First Amendment takes a hit

[Gary Nunn]

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. 

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.) 

 http://tinyurl.com/a2kqp


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: First Amendment takes a hit

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 10:17 PM Wednesday 2/21/2007, Gary Nunn wrote:

>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.
>
>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.)
>
>  http://tinyurl.com/a2kqp



Arguably it may be in response to such events as those described in 
the following article from CNN today:



Ryan Patrick Halligan was bullied for months online. Classmates sent 
the 13-year-old boy instant messages calling him gay. He was 
threatened, taunted and insulted incessantly by so-called cyberbullies.

In 2003, Ryan killed himself.



Full article at 
.


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: First Amendment takes a hit

[Max Battcher]

On 2/21/07, Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:17 PM Wednesday 2/21/2007, Gary Nunn wrote:
>
> >Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
>
>
> Arguably it may be in response to such events as those described in
> the following article from CNN today:
>
> 
>
> Ryan Patrick Halligan was bullied for months online. Classmates sent
> the 13-year-old boy instant messages calling him gay. He was
> threatened, taunted and insulted incessantly by so-called cyberbullies.
>
> In 2003, Ryan killed himself.
>
> 
>
> Full article at
> .

I hate to sound insensitive, but this is one of the stupidest things I
think I've read in a few days.  A) There's a real failure to do root
cause analysis by these parents involved.  B) There's a real failure
to focus on pro-active *parent* education on this there "intarweb".

First of all, bullying is bullying is bullying and stopping "insulting
instant messages" isn't going to stop bullying, it's just going to
cause amazing enforcement issues.

Second of all, the parents should be informed that their kids bring
this stuff on themselves. If a kid is worried about "cyberbullying"
(which is a term I hope to never use or see again, but figure it'll
stick unfortunately), the parents should realize that there are plugs
to be killed.  Myspace and Instant Messenger applications are
*opt-in*.  Shut it down, close it out, start a different account, find
a better Instant Messenger that allows you to screen who messages you
(Jabber servers require explicit permissions), whatever...

Honestly, why do people chase these sort of scapegoats?

-- 
--Max Battcher--
http://www.worldmaker.net/
All progress is based upon a universal innate desire on the part of
every organism to live beyond its income. --Samuel Butler
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: First Amendment takes a hit

[Mauro Diotallevi]

On 2/22/07, Max Battcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Honestly, why do people chase these sort of scapegoats?
>

People scapegoat what they fear, and people fear what they don't
understand.  So parents who don't understand IMs and UseNet would rather
make them scapegoats than to learn about them.

-- 
Mauro Diotallevi
"Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god
of jello now." -- Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l