Re: [FairfieldLife] Annoying someone via the internet is now a federal crime
Declan McCullagh's article on CNET one caused a stir... for only a few days as more legal savvy tech folks dug into the law and found that is really only covers personal emails not forums or lists or newsgroups. So unless you are a cyberstalker don't worry about it. - Bhairitu Michael Dean Goodman 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 To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Annoying someone via the internet is now a federal crime
Here's the news item regarding the Internet you should really be concerned about: US plans to 'fight the net' revealed http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4655196.stm Michael Dean Goodman 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. snip 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Annoying someone via the internet is now a federal crime
And you, by any chance, wouldn't be thinking of taking advantage of this law, would you? Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure your motives in telling us this are the purest--just wondering. Do you find this post even remotely annoying, Michael? :) Sal On Jan 29, 2006, at 12:46 AM, Michael Dean Goodman wrote: 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.
[FairfieldLife] Annoying someone via the internet is now a federal crime
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
