These forums will most likely be shut down.

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Vic

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.

Glad to see that reading comprehension is still as good on ATPN as it always has been.

It is extremely unlikely that Sec. 113 will hold up in court. However, posters on AT are technically not anonymous. Upon registration, you provided the forum adminstrators with a verifiable e-mail address.

Sorry to ruin the bashing fun...

I am not sure you have thought that one through sufficiently.

I don't believe the phone company knowing who you are had any bearing on the anonymity status of the original harrassment provision, so I can't see why a message board would be any different.

It's like saying the guy in the Ronald Reagen rubber mask isn't trying to be anonymous while he is harrassing you because the store that rented the mask to him knows who he is.

 

[ericlp]

Where are all the Bushies that support this?

Come on... There has to be one!!!

 

[magomago]

Horrible law, needs to get repealed

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Where are all the Bushies that support this?

Come on... There has to be one!!!

I'll play devil's advocate for you. Usually when you post or e-mail something, your IP address is logged. This IP address can be linked back to you through your ISP. I doubt the Executive Branch of our government will enforce the law beyond what is already in place. If they do, there will probably be a lawsuit and eventually the Supreme Court will decide if it's constitutional or not. Checks and Balances people

 

[DrPizza]

*sigh* I rarely venture into P&N... As expected, the entire discussion of this new law was quite lacking in any details.

For what it's worth, allow me to explain a couple of things:
1st amendment, right to free speech, does NOT mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want. Go to a crowded theater and yell "FIRE!" There is no argument that "it's my right to free speech... those laws are unconstitutional."

Repeatedly make harassing or annoying phone calls on the telephone to someone. When the police charge you with harassment, try the 1st amendment argument again. You will lose.

As stupid as this sounds, let me summarize what the new law means, as interpreted by people with some expertise and published all over the internet at this point:
It's only illegal to make anonymous annoying communication via the Internet *if* that communication isn't protected by the 1st amendment. It sounds like a circular definition. There have been several court cases which point to the types of communication that are and that aren't covered.

The real problem is unjustified and unconstitutional uses of this law by over-zealous law-enforcement and prosecutors. While someone may eventually be found innocent because their speech was protected, the legal costs may be huge.

 

[Zedtom]

NM- wrong thread.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur
You just annoyed me.


"Hello? 911? Yes, I'd like to report an e-annoyer."

lol...e-annoyer, thats great.

 

[Zebo]

Bush continues to take a sh!t on the Constitution.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory10.html

I really think he's hostile to America and her ideals

 

[her209]

Who were the "geniouses" that ok'ed this bill?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Reason #87 why I am just so damned GLAD that I am living overseas right now...

When you get around to electing some responsible politicians back there, I'll consider coming back...in the meantime, EU passports are good the world over...

Oh, and while I'm at it, I just wanted to point out that since AnandTech is a MODERATED forum, the forums themselves COULD be liable for any annoyances and illegal actions - the thought being that with more pro-active moderation the annoyance would not have taken place (unless in a PM).

It's so tempting to just SPEW annoyances from this side of the pond right now, just because I can...but AT banning is probably worse than anything that will happen from this law, so I'll just savor the thoughts of what I COULD have said...

Future Shock

LOL they say "love it or leave it" I guess you took that sentiment to heart. I've looked and actually hold a Swedish passport (dual citizen) and US is still the best country all things considered. Sure we got a bafoon running the show but houses are cheap - jobs are plentiful - low taxes - wide open spaces - and generally more religous and personal freedom than most countries. I can't think of any other country I'd rather live and I've been to most. Maybe Switzerland, german part like Zurich - but the problem there is cold.

 

[chcarnage]

An exotic law. I don't know how bit its impact will be though... Haven't heard anything about it in Swiss media yet.

Originally posted by: Zebo
LOL they say "love it or leave it" I guess you took that sentiment to heart. I've looked and actually hold a Swedish passport (dual citizen) and US is still the best country all things considered. Sure we got a bafoon running the show but houses are cheap - jobs are plentiful - low taxes - wide open spaces - and generally more religous and personal freedom than most countries. I can't think of any other country I'd rather live and I've been to most. Maybe Switzerland, german part like Zurich - but the problem there is cold.

It is cold here now but the summers are quite warm. Zurich actually has several lake and open air baths (my favorite one). But you'd have to make some concessions on the wide open spaces criterion in Switzerland, heh.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
It appears that Congress passed (and the President signed) a provision in a recent Justice Department funding bill that says that if you "annoy" someone on the internet without disclosing your full identity, you could go to jail for up to two years.

If I spawn kill noob players in a first person shooter game while using an alias, annoying them, would that mean I'd be headed to jail for up to two years?