whenever a person annoys another, it is merely a prohibition on harassment. Declan writes: "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." I don't see any basis for the law to apply in this instance.

[SUNSTONE]

You are all under arrest for breaking the new law!

[DarkLadyRaven]

Ravens fans on our board can now post with confidence with no fear of reprisal from Kenskin, and divisional trolls

[nickfox45]

so i can be as annoying as i want if i use my real name?

i knew i chose this username for a reason! :laugh:

[DeanCollins]

With new laws, follow the money, this probably protects big biz by making online slanderers reveal themselves so they can be sued.