US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News :: Human Rights
Notice to Cyber Stalkers
10 Jan 2006
You can now EASILY be prosecuted.
While many may consider this bad new, I consider it good news. Remember a certain harassment group spamming this website (begins with a "K"). They can now easily be sent to jail. This means various cops can now be prosecuted for their online harassment:::

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.
See also:
http://news.com.com/Create%20an%20e-annoyance%2C%20go%20to%20jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Re: Notice to Cyber Stalkers
10 Jan 2006
You guys annoy me WITH this website.

You can all get the electric chair for that.
Here is the exact wording. Some Boston IMC readers should pay attention.
10 Jan 2006
Section 2261A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragaph (1)--

(A) by inserting after `intimidate' the following: `, or places under surveillance with the intent to kill, injure, haras, or intimidate,'; and

(B) by inserting after `or serious bodily injury to,' the following: `or causes substantial emotional harm to,';

(2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking `to kill or injure' and inserting `to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or places under surveillance with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or to cause substantial emtional harm to,'; and

(3) in paragraph (2), in the matter following clause (iii) of subparagraph (B)--

(A) by inserting after `uses the mail' the following: `, any interactive computer service,'; and

(B) by inserting after `course of conduct that' the following: `causes substantial emotional harm to that person or'.
This translates to:
10 Jan 2006
Section 2261A. Interstate stalking

Whoever -
(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to
kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or places under surveillance
with the intent to kill, injure, haras, or intimidate, another person,
and in the
course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in
reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to or
causes substantial emotional harm to,
that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in
section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of
that person; or
(2) with the intent -
(A) to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or places under
surveillance with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or
intimidate, or to cause substantial emtional harm to, a person
in another State or tribal
jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States; or
(B) to place a person in another State or tribal
jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the
death of, or serious bodily injury to -
(i) that person;
(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in
section 115) of that person; or
(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person,
uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility
of interstate or foreign commerce
to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional harm to that person or
places that person in
reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any
of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii),
shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b).
Re: Notice to Cyber Sissies
10 Jan 2006
What a bunch of fairies.
You can't arrest someone if you are an anarchist.
Why shouldn't an anarchist have a fascist arrested?
10 Jan 2006
Anarchists are forced, against their will, to live in capitalist states. Without law, they could solve problems like cyber stalking on their own, using force if necessary. However, since the state will arrest them for seeking justice and defense on their own, the state leaves the anarchist with no option but to have cyber stalking rightwing shit-heads arrested.

I ask you, why do you expect anarchists alone to live exactly as they wish the world to be when you do not impose that same criteria on Christians, Jews, Fascists, and others. I don't see you arguing that fascists should round up members of other races and throw them in the ovens without state approval. Yet, when they do not do this you do not stop calling them fascists.

Thinking anarchists do not fall for that bullshit. We know we are embedded in a society and we seek to change that society but until it changes we may be left with no option but to live, to some degree, according to its rules.
Should a female anarchist call the police if she is raped?
10 Jan 2006
Of course she should. Duh.

Only cops and right-wing turds claim anarchists should never call the police when they are victims of crime.
Re: Notice to Cyber Stalkers
11 Jan 2006
I welcome this ruling.

Finally a well known Anarchist Cyber Stalker may get what he deserves.

Kiss ass e-mails to other IMC outlets to get his false allegations deleted and his pathetic attempts to beg for search engines to remove his slanderous accusations cannot hide the reality.

A well known Anarchist from the Boston area broke the law of common decency before it was made a law.

I fully support any law that removes Cyber Stalkers from the general population. Lock them up and subject them to therapy.
Previous message is bullshit.
11 Jan 2006
You're the stalker and you know it.
Another thing, "Stalked by an Anarchist"
11 Jan 2006
Would you're employer lilke to see the posts and their IP addresses when you were posting on MSNBC?

Trying to help you was something done out of compassion. Don't push it.
Mensaje desde PR para el Piaso
11 Jan 2006
Lo siento Boriqua pero to eres profundamente alucinado. Necesitas una cita del doctor para su compulsiĆ³n obsesivo. Tu eres el acosador. Esta acosando en este momento. Todo el Mundo puede ver la verdad. Vayate, tonto!
@ asked:
13 Jan 2006
"why do you expect anarchists alone to live exactly as they wish the world to be when you do not impose that same criteria on Christians, Jews, Fascists, and others."

--I do impose that same criteria on them. I can't stand Christians, Jews, or conventional fascists.
Re: Notice to Cyber Stalkers
21 Jan 2006
I may be anoying to some but, I use my "true" identity.