Are you f*cking kidding me?

[carrrnuttt]

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
(^ link ^)

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.

Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's Washington, D.C., correspondent. He chronicles the busy intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired.

It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"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."

So, if any of you annoy me with your responses, I am reporting you, and you are going to jail, since most of you will use your screenname, and not your real names.

But then again, I might be going to jail, as this post/thread might be annoying to someone.

God help us.

[Moppie]

I can annoy who ever the fuck I like, and there is sweet fuck all anyone can do about it.
But then I live in a liberal democracy.

My symbathies for those less fortunate, who live in less civilised parts of the world.
However, I wouldn't worry to much, that would be one hell of a tough law to enforce, although it could be useful for dealing with spammers and some of the more persistant trolls we have.

[2strokebloke]

Ha Ha Ha - our silly government. I know what I'm getting them for christmas next year - a whole box of common sense!

[tenguzero]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

Ha Ha Ha - our silly government. I know what I'm getting them for christmas next year - a whole box of common sense!

Make sure you keep the receipt -- I have a feeling that one's going back.

[-Josh-]

Are you sure this isnt mainly for spam site, pop ups and porn IMers? Cause there's no way that any decent judge would let something like that hold up in court. "Well you see sir, he called me a 'cock waffle', i was deeply annoyed so i see no reason why he shouldn't spend no less than 2 years in a state prison."

[twospirits]

Yea for the new law. Now I can use it to ban (and lock up) all the annoying people on AF. Yippee.

Seriously, more and more each day I see this government of ours (the USA) taking away more of our freedoms than ever before. So much for Usenet and my warez habit. oh and btw, Fuck Bush.

TS out (to jail for annoying some in this thread)

[-Josh-]

So since im deeply annoyed by that article, and since it was bush who annoys me, i can have him put in jail? Or since i know his real name am i not allowed to now?

[BNaylor]

The article mentions it was part of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act.

I am not expressing an opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with the new law but it should be noted that the bill had full bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate unamimously. See link below:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3402

So, how could Bush refuse to sign it into law. If you want to lay blame with someone then it has to include the lobbyists, the idiot that wrote or sponsored it, the House of Representatives, the Senate and the President.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

The article mentions it was part of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act.

I am not expressing an opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with the new law but it should be noted that the bill had full bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate unamimously. See link below:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3402

So, how could Bush refuse to sign it into law. If you want to lay blame with someone then it has to include the lobbyists, the idiot that wrote or sponsored it, the House of Representatives, the Senate and the President.

From the article above:

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.

He's the only one that can do what Clinton did, in directing the Justice Department. He will be TOTALLY to blame, if this does not happen.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

From the article above:
He's the only one that can do what Clinton did, in directing the Justice Department. He will be TOTALLY to blame, if this does not happen.

Gee.....I wonder why, especially when his Attorney General at the time Janet Reno and the United States got sued over the matter.


http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/CRLP_...0796.complaint

BTW - Don't worry someone will probably file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new law too.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by Moppie

I can annoy who ever the fuck I like, and there is sweet fuck all anyone can do about it.
But then I live in a liberal democracy.

Liberal democracy? You're making fun of my country and that's annoying me.

I'll see you in court Moppie!

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

Gee.....I wonder why, especially when his Attorney General at the time Janet Reno and the United States got sued over the matter.


http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/CRLP_...0796.complaint

BTW - Don't worry someone will probably file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new law too.

Who gives a crap what motivates whatever President to strike down something that's unconstitutional?

Please, PLEASE, don't bring your "Bush Administrational Apologist" title in here, and have a fucking opinion on something they're doing for once?

Do you agree, or disagree with this law?

[carrrnuttt]

Hey, maybe Bushy can use a bill-signing statement?

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...hington_nation

Bush using a little-noticed strategy to alter the balance of power

By Ron Hutcheson and James Kuhnhenn

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - President Bush agreed with great fanfare last month to accept a ban on torture, but he later quietly reserved the right to ignore it, even as he signed it into law.

Acting from the seclusion of his Texas ranch at the start of New Year's weekend, Bush said he would interpret the new law in keeping with his expansive view of presidential power. He did it by issuing a bill-signing statement - a little-noticed device that has become a favorite tool of presidential power in the Bush White House.

In fact, Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power - and not just on national security issues.

"It's nothing short of breath-taking," said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University. "In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and pre-empted the judiciary."

Signing statements don't have the force of law, but they can influence judicial interpretations of a statute. They also send a powerful signal to executive branch agencies on how the White House wants them to implement new federal laws.

In some cases, Bush bluntly informs Congress that he has no intention of carrying out provisions that he considers an unconstitutional encroachment on his authority.

"They don't like some of the things Congress has done so they assert the power to ignore it," said Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. "The categorical nature of their opposition is unprecedented and alarming."

The White House says its authority stems from the Constitution, but dissenters say that view ignores the Constitution's careful balance of powers between branches of government.

"We know the textbook story of how government works. Essentially what this has done is attempt to upset that," said Christopher Kelley, a presidential scholar at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, who generally shares Bush's expansive view of executive authority. "These are directives to executive branch agencies saying that whenever something requires interpretation, you should interpret it the way the president wants you to."

Other presidents have used similar tactics. For example, Jimmy Carter rebuffed congressional efforts to block his amnesty program for Vietnam-era draft dodgers. But experts say Bush has taken claims of presidential power to a whole new level.

In the case of the torture ban, Bush said he would interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president," with the goal of "protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Because Bush has already claimed broad powers in the war on terror - including the right to bypass existing laws restricting domestic surveillance - legal experts and some members of Congress interpreted the statement to mean that he would ignore the torture ban if he felt it would harm national security.

Opponents of the ban say torture should not be ruled out in a case where abusive interrogation might prevent an imminent terrorist attack.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush was defending a principle, not signaling his intention to ignore the torture prohibition.
"The president has said that we follow the law. Of course we will follow this law as well," she said.

Some members of Congress aren't so sure.

"He issues a signing statement that says he retains all of the inherent power that will permit him to go out and torture just the way they've gone ahead and tortured before," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "That process is an arrogance of power."

Congress has clashed with Bush over signing statements before. In 2002, lawmakers from both parties vigorously objected when Bush offered a narrow interpretation of whistleblower protections in legislation on corporate fraud. After a series of angry letters from Congress to the White House, the administration backed down.

But monitoring the implementation of new laws is a complicated task, especially when Bush is ambiguous about his intentions. Cooper said Bush's assertion of his constitutional authority in dealing with the torture ban is typical of his approach.

"It doesn't explicitly say what he's going to do or not do, but it gives him the authority to do whatever he wants to do," Cooper said. "The administration has clearly concluded that the Republican-dominated Congress is not prepared to force a confrontation on a lot of these issues."

The roots of Bush's approach go back to the Ford administration, when Dick Cheney, then serving as White House chief of staff, chafed at legislative limits placed on the executive branch in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and other abuses of power by President Nixon. Now the vice president and his top aide, David Addington, are taking the lead in trying to tip the balance of power away from Congress and back to the president.

They may soon have an ally on the Supreme Court. As a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote a 1986 memo outlining plans for expanded use of presidential signing statements.

Although Alito told his bosses that the aggressive use of assertive signing statements "would increase the power of the executive to shape the law," he acknowledged doubts about their legal significance.
Reagan adopted the strategy and used signing statements to challenge 71 legislative provisions, according to Kelley's tally. President George H.W. Bush challenged 146 laws; President Clinton challenged 105. The current president has lodged more than 500 challenges so far.

Bush and his legal advisers offer a variety of arguments to support their claims to power. In their view, the Constitution's directive that "the president shall be commander in chief" gives Bush virtually unlimited authority on issues related to national security.

They also rely heavily on the "unitary executive" theory to resist congressional directives to federal agencies. The theory rests on the Constitution's clause that says that "executive power shall be vested in a president."

Bush has cited the theory, which has not been fully tested in court, more than 100 times in his signing statements.

Skeptics say the president and his advisers overlook the Constitution's checks and balances, noting that the Framers had a deep distrust of excessive executive power, having rebelled against a king. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and shared power over executive spending, for example.

Lawmakers from both parties have questioned Bush's assertion of his wartime authority.

"If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
"The Constitution says that if the president doesn't like it (a bill), he can veto it. And we have an opportunity to override the veto," Kennedy noted.

Some members of Congress from both parties also question the legal authority of presidential signing statements.

"He can say whatever he likes, I don't know if that has a whole lot of impact on the statute. Statutes are traditionally a matter of congressional intent," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In 2003, lawmakers tried to get a handle on Bush's use of signing statements by passing a Justice Department spending bill that required the department to inform Congress whenever the administration decided to ignore a legislative provision on constitutional grounds.

Bush signed the bill, but issued a statement asserting his right to ignore the notification requirement.

Holeee fucking shit. They MUST be fans of Herman Goering and his philosophies!

Anybody else see the HUGE advantage the CONTINUATION of this 'war' for as long as possible gives Bush? He's trying to get it, so that he can ignore any fucking law he wants, for 'National Security'.

I'd love to hear the apologists' spin on this.

[-Josh-]

Kinda makes you wonder what moron will take the pedestal during our next election, someone with the shitty poker face like Clinton? Or perhaps some over privelaged retard who couldn't pass a second grade spelling bee?

Or maybe we'll get a strong leader who will get us out of debt, get rid of Bush's stupid laws, and come up with a solution to our wars....doubtful...but i can dream...

[Hybridology]

Could you imagine CraigsList if that was enforced? It would shrivel up and die...