Anonymous Posters: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

[BrentAllen 10]

Anonymous posters, please note... :-)

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

[TheScout 10]

Another unconstitutional measure.

[GernBlansten 10]

IMPEACH!!!!

this message has been approved by GernBlansten, whoever he might be.

[Bob White 20]

Wasn't it a Democrat controlled Congress that passed this law?

 

I was at a lodge a State Park last week that I have visited every year for the last three on buisinees. Each year it falls further into disrepair. The reason is they tell me is that since the State government got a Democratic Govenor and a democratic congress they keep pulling money out of the State park programs. Aren't the Democrats the "nature party" and the Repuplicans the big bad meanies who don't like the soft fluffy outdoor stuff?

 

Seems to me your looking to impeach folks from the wrong party.

Not that i'm a big fan of impeachments. I feel people should do a better job of selecting the right people to begin with.

 

Right now more people still like the President over Nancy Pelosi.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[hops_scout 9]

Well around here, if you use your real name it's possible you'll get sued.

[GernBlansten 10]

I agree Bob.

Anyone who signed this anti-constitutional bill should be impeached. Violating the constitution is a much greater high crime than getting some from an intern.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Good thing that BSA-hating ACLU is still around.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, da dumb thing will never survive a judicial challenge. The problem is it will no doubt hurt a few folks and cost 'em a lot of time and money and lost productivity in the meantime.

 

Just another example of da creeping strangle-vine of government.

 

One of da things that has annoyed me most about both da Democrat and Republican Congresses is their willingness to play procedural games to get absurd provisions and laws passed as riders and conference committee slip-ins and earmarks and such.

 

An honorable man or woman upholds the process, and lets their ideas stand the test of their colleagues in the open, pass or fail. He/she doesn't slink about trying to sneak it into some other unrelated legislation.

 

Shame on the lot of 'em. And I hope Senator Specter finds this annoyin' eh? Some of us don't need da ACLU or da CIR to handle a neat little federal injunction. But if I disappear to a foreign prison, would someone please call Amnesty International?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Gold Winger 9]

Edited because it would have likely been deleted. :-(

 

For the record, my given name is Gold Winger, actually it is Gold (edited for euphenism) Winger. So I'm safe from big brother (apparently not, OGE).(This message has been edited by Gold WInger) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[RangerT 10]

I haved worked for the National Park Service for over twenty years now and when I read an ignorant and incorrect statement like Bob White made it really tees me off. First of all Mr. White it has been historically as well as in current history that the Democratic presidents have done more to set aside land and preserve the parks. Bush right now has a plan in place that will ruin Yellowstone forever allowing open mining and drilling within the park boundaries. So Bob why don't you stick to scouting questions since you are obviously so ignorant about conservation and environmental issues.

 

The arrogance of your answers in these forums have sure been an e-annoyance to me and in spite of what a few cronies of yours in here think your approach to scouting is outdated. This is probably because you have been an inactive scouter for so many years like a few others in here, and are out of touch with the reality of scouting today as many of your replies would seem to confirm.(This message has been edited by RangerT)

[Gold Winger 9]

" Violating the constitution is a much greater high crime than getting some from an intern."

 

It has often been pointed out to me that the Supreme Court gets to decide what is and what isn't constitutional, not a group of Scouters.

[Bob White 20]

Hi Ranger

As far as the inaccuracies of my statements;

 

If you do not like the comment regarding the park finances feel free to insult the park employees who told me. I shared what they shared with me.

 

Is it not a Congress with a Democratic majority?

 

Blame the media for running the polls results that Bush was more popular than Pelosi. if that is inaccurate they are not my polls.

 

As for my unit leadership experience, I have been an active unit leader every year since 1976, how about you?

 

It seems arrogance exists in your post as well.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

In the interest of a nicer, gentler forum. Lets remember to only disect the arguments, not the poster. After all, its the politics forum and if the other person is wrong on their opinion, lets hear yours. We don't need to denigrate the other person, no matter how much they deserve it :}

[BrentAllen 10]

Hmmmm, I thought it was Roosevelt - the Republican one - that did so much for conservation.

 

"When he became President in 1901, Roosevelt pursued this interest in natural history by establishing the first 51 Bird Reserves, 4 Game Preserves, and 150 National Forests. He also established the U.S. Forest Service, signed into law the creation of 5 National Parks, and signed the 1906 Antiquities Act under which he proclaimed 18 national monuments. The area of the United States placed under public protection by Theodore Roosevelt totals approximately 230,000,000 acres.

 

Theodore Roosevelt was this nation's 26th President and is considered by many to be our "Conservationist President". Here in the North Dakota badlands, where many of his personal concerns first gave rise to his later environmental efforts, Roosevelt is remembered with a national park that bears his name and honors the memory of this great conservationist.

 

Roosevelt is also represented on Mt. Rushmore (SD). Two of his homes are part of the National Park Service: Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site (NY) and Sagamore Hill National Historic Site (NY), as well as the site where he was sworn in as president (Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site in Buffalo, NY) and a park in Washington D.C. (Theodore Roosevelt Island). "

Source: http://www.nps.gov/archive/thro/tr_cons.htm

 

Hey RangerT, am I reading that correctly - the agency you work for, the NPS, labels a Republican as the "Conservationist President"? I'm curious which Democrat President(s) have set aside more land and preserved more natural resources? It's nice to have a long-time NPS Ranger here to ask these questions to.

[Lisabob 13]

Not to get too far off track but I'd venture to say that T. Roosevelt might be spinning in his grave at some of the "environmental" policies of current-day Republicans.

 

Anyway, I agree with Beavah that this provision will never survive the light of day and so I think I'll stick with Lisa'bob for now. If that annoys you all, well tough. Or I suppose I could go change my legal name to match...hmmm...