home

New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mails and Web Posts

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 11:43:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

We all better learn to think twice before clicking our mouses. A new law signed by President Bush last week makes sending annoying anonymous e-mails or posting annoying messages on websites a federal crime.

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.....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."

For people who comment on use-net groups and blogs, this could be a problem. Here's the actual text:

"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."

Question: What is the definition of "intent to annoy" ? Who decides? Why doesn't this violate the First Amendment?

As for how this bill slipped in under the radar, here's the explanation:

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.

[Cross-posted at 5280.com]

Update: Here's another few questions. Are website owners liable for anonymous postings by commenters? If so, that will mandate a tidal wave of changes for blogs that allow commenters to use anonymous monikers. And, will this give the Government added cause to subpoena IP address information on blog visitors?

Atrios weighs in.

Update: Last Night in Little Rock just e-mailed this:

I asked my computer maintenance guys about privacy a while back, and I was informed that all e-mails are required under the PATRIOT Act to be kept. He said his company got a letter from the government advising him of the requirements of the PATRIOT Act. Used to be they were kept a mere 4 weeks, and some mail providers not at all. No more. NSLs and subpoenas are used to get the information from the mail providers.

Therefore, never assume that e-mails expire with age anymore. Your computer leaves tracks like a common garden slug, and your ISP records all of it and has to keep it. Big Brother is watching, NSL in hand.

< Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-American Clerks | DeLay's Trial Still Delayed >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mails and Web Posts | 63 comments (63 topical)
    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:04:19 PM EST
    Any putative libertarians wanna weigh in on this? Will this nasty Republican originated thing pass constitutional muster? Is this, in fact, a Troll-hammer?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#2)
    by theologicus on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:09:30 PM EST
    Trolls beware!

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:10:02 PM EST
    Can we start getting trolls fined under this law?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:10:43 PM EST
    Do double posts get a fine?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:19:27 PM EST
    I found it rather annoying that Pete Domenici (R-NM) announced this in a press release on his senate website. Pete, I hope that your 2 years in prison and the stiff fine you'll have to pay for being so annoying isn't too annoying. I hope it really annoys Pete, and Arlen too, that I would be so annoying as to mention this, but I couldn't help myself. I just annoyed at the whole annoying idea. Guys, get a life, huh? Thanks for putting up with me being so annoying here... :-)

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:22:40 PM EST
    I hereby relieve the hostess of this site of any and all responsibility for my previous post.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:29:06 PM EST
    Watch your back, PPJ. On the other hand you're lucky this a blog run by the defense and not the prosecution ;-P

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#8)
    by aw on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:48:29 PM EST
    I get really annoyed by some of the posts here. Who do I call to complain? The FBI?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#9)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    “Any putative libertarians wanna weigh in on this?”
    One more reason to vote libertarian. Who voted for this stinker?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#10)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:03:58 PM EST
    Oh, now I see. The rider no one reads; sec 113 sponsored by Arlen Specter and friends.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    Edger, Senator Domenici's press release also paints a very generalized summary of the law.
    Sec. 113. Preventing Cyberstalking. To strengthen stalking prosecution tools, this section expands the definition of a telecommunications device to include any device or software that uses the Internet and possible Internet technologies such as voice over internet services. This amendment will allow federal prosecutors more discretion in charging stalking cases that occur entirely over the internet.
    As you can see, the press release only mentions stalking.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:18:02 PM EST
    wg: do we have enough room in prisons for all perpetrators out there? Once we get all those annoyers into prison and they start annoying their jailers, what them? Charge 'em with being annoying, fine 'em for being so annoying and send all home, where they can become serial annoyers? Isn't this whole thing annoying enough already?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#14)
    by ras on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:21:37 PM EST
    Foolish Americans, I alone, safe in Canada, can now tell annoyingly bad jokes on blogs. e.g. A 3-legged dog walks into a bar and says, "I'm lookin' for the man who shot my pa..." And there's more where that came from! Bwahaha! No one can stop me.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    So, if Tom Cruise is quoted as Tom Cruise and not as Tom Mapother, will he be breaking the law?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#16)
    by desertswine on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:32:56 PM EST
    "I'm lookin' for the man who shot my pa..."
    Shot my paw isn't it? O that is so annoying.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    Ras said: "Foolish Americans, I alone, safe in Canada" Yeah, I suppose Marc Emory (the Prince of Pot - http://www.emeryseeds.com) felt safe too.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    wg: do we have enough room in prisons for all perpetrators out there?
    Two words: extraordinary rendition. My own take: Publius must be turning over in their collective graves.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#19)
    by jen on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    so as long as we're not a noni mouse we can be annoying? signed a noni hamster

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:05:45 PM EST
    Barry Freed - Funny, I was thinking about some of you. ;-)

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#21)
    by Punchy on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    I just law all these national laws "governing" the international Internet. Does this just apply to American citizens on American blogs, American citizens on any blog, foreigners on American blogs, anonymous bloggers on American territory.....Can a Canadian annoy me on this site, or must I drag him to Detroit first before calling the feds?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    It figures you'd all jump on this... but think about it. How many times have you checked your mail and had to delete tons of crap that had no 'working' address attached to it that you could reach and tell them to stop? I see nothing wrong with trying to stop this crap. Too bad they can't do this with the post office too!

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#23)
    by roy on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:23:57 PM EST
    BB, Your tone ("think about it", "crap") betrays the fact that you intend to annoy us. Identify yourself. Or go to prison for two years. See the problem now?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#24)
    by Patrick on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    They could do it at the post office, they just wont because all that bulk mail generates revenue. e-mail spam is free.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:26:51 PM EST
    I see nothing wrong with trying to stop this crap.
    BB, have you ever heard the phrase, "Beware the law of unintended consequences"? Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the first amendment. Specifically the part that states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" The passing of this law has opened Pandora's Box.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    Seriously, why does this not apply to spam ? Isn't there something about safe harbours that makes a law constitutional ?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    Seriously, why does this not apply to spam ?
    Spam laws already exist. Sec 113 of this bill isn't about spam although I suppose it could be given the ambiguous use of the word "annoy".

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#28)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:01:44 PM EST
    I suppose you all have seen this by now. Homeland Security opening private mail

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    Well I annoy the dickens out of PPJ and Patrick and they annoy the dickens out of me, and if we all report each other then perhaps we can all serve time together and put all the nastiness behind us. So, if PPJ and Patrick wanted to press the issue they could tally up the numerous times I have called them dunderheads and jerkoffs etc., and have me sent off to gitmo. Of course, I am curious, do they want me on probation for being a butthead or moderated by TL? Since this is my last time to refer to you 2 as dunderheads, please know that I do so in a loving way, kind of like Jim Dobson logic of spare the rod spoil the child.....

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#30)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:06:04 PM EST
    Hold up. You can pass a law against "annoying"?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#31)
    by Johnny on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    Well, criminilizing immature behaviour definately has hope... Now maybe those frat pranks will not go unpunished? Or the guy who mows his lawn at 6 AM? Or the creators of Flash ads that I cannot avoid or click off? Or websites that do not purchase a fast enough server? Or people who drive too slow or too fast? Or when McDonalds puts too much salt on the fries? Better yet, if I wear a name badge before sending thousands of "Forward this or your god will smite you and you will never have sex again" emails, will I avoid spamming charges? What amounts to identification? Simply signing a name? -Anthony "Tony" Soprano -Jimmy "Sausage" Dean or -Cal Pernia

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#32)
    by jen on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:14:54 PM EST
    pssssst, Johnny You forgot: - 11 items in the 9 items or fewer checkout line!

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:17:41 PM EST
    So - correct me if I'm wrong - and I easily could be - but does this then outlaw threatening anonymous administration sources since, you know, some of their messages are sent with devices that originate telecommunications, like telephone, using VOIP or alternately, talking to reporters who then post articles online?
    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
    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:18:56 PM EST
    [redacted]

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:48:35 PM EST
    When I post on a liberal site like this one I bloody well want my posts to annoy wingnuts. (It is not hard, facts have a way of doing that).

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    This is worse than being the bad idea of one party. It was passed by unanimous voice vote in the Senate. I called my representative's office (Elijah Cummings), and they pooh-poohed the entire thing - they seemed to think that since it passed as part of VAWA, it only affected cases of violence against women. I read the plain text to them, and was told that I had a weird interpretation of the wording. So it's going to be a tough row to hoe to get this dealt with - our congress critters seem to think it was simply a "good government" move against domestic violence - i.e., something to be proud of. This one crosses the left/right divide - check out this from VodkaPundit, for instance.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    The threat must apply to the person: "who receives the communications.." Is a web posting "received"? It appears to apply more toward emails than web postings, but I can't say for sure. Also, "without disclosing his identity" Is it enough that my browser discloses my IP? Probably not, eh? Screen name no good, too? I would imagine. Parts (or perhaps all) of this law are clearly, undoubtedly unconstitutional. Not just in the application, but even facially. I have a right to "annoy" political figures, anonymously or otherwise. If they don't like it, they can get out of the kitchen. The attorney who gets this one struck down will win a lot of applause.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#38)
    by Punchy on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 04:02:20 PM EST
    There's no such thing as too much salt on McDonald's fries.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#39)
    by Patrick on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 04:07:42 PM EST
    JL, Gitmo? Probation? Gitmo? Probation? Hmmmm, decisions decision.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 04:14:12 PM EST
    What Punchy said. But seriously,
    Hold up. You can pass a law against "annoying"?
    Isn't that why telemarketing co's have to abide by the "do not call" list? Maybe we'll have a "do not spam" list...

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#41)
    by jen on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 04:27:59 PM EST
    Hey, Ba'al is annoying me! but was that anonymous? I mean, it is Ba'al. Hmmm.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 04:41:28 PM EST
    Uh oh, looks like I just broke the law...

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimcee on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 05:08:18 PM EST
    Gosh, I come here to annoy and be annoyed! This goes beyond a party thing and falls into the realm of just plain foolish. Who decides? The Dept of Annoying Bureaucrats? And if they find me annoying and cite me for it can I charge them for annoying me? This putative Libertarian is annoyed by this annoying legislation! Who do I call? Man, all this annoyance is annoying me.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 05:29:07 PM EST
    Ummm Patrick, wrong thread maybe? Jimcee, we agree!

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#45)
    by Lora on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 05:44:42 PM EST
    Um, annoying? Moi? heh, it wasn't me, I swear it! Some anonymous dude who broke in and borrowed my computer! Honest! I dunno who the f**k it was.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimcee on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 07:07:38 PM EST
    Hey, wait a minute...wasn't this a Monty Python routine? I think it was one of the where the chap was looking for arguments.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 07:08:16 PM EST
    If the quip fon't fit you must acquit... Jl - And I too want you too know that all of my accurate points in regards to your absolute lack of knowledge were made only to inform you, thus allowing you to improve the quality of your life....

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 10:01:23 PM EST
    I'm not sure how many of you have ever been stalked on the internet, but I for one, have. Let me tell you the story about "Rachel," or as we more commonly referred to as "racHELL." Back in 1998, when I was still way into hockey, the newly relocated Hartford Whalers, now known as the Carolina Hurricanes, made an offer to Sergei Federov of the Detroit Red Wings, which included at that time, an unheard of $25 million signing bonus. In hockey parlance, Federov was the king of two-way hockey. A forward that could play defense. A scoring forward, no less, that could play defense. Now, the background surrounding that offer is a pissing contest between the two owners, both from Detroit, but that’s for another blog. In 1998, my internet connection was dial-up, via AOL. I had become addicted to the public message boards, for hockey, and was a regular on the Los Angeles Kings’ board. So, when that offer came down, I started reading the Carolina Hurricanes message board. What I discovered at that time, was the dominance of the board by an alleged 15 year old girl, named Rachel. "She" taunted the regulars on the board, not in any manner any 15 year old I ever knew. I started posting in response to "her" and invited a boatload of the Los Angeles Kings posters to join me. Thus began the "racHELL wars" on AOL. At one point, my account was canceled by AOL because this "racHELL" person objected to the use of the word "ignorant" in a post, and thus I was alerted to the lack of free speech rights on private AOL: translated, that meant what one objected to, controlled what the majority was allowed to do. Within the confines of that, I became what I later referred to as a "professional poster" on AOL, which basically meant that I had learned the fine lines to posting, knowing just how far I could go without being considered a "flamer." Under this new law, a flamer would be subject to the criminal law. This person took a personal affront to me, and what transpired from 1998 to 2001 was scary. This person created screen names that were identical to mine (ok, so some were funny, like "HairyCann" to my "CarrieCann"), and would post on all sorts of boards with creepy stuff. This person would instant message spam me whenever I would log on, using new screen names that were not blocked at the time, and which took time to block. AOL could not help me, and only suggested I give up my master screen name and make a new one, which was a ridiculous suggestion, since the "girl" was able to find me due to my posting on message boards. Duh. The last straw came when my mother passed away in 2000 and I used the internet to post a sale of her home, which included my real name, and my real personal home telephone number. "racHELL" got hold of that information, and started posting my real name and phone number on pornographic sites, saying I was looking for a good time. My phone was ringing off the hook and I had to change my telephone number. Then came the blowout with AOL where I actually did have to give up my first original screen name, Carrie Cann (which I still use everywhere except on AOL, and which I even incorporated so that I have the exclusive use of that name). AOL’s great response was "call the police." The only solace I received was having a few sympathetic AOL employees reveal to me that the alleged 15 year old was no 15 year old, and that it was not a girl. I knew it wasn’t a girl from the unbelievable vulgar language "she" used when instant message bombing me with stuff like "did you like doing it with your dog, you (expletives that were strung together)?" "racHELL" hasn’t been seen or heard of on AOL public message boards since 2001. Still, if this law was around at that time, my beef with AOL might have had more meat to it.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 10:32:28 PM EST
    And I too want you too know that all of my accurate points in regards to your absolute lack of knowledge Pot, calling the silver black. Gotta link to back you up? No? Didn't think so.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#50)
    by ras on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 11:41:10 PM EST
    OK, turns out that this law only applies - tho you need to pretty much be a lawyer to know this - to speech that would not violate the 1st amendment anyway. In other words, there are add'l restrictictions on what they can prosecute you for, restrictions that are not stated in the text/body of the law itself. The current legislation was passed in order to apply existing law for telephone harassment etc and extend it to the Net. Sounds like the sudden rise of VOIP might have been the catalyst for the change at this time. For a legal blog, you sure rely on Canadian laymen to do a lot of your research for you.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:36:41 AM EST
    Patrick/PPJ: LMAO.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:29:26 AM EST
    OK, turns out that this law only applies - tho you need to pretty much be a lawyer to know this - to speech that would not violate the 1st amendment anyway.
    Really? Care to provide some backup to that statement?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#53)
    by roy on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 07:26:27 AM EST
    Ras is probably on to something. Orin Kerr wrote about the case law that narrowed the statute that was just amended. So in terms of regulated content, we don't need to be quite so worried. If it was legal over the telephone last month, it's legal over the internet.
    It looks funny if you don't know the relevant caselaw, but in practice it simply takes the telephone harassment statute we've had for decades and applies it to the Internet.
    That's still enough to worry me. Blog comment threads aren't telephones, and applying the same standards of behavior is dangerous. I can understand how calling up somebody at 3am and calling him a goober would be criminal. Doing it here shouldn't be, partly because we're using (TL's) private space rather that the semi-nationalized telephone lines, partly because my victim can easily ignore me making any annoyance semi-voluntary.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 07:54:54 AM EST
    roy.... Your tone ("think about it", "crap") betrays the fact that you intend to annoy us. Yeah, but you missed the point! At least you can rebut me and we can have a dialog.... Much different than me annoying you and you can do nothing about it. macromaniac... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" And this law does none of that. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with unwanted and annoying e-mails you can't respond to or stop! CarrieCan... Good post..... and a real example of what this law might help with. I was alerted to the lack of free speech rights on private AOL: translated, that meant what one objected to, controlled what the majority was allowed to do Yeah ..unfortunately in this politically correct (left leaning) society... that happens all the time.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:28:26 AM EST
    And this law does none of that. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with unwanted and annoying e-mails you can't respond to or stop!
    Wrong! This law, as it is ambiguously written, has the potential to infringe on free speech. It further erodes our civil liberties. Also, this law references all electronic communications, not just emails. Don't confuse the passing of this law with fighting spam. Anti spam laws already exist.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:27:28 AM EST
    macromaniac... This law, as it is ambiguously written, has the potential to infringe on free speech. It further erodes our civil liberties. Oh... the 'potential huh? LOL.... well I got news for you, every law has that 'potential'...so should we do away with all of them? Well, your 'civil liberty' to send annonomous e-mails with no return address and no way of stoping you is not something most of the rest of us should be all that concerned with. That's one 'civil liberty' (dare I say it?) we can live without.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:37:35 AM EST
    Well, your 'civil liberty' to send annonomous e-mails with no return address and no way of stoping you is not something most of the rest of us should be all that concerned with. That's one 'civil liberty' (dare I say it?) we can live without.
    How many times do I have to explain that the law encompasses all forms of electronic communication, not just emails!
    Oh... the 'potential huh? LOL.... well I got news for you, every law has that 'potential'...so should we do away with all of them?
    Perhaps you can explain to the rest of us what the word "annoy" means in this law. Here is a definition of annoy:
    To cause slight irritation to (another) by troublesome, often repeated acts.
    This is very broad and very ambiguous language and has no place in written law.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:58:39 AM EST
    How many times do I have to explain that the law encompasses all forms of electronic communication, not just emails! You can explain it until you're blue, but you'll still be wrong. The law specfically excludes interactive computer services from its definition of telecommunication devices. The changes were intended to ensure that VOIP calls weren't excluded through a loophole. If you read the rest of Orin Kerr's post, you'll notice he mentions this via linking in my response (which you can also read here.) There's also more discussion at Volokh.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 10:11:47 AM EST
    You can explain it until you're blue, but you'll still be wrong.
    Cal, I specifically stated that this law has the potential. It hasn't been tested in the courts yet so until it is, I remain skeptical.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#60)
    by roy on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 10:17:53 AM EST
    The law specfically excludes interactive computer services from its definition of telecommunication devices.
    I've wondered about that. The law excluded interactive computer services, then was amended to include anything internet-related. Does the new inclusion override the old exclusion? ... The definition of "interactive computer service" (ICS) is hard to parse, but it seems to me that VOIP is an ICS. If VOIP is an ICS, then either ICSs are regulated by the amended law, or the amendement doesn't have the desired effect of regulating stalking via VOIP. Depends on the answer to the question above. If VOIP is not an ICS, then based on my (non-expert) knowledge of how VOIP works it seems that lots of other things aren't ICSs, like blog comment threads and e-mail, and thus are regulated by the amended law. Regardless of the answer to the question above. So I figure the amendment is either useless or alarmingly broad.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 10:24:17 AM EST
    Cal, The law mentions all communications that are transmitted via the Internet, not just communications that originate from telecommunication devices. Wouldn't all communications be covered under the "other types of communications" language?

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 10:56:20 AM EST
    Macro--any threat you perceive would have been there long before these changes. This change did nothing except exclude VOIP from the "interactive computer services" exemption--revealing that the lawmakers, at least, thought that the exemption existed. Roy--Although VOIP is functionally identical to landline or wireless calls, it is technically an information service and could fall under the "interactive computer service" exemption. That's precisely why they added the new text--because the new text says closes the VOIP loophole. Macro again--"The law mentions all communications that are transmitted via the Internet, not just communications that originate from telecommunication devices. " No, the law doesn't "mention" this. The additional text added to the definition of a telecommunication device "mentions" that 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 is included for the purposes of 223(a)(1)(C), which specifically refers to the act of making a phone call. VOIP can't be excluded by the "interactive computer services" if it is being used to make a phone call. That's what the law is saying. I realize it's unclear. I realize that it may not ultimately achieve its aim. But the purpose was to exclude VOIP from the computer exemption. If we aren't protected by "computer interactive services" exemption, then that's the problem, and the new law didn't affect it one way or another.

    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    Cal, I see your point...
    (b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.
    Re: New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mail (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    Charlie... Not only don't you surf... but apparently you don't read (comprehend) either? TL has asked you at least twice that I'm aware of not to repost someone's entire message... but you just don't get it do you?? Kind of thick headed huh?? Well, I think we should take away your right to bear arms, fella. Well I don't own a gun... so you are (as you say) dismissed!

    New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mails and Web Posts | 63 comments (63 topical)