Finally, Bush & friends pass a totalitarian law I like:
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.
And the actual language of the law, as reported by CNet:
“Whoever…utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet… without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person…who receives the communications…shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
So this law is obviously a blatant farce. What could be the real purpose behind it? To help in passing the so-called “internet driver’s license” down the road? To stop corporate whistleblowers? To finally silence legions of annoying twits?
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- Shills, Frauds & Phoneys
- House of Jacob
- “Offenders Find our Technology ABSOLUTELY ARRESTING!”*
- Man sells forehead advertising space on eBay
- About The Internet Archive
12 Comments
I don’t think I have ever seen a more blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation. The First Amendment has been expanded in some ways that were never imagined by the framers, but even the text of that amendment, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” very clearly prohibits just such a rule as this.
As no one would try to prohibit socially acceptable speech, the real purpose of the First Amendment is to protect socially unacceptable speech - e.g., that which might annoy, abuse, etc.
This sounds to me like an extension of the speech codes now in force on many college campuses. The irony of those speech codes, existing as they do in those very institutions that claim to encourage the free exchange of ideas, is almost too much to bear. Future historians will not look kindly on our modern “tolerance” fetish, with all of that word’s currently Orwellian dimensions (war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and, yes, intolerance is tolerance).
The law doesn’t make it illegal to annoy, only to do so anonymously. You can say whatever you like as long as you sign your name to it, you sorry sons of bitches
–Ed. O’Malley
The first amendment doesn’t distinguish based on anonymity. Did Ben Franklin think it would have been OK for Congress to prohibit the Silence Dogwood or Caelia Shortface letters?
http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_wit_name.html
Good questions Tim. I want to add my own, What effect does this have on the cyberweb’s vissiccitudes on identity? If posting by name is almost defacto required, can one develop alternate web identities?
As always, when an industrialized gov’t can control individuals, it will, so I’m hesitant to see an actual agenda besides the always-growing control factor.
To throw in a little more spare change, I’ve been using the web since I was about thirteen… I remember MS-DOS. The majority of my webtime goes to reading articles and looking for images, almost no porn, and I don’t have a myspace account or livejournal. Now, most of my peer group–midtwenties–uses the internet mostly for myspace, livejournal, and friendster. They’re not that good at finding information or looking for new things, and most of them are respectful of my lame photoshop skills. …
So, since the cyberweb largely reinforces their meatspace identity, rather than functions in an exploratory means, I have to wonder, will this only impact us fringers?
Actually probably no one in this world likes this new law better than me. And damn, thanks Gnomely for blowing my cover! But yeah this law is finally giving me something to rejoice about. I guess this Tim Boucher doesn’t know how to read the fine print, but this law or legislation is pretty much going to outlaw annoying bloggers, including annoying Pop Occulture bloggers with their stupid pointless views on religion. So yes, hurray Bush and Congress, finally someone else is on my team! haha… I can’t wait for Internet 2 to get rid of trash blog sites like this, hopefully they throw all of you into some kind of concentration camp prision - the Tim Bouchers, the Jk’s, the Gnomely’s, the Substances, Ktulus, the Nulls, the fallens, the Pauls, I love it. All of the little brainless, small dick cowards on the computer who think their annoying opinions are important, will now see some much overdue Jail time! lol I wonder what Tim Boucher looks like in stripes, maybe if he’s lucky he’ll find his true love in some nice comfy seattle prison cell. hahaha
Oh yeah, you wonder why the mainstream news isn’t really reporting this? Umm maybe because they hate you people like 50 times more than me, and can’t wait to see these annoying little blog sites shutdown, with all of your worthless peanuts opinions. Wow, Tim, you were looking for the conspiracy to come that would finally “rock your socks off?” Well hey, bud it looks like this is it. You and this shitty blog site and your legions of sheeple followers are about to be put out of business. Can anyone say cheers? hahaha. Oh yeah, I guess ya’ll could always form some really sheik club out in the woods, perhaps that “Deception Trail” that Jk loves, where ya’ll can all get naked and frollic around to your hearts content, and chase some bunny rabbits. lol And the big guns in the bohemian grove will be laughing their jolly rich asses off knowing that you little twerps no longer have an outlet to type out your little worthless opinions. God I love it. Thank you Lord!!
*setting my timer for the demise of useless phony blog sites*
A while back, I stopped calling myself “Sex McGinty” because I figured anything I had to say was worth backing up and not hiding behind an alias. This was a reaction to one beef I had where my “opponent” tried to “out” my true identity.
A lot of people online threaten to “out” you if you disagree with them on anything. I myself have “outed” a few people– I’m not proud of it but at the same time it was interesting to see blatant racists and trolls (who were talking big when anonymous) suddenly terrified of being found out.
Some racist tried to “out” me after I “outed” him. Twice, he tried to get me fired by contacting my bosses. When questioned by my bosses, I stood by every word I typed. And it turns out the guy I outed used to be head of production at Miramax!
Absurd.
I think a law like this will force people to think twice about the things they say. In other words, if it’s not something they would state in person– under no cover –then they probably shouldn’t be saying it. One thing I hate about the Internet is how anonymity allows people to express illegal sentiments (such as hate speech or advocating crimes against certain groups) without suffering the consequences.
Then again, maybe this is Bush’s attempt to stop “leaks” in his administration. Imagine if this law were around during Watergate– would “Deep Throat” been allowed to keep his cover?
Oh, and JR– Tim isn’t anonymous. So how would this law affect his site?
Once again, you’ve proven what a useless tool you are.
(Tim, are you going to delete my comment because I attacked him? I understand if you do)
[Removed by administrator for senseless antagonizing. No hard feelings]
I know the above was immature and childish… but I stand by it 100%…
Anonymity is my bread and butter. Internet anonymity is bi-directionally assymetric; any of my readers could find my real identity in 5 minutes. BUT: having a pseudonym discourages the casual Googler from finding me. In other words, you can go from fake me to real me, but you can’t go from real me to fake me, and I like it that way. I don’t need the creepy guy from high school casually looking me up and finding my blog.
Kylark, Ben Franklin would agree with you. Apologies to those who followed my earlier link, but I think this worth quoting to illustrate that the value of anonymity has been recognized for a long time:
“During the eighteenth century, it was common for writers and journalists to use
pseudonyms, or false names, when they created newspaper articles and letters to the editor. Franklin used this convention extensively throughout his life, sometimes to express an idea that might have been considered slanderous or even illegal by the authorities; other times to present two sides of an issue, much like the point-counterpoint style of journalism used today.
When Franklin used a pseudonym, he often created an entire persona for the “writer.” Sometimes he wrote as a woman, other times as a man, but always with a specific point of view. While all of his writings were focused and logical, many were also humorous, filled with wit and irony.”
What a great description of some of the better discussions available online today. The medium has changed, but not the method.
James, yeah that was totally unnecessary. The person you’re directing that to thrives on antagonization, so I imagine it’s only going to escalate from here. It’s too bad too because I think some of the above comments by Paul and others open up really useful and interesting points on the subject.
At the same time, the range of comments above probably better illustrates the real depth of this issue in a more accurate way. So, yeah, whatever.
Also I just remembered this really great essay on Jesus and non-violence that maybe would be useful for internet flame wars as well.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1216-30.htm
The whole “turn the other cheek” thing is presented here as a third option between fighting back (escalation) and cowering in terror (humiliation) - one which robs the actions of the provoker of their intended effects.