Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: if your in the US and annoy someone on the web, goto jail.

  1. #1

    if your in the US and annoy someone on the web, goto jail.

    How do they manage to pass laws like this. This sort of throws our rights to privacy out the window.

    Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

  2. #2
    Well, we _do_ vote these clowns into office over and over every couple years. 'Course, someone may find this post annoying and I'll have the feds knocking on my door any day now.

    I think I'm going to crawl in a hole somewhere and hide.

  3. #3
    ********** |ceWriterguy
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    I await the attempted enforcement of such a law with thinly-veiled anticipation. ANY good lawyer will defeat it unless their client is a proven spammer. It's a direct violation of the rights guaranteed us by the first amendment.

    Did Samuel Clements divulge his true identity when he committed racial slurs in Huckleberry Finn? What about the endless political slurs in his various works?

    Nom de Plumes are a way of life, and of authoring. Should I ever assemble a novel, it is my intent to use one as well. Does this mean I should take extreme care not to 'annoy' anyone lest my novel become digitized? I think not!

    Long story short, it won't fly. Look for it being killed in the Supreme Court in a few years.
    Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

    Which coder said that nobody could outcode Microsoft in their own OS? Write a bit and make a fortune!

  4. #4
    Problem is, some poor sap is going to get nailed with this. Then he will have to go broke fighting his way to the SC. If Bush had two brain cells to rub together, he would have done what Clinton did with the Telecommunications bill. Just tell the Justice Department to ignore that section.

  5. #5
    AO Decepticon CXGJarrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Hey Antionline can finally get TheSpecialist fined. I agree with BlackIce though as this law will be hard to enforce. Besides having to track someone down you would have to do a lot more logging at Cybercafes and all places where internet access was given out freely to even make this a reality.
    N00b> STFU i r teh 1337 (english: You must be mistaken, good sir or madam. I believe myself to be quite a good player. On an unrelated matter, I also apparently enjoy math.)

  6. #6
    Master-Jedi-Pimps0r & Moderator thehorse13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Washington D.C. area
    The basis of this entire thing rests on a flawed foundation. That is, you don't have the right *not* to be annoyed, and, it's not illegal to be an annoying gimp. Every single slippery attorney hears this when his bloodless money grubbing freak of a "client" sues for damages related to bothersome behavior.

    Anyway, the bill of rights grants you fabulous guarantees so that rubbish like this just blows by in the streets. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for this to be enforced.

    Our scars have the power to remind us that our past was real. -- Hannibal Lecter.
    Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful. -- John Wooden

  7. #7
    The fact that the provision might be near-impossible to investigate or prosecute, or that the cost would be prohibitive, doesn't seem to weigh in. CALEA is a case in point ( The DoJ is currently waiting for the courts to rule on some portion of the FCC's ability to make this kind of rule, before laying down the criteria that will cost US taxpayers some $17 billion just so Jimmy and Judy can be monitored by the feds while at college.

    This is just one more nail in the coffin of free speech and self expression.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    This makes me curious about the following scenario:

    If you break a US internet law while living in another country (in which that law may not exist), are you still liable for it when you return to the US?

    For example, say one travels to Mexico, "annoys" a bunch of people (especially ones living in the US), then returns to the US. Can he be arrested/prosecuted?

    I've always found the boundaries of law fascinating when dealing with boundary-less entities, such as the internet and space...
    Alright Brain, you don\'t like me, and I don\'t like you. But let\'s just do this, and I can get back to killing you with beer.
    -- Homer S.

  9. #9
    ********** |ceWriterguy
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Kurton, if you're willing to pay for a trip to Mexico just to annoy someone from online, you're a sick individual. I say more power to you.

    Mrs |ce says this becomes an issue of 'territorial law' - triable in international courts in the FIRST instance of the issue. After the case is tried it becomes 'case law', where the precedent dictates.
    I disagree, but I'm not a lawyer. Here's my supporting situation:

    Joey Stoner flies to Amsterdam, land of legal dope. He proceeds, while on vacation, to get stoned off his arse on the various (illegal in the US but NOT in Amsterdam) recrational substances available. He has a jolly time on holiday, with no incidents, and returns to the US sober, and not in possession of any of the substances he imbibed.

    Now while Joey was in Amsterdam, Fred MIBagent photographs him smoking the dope/imbibing the substances...

    When Joey arrives back in the US he is questioned. Joey freely admits he got stoned off his arse, and very willingly allows a search which proves fruitless because Joey's not stupid.

    Joey is perfectly legal. He has broken no laws in Amsterdam, and the US laws didn't take priority since he wasn't in the US.

    Ok, Mrs |ce has changed her story a bit. Here's the latest:

    "As in anything, there are loopholes. Consider this: Joe Blow the idiot from New York deserves a good flaming because he's stupid in general. Fred the |ceman gets pissed off, but because it's illegal here in the US he emails his bro Randy the Fox over in the UK and tells him the story. Now Randy's a good bud of Fred. They know each other's real addresses, real identities, phone numbers, how often they have sex with their respective wives, etc. Randy gets quite perturbed because of Joe's stupidity and launches into him in a most scathing and heinous attack on Joe's person, his parentage, his sexual preference, his race, his religion. Randy does his whorish best to annoy the heck out of Joe. Joe, being the quiet idiot citizen of the US, reports this annoyance to the authorities. They laugh heartily because Randy's in the UK where it's legal. Fred the |ceman accomplishes his mission of annoying Joe and gets off Scot free, EVEN IF Randy tells authorities who he is. Why? Because Fred didn't do the annoying, and didn't openly ask Randy to annoy Joe."

    She also goes on to say that the term "annoy" is a vague legal term. What annoys one of us might not annoy another. The ambiguity of the term 'annoy' will cause the unenforcability of the law, and ultimately lead to its downfall.

    Mirriam Webster's Dictionary defines ANNOY as:
    1: to disturb or irritate especially by repeated acts. 2: to harass especially by quick brief attacks ~ vi : to cause annoyance.
    1: the act of annoying or being annoyed. 2: the state of feeling of being annoyed: vexation 3: a source of vexation or irritation: nuisance <the delay was a minor ~>
    Good luck removing the ambiguity to the point where it can become enforcable...
    Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

    Which coder said that nobody could outcode Microsoft in their own OS? Write a bit and make a fortune!

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Hey Hey,

    I think it will be interesting to see the first time someone tries to have someone else charged under this...

    It says it has to be done anonymously... If you know who they are to charge them it's not anonymous, therefore you can't charge them.... If it is anonymous, you don't know who they are..

    So who's going to pay for an investigation to track the person down? ISPs are going to have to be subpoena'd. If it was an email and it used an out of country mail server then you've hit a dead end.. If it was IRC and the person used a proxy or vhost that was out of the country again you'll hit a dead end... unless that country is really close to the US and willing to uphold the search for uselessness.

    While it may have passed into a law... it's almost 100% unrealistic to attempt to enforce it...

    Maybe it'll make for a new reality TV show.... "Watch as this team of highly trained hackers searches for the annoyer... While the annoyee sits at home in devistation <cut to a shot of a crying person> We'll track down those reponsible and see that they're brought to justice"....

    And when you consider shows like Big Brother and Survivor.... would definatey go over well...


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts