More on annoying
A stitch in haste, addressing the hysteria of the law banning annoying people, notes:
–The word “annoy” appeared in the original VAWA; that is not the new language. Rather, the amendment extends the “annoy” element to the Internet as well as to the telephone. I do of course consider “annoy” to be an unconstitutionally vague term, but let’s acknowledge that its presence in the statute is not new. What is an “annoying” blog? Who knows. But then again, what is an “annoying” telephone call?
–The law applies, at most, to emails and not, contrary to all the panic, to web message boards and especially not to blogs. The statute requires a “transmission” — a website is not a “transmission” and is clearly not covered by the amendment. This is, at most, about anonymous e-mails that are intentionally sent (i.e., “transmitted”) to specific email addresses. I “send” (i.e., transmit) emails but I don’t “send” (i.e., transmit) my blog anywhere — readers seek it out.
Further, he states its intent is for internet phone calls. Sure, maybe the reaction from us libertarian types was alarmist, but in this case it should be.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:10 am
I’m not even sure it applies to e-mails: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/002638.html
January 10th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Yet another case of bloggers who don’t read and instead regurgitating erroneous opinions based on erroneous information. The result: a major disservice to the public and winding up looking like the unreliable sources of information they are. In case anyone is interested, the text of all laws are available for public scrutiny at their respective state government site. All federal laws can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov This particular piece of legislation can be found for ALL to read in its entirety at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:5:./temp/~c1098E1wJF:e77742:
This is a Cyberstalking law aimed to prevent the hundreds of murders of men and women that have occurred in the last few years as a result of information easily obtained over the internet by individuals “with the intent–
`(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State”…
and who “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 distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury…”
This essentially makes cyberstalking a crime. The debate should now be re-framed as follows: can a blogger who writes about wanting to murder another blogger – Mr. X- for his views, and then writes systematically about how he is harrassing this individual with the aim to intimidate and “bring him and his family to their knees,” publishes his home address on his blog and invites his readers to “rape his wife” amongst other suggested attacks. WHo is Mr. X? He is a formerly popular blogger who’s pro-war, anti-terrorists views garnered him a lot of hate mail and who eventually was forced to sell and move from his home after his children were approached twice with hate messages from strangers. My question: should this offending blogger be arrested and his site shut down? This cyberstalker will soon be charged with other crimes as he lived outside NYS (where Mr. X lived) and this federal cyberstalking law was not yet in effect.
I do not use their official names for 2 reasons. This is a 5 year old case in which charges are soon to be filed. Mr. X no longer blogs, however, I believe he and his family have been through enough and don’t need to have their names resurface on the net.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
The original source was news.com.
No, it doesn’t. It makes prank/spam/annoying phone calls via internet telephone illegal.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Rubbish. There’s no such thing as “good” alarmism.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Just battin’ an idea around:
The Commerce Clause was as tightly-written, and probably seemed like every bit as good an idea at the time.
The intent of a law doesn’t concern me as as much as potential misapplications. Witness the Patriot Act: only middlin’ succesful at its stated purpose, but so far a great tool in the Wo(S)D.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Xrlq:
Dammit, X, cut it out! Every time we agree on something, I feel all dirty! 🙂
January 10th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Understandably alarmed would have been a better choice of words, as I have some concern about the potential for misapplication.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Uncle,
Oh, we all know how accurate and impartial news organizations can be.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
And blogs are no different but at least you know where they’re coming from 😉
January 10th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Uh… what Uncle said, and…
Like I said yesterday, there was no debate on this little gem, it was slipped in to a must pass bill. Not very nice. It’s suppose to be “by and for the people”, remember? I’ve linked to this little article by Claire before, but damn if it keeps coming in handy. Check out this-
http://billstclair.com/lodge/E_LandMines.shtml
Second, you’ve got “annoy” entirely too near “up to 2 years in jail”. Think about that that a little bit. Like Nate said the other day, get busted for annoying someone somehow however broadly this is applied (hint, think RICO) and as far as the government is concerned, you lose your RKBA forever. (Unless you’re as rich and connected as Mark Rich.)
January 10th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Hmmm. Annoying e-mails can result in a two year prison term? As long as this is on the books, can we throw spammers in prison now? (I’d think that spam email with misspelled words and other garbage deliberately included to evade filters would be rock solid evidence of intent to annoy–why else would people be trying to filter you out if it weren’t for the annoyance factor?)
January 11th, 2006 at 3:09 am
Anonymous Annoyance Now Illegal
Lots more on this from Anarchangel and SaysUncle. And a word to the wise: “cyberstalking”, no matter how much the media loves to talk about it, is nothing more than being annoying online. You can’t kill someone over the internet. Making real thre…
January 11th, 2006 at 9:19 am
You know, if the law is actually used to stop bloggers… maybe we should all just financially get together and sue the Brady Bunch… I mean, their lies are certainly ‘annoying’…
January 12th, 2006 at 3:36 am
Correct, “…I don’t “send” (i.e., transmit) my blog anywhere…” But, I did transmit this comment here… Does that make it subject to the annoy law?
It doesn’t matter folks… we are ALL law-breakers! No one can live under this system without being one… So, you have two choices:
Either become a member of the elite,
Or
Don’t “annoy” any member of the elite.
January 12th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
[…] The Say Uncle posts are here, here, and here […]