homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.197.171.109
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

    
Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime
walkman




msg:293238
 12:47 am on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

"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."

[news.com.com...]

 

Essex_boy




msg:293239
 9:08 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Not really, Im ean if I was to annoy/harrass someone its way more scary to do it anonymously isnt it?

volatilegx




msg:293240
 10:49 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Read the code [www4.law.cornell.edu] before prejudging it. It only applies to obscene material, and there must be an intent to annoy, harrass, etc.

ronin




msg:293241
 1:32 am on Jan 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

there must be an intent

It's probably useless then.

The perpetrator can always insist truthfully that there was never any intent.

And who is to claim different?

walkman




msg:293242
 2:31 am on Jan 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

sure....notice the annoy OR harass.
Also, what's normal to me can be "obscene" or "indicent" to you; that's the problem.

lawman




msg:293243
 11:06 am on Jan 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

The perpetrator can always insist truthfully that there was never any intent.

And who is to claim different?

The person who is being harrassed along with a prosecutor who believes he has enough evidence to prove it.

Many states have a "stalking" statute.

jecasc




msg:293244
 12:32 pm on Jan 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

I think the major error in this law is that a term like "annoying" has been used.

English is not my first language but according to my dictionary "annoying" can mean just anything from "molesting" to "bothering" or only "to be a pain in the neck".

ronin




msg:293245
 7:44 pm on Jan 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

You can annoy somebody without ever having any intention of doing so.

You cannot stalk somebody without having any intention of doing so.

The victim is annoyed, insulted, harassed etc. when they consider themselves to be. Proving that harassment has taken place is one thing. Proving that there was intent behind the harassment is another thing entirely.

HughMungus




msg:293246
 8:31 pm on Jan 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Read the code before prejudging it. It only applies to obscene material, and there must be an intent to annoy, harrass, etc.

I dont't think that is the same law. That one is dated 3/17/05...

lawman




msg:293247
 9:08 pm on Jan 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

The victim is annoyed, insulted, harassed etc. when they consider themselves to be. Proving that harassment has taken place is one thing. Proving that there was intent behind the harassment is another thing entirely.

I'd hate to be on the business end of someone whose sole job is prosecution and who believes they can prove all the elements of the offense.

In any event, I'm sure you won't have to worry about anyone invoking the statute and hauling you into court.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved