Slashdot Mirror
Crank Blogging, Like Phone Calling, Now Illegal
On Thursday, President Bush signed into law a must-pass
DoJ appropriations bill
which contained a
little gotcha for the internet.
For decades, making anonymous abusive phone calls has been a federal crime, good for up to two years behind bars -- and the term "abusive" has included threats, harassment, and the much weaker "intent to annoy." Now, that telecommunications law has been extended to include the Internet, so when you post an anonymous troll to wind up your least-favorite blogger, you may break the law. This is silly: the law needs to start taking into account the qualitative differences between things like telephones, email inboxes, blogs, and IM accounts. A 3 AM phone call is different from a post to blogger.com calling me a jerk. I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps /chickening my Orc.
...does that mean when you get a -1 Flamebait on slashdot, the authorities are dispatched?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
My co-worker Steve is a real jerk.
Actually, I think the entire law against crank calling is pretty worthless now, anyway.
We have Caller ID -- we can refuse to answer the phone. If crank calls were a major concern, you'd see market solutions to the problem. Companies would come up with "quiet time" phone features that would prevent any ring after a certain hour unless you coded it with numbers that were acceptable.
As you can see with this law, and thousands of other bad laws, you enter into a slippery slope of stupidity.
The Department of Justice is completely out of control -- nearly 99% of the Department is unconstitutional and unnecessary at the federal level. In this end, this is an abridgement on the freedom of speech. Every time government wants to penalize "edgy" speech, they are just finding another way to control normal speech.
I think we know who the real cranks are in this case -- read the entire law/budget, you'll find more bad things than usual. In fact, I can't see anything in the budget that seems worthwhile anymore.
to tell the submitter what an ass he is.
I'm gonna call the cops next time some night elf hunter kills my helpless warlock from shadowmeld :P
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
the HOME of flamers and trolls. ;-)
Soon the forums will be empty as we are all carted off to jail for smart ass comments given with the "intent to annoy".
We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
"Intent to annoy"? Every sibling, spouse and co-worker in America could be charged under this clause!
My wife LIVES to annoy me! It is one of her main goals in life. I'm fairly certain each of my kids also has a primary purpose to annoy one or more of their siblings, their mother, all their teachers and many of the other kids at school. Frequently phones are involved.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I find this new policy annoying.
This is silly: the law needs to start taking into account the qualitative differences between things like telephones, email inboxes, blogs, and IM accounts. A 3 AM phone call is different from a post to blogger.com calling me a jerk.
The law doesn't spell out everything. It's up to judges and juries to decide what qualifies as harrassment. Would they decide repeated 3AM calls is harrassment? Probably. Would they decide somebody calling you a jerk is harrassment? Probably not. But it's something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, not something that can be spelled out explicitly by law ahead of time.
I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps /chickening my Orc.
No, but if you were a small-time blogger just scraping by on ad revenue, you might need protection from people making your comment system utterly useless with continued abuse. If Slashdot didn't have full-time staff to program things like the moderation system, the comments would be useless. And believe me, people aren't coming to Slashdot for the crappy game reviews, years-old news and dupes.
I ave fellt personally harrased and annoyed by many statements made by politicians. Can I press charges? How can this new law not apply to any form of speech?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
The intent of the medium should be considered in these kind of laws.
Blogs are public with an implicit invitation ( unless comments are shut off ) by the owner to contact the owner to share your views.
That is not the same with a phone.
I'm not concerned with this particular bill as I am with one of the tactics that was used.
Namely, I'm talking about the embedding of other mostly unrelated things into a bill. It's especially bad, since with a bill such as this one, the existance of the DoJ relies on this bill getting passed to get its funding. Because of this, members of congress feeled pressed that the bill must be passed (as was noted in the first sentence of jamie's summary).
A 3 AM phone call is different from a post to blogger.com calling me a jerk. I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps /chickening my Orc.
Yes, you're right. What sane person would need such a law?
But on the other hand, I can see how politicians and people in power might need such a law. It would make it illegal to criticize them anonymously.
This law is just part of a continuing effort to erode and limit the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Continuing attacks on fundamental rights in the United States will continue as long as fear replaces philosophy as the primary tool used to win elections and retain/attain power in elections. It is imperative for citizens of democracies to fight laws which restrict rights -- even if that means protecting the rights of those they find offensive. The test of any action should be whether that action restricts of limits the freedome of others. If it does, then the act is bad., If it does not, then it should be tolerated even if it is ugly and indecent.
If software can't do something useful in 10 minutes, it won't
^------- by Anonymous Coward, Ha!
Does this mean that we, in the rest of the world, can lay into you guys in the US and there's nothing you can do about it (anonymously)?
I will taunt you a second time!!!
Ha! Your country is really small and you all smell of pooh!
...is paved with Congressional legislation. Who are they kidding? Just how enforceable is this going to be? Are the federal courts (which are already overburdened with real criminal cases) now to be swamped with case of "he called me a fsck-head on Slashdot?" The intent is good, allowing people to avoid harrassment but the execution is lousy. I can't see this standing up to the inevitable challenge by the ACLU in front of the Supreme Court.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
When you troll on Slashdot, you troll with Osama!
Check out ioquake3.org for a great, free, First-Person Shooter engine!
Laws like this will, in the long run, make the freedom of speech stronger, not weaker.
However they will do nothing for the kamikazee use of the comma!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The point of all this bullshit is simply to create a web of laws which can be used to ensnare anybody.
The next time some wingnut retard says 'so long as you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear', point this out (and tell them how annoying they are).
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
The terrorists is using the Internets!
And I almost forgot: What about the Children!!?!?!
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
It should be a crime to prosecute someone unconstitutionally.
This law sweeps across with a broad stroke and that's bad legislation.
One problem is a matter of 'annoying' people. What is annoying varies from person to person.
On the one hand, this means that spammers face yet another law against them. So, spamming while in the U.S. is a really bad idea. I'm sorry, if your name is really Ivan Charles Wiener, then, ok, I guess you can continue to send me erectile dysfunction ads as I.C. Wiener. But Heywood Jablowmie had better look out!
My question then is a matter of whether or not posting anonymously on a blog is a problem. If you allow real anonymity and you aren't prepared to handle the system, well, you're a fool. But most blogging software takes care of that. And if you force people to register, problem solved.
The big problem is that 'recipient of communication' is undefined. So, if I have a blog, and I allow people to post anonymously and they don't annoy me, is it a problem if some politician visits my blog and sees that? The original author is anonymous. Granted, as the owner and effective publisher who is not anonymous, well, I would argue that it's now my problem, and too bad, and so on. But sites, like Slashdot, that allow anonymous and disavow ownership of any kind of the post, well, that could be a big problem, as then Slashdot is not committing a crime directly, but can be considered an accessory.
Hopefully, this thing will be given a reasonable smackdown, but I doubt it.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
It should also be noted that every single one of his articles takes pot shots at repubs and especially the Bush admin, whether they are warranted or not. This one was no exception. The law is portrayed as being pushed through the congress by those tricky freedom hating republicans, even though it was approved unanimously.
As a regular reader of his it gets rather annoying and distracting and it diminishes the effectiveness of the arguments he tries to make.
You miss the same thing that Bush supporters and detractors alike miss, repeatedly.
We are not at war.
Every time Bush or a supporter says "so-and-so must be done because of the war on terror" or "this right must be suspended because of the war on terror", remind them that the United States has not declared a war in over half a century.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Badges? We don need no STINKIN badges!
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
And yet here we are, posting here and in all those articles MarkusQ referenced... free speech is alive and well, believe it or not, and people bitching about it not being free while they freely post their rants here are too oblivious to see the irony.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
And yet here we are, posting here and in all those articles MarkusQ referenced... free speech is alive and well, believe it or not, and people bitching about it not being free while they freely post their rants here are too oblivious to see the irony.
The fact that some people in some cases are able to express their views does not mean that "free speech is alive and well." The point of free speech is that everybody can do it, without recrimination.
-- MarkusQ
where at least I know I'm free.
We are not at war.
Good catch. I keep forgetting that. I guess that's a good demonstration of how "the Big Lie" works; they keep repeating it and after awhile you start going along with it even though you know it's false.
--MarkusQ
For every -1 Flamebait that appears on Slashdot we should all file a federal lawsuit that must be investigated and tried. Sometimes you just have to prove that something is too stupid to be in the rule book. We'll see how long the justice system can withsatnd a very stupid law that can be invoked by the average citizen. Any takers on a template complaint form to save lawyer fees? :D
And just for clarification, I'm all for protection agains harrassment, but a law against making an anonymous message that annoys someone is ridiculous.
Currently the internet is not trusted. I don't really know who you are and you don't know who I am and we can pester each other without really being able to do anything about it.
Total open internet doesn't work. That is clear from slashdot alone else why would we have moderation and bans? If you ever run a website you will quickly learn that you will need to secure your site from many attacks.
There is something about being anonymous that can bring out the worst in people and with the internet it doesn't matter how small a group it is, they still number in the millions because of the global reach. Or put another way I don't need to worry about some kid from Japan gatecrashing my Dutch LUG. That same kid however can easily try attacking the website and I can't grab him by the throath and show what happens to little punks.
So lets move to a totally un-anonymous internet where who you are is known. Post a troll on slashdot and be assured someone from your hometown will come by and teach you a lesson.
Nice idea no? No. Because for all the trolls and flamers and idiots and time wasters there are also those people who contribute stuff they can get in trouble for but we would really like to know. Oh they ain't many, every slashdot story has trolls versus only a handfull that have inside information BUT some people find that the trolls are worth it.
And yet should that mean anyone can do anything they want and not have to fear being punished for it? Saying that people should be able to harras, threathen or even annoy while hiding behind anonymity is al very good until you are at the receiving end.
I happen to know one of the people who claims to be one of the gnaa members. Yes he is as sad in real live as well but that is not the real funny thing. He sometimes gets "attacked" himself and then bitterly complains about how people are costing him bandwidth from a DOS (yeah a DOS not even a DDOS). A lot of people are for freedom but only if it is them being free, the moment someone else uses freedom against them it is time to get the law involved.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This says you are free to speak. Strictly speaking it does not say you do not have to face consequences of what you say. (Shouting fire in a crowded theather example) It certainly does not say you have the right do speak anonymous. The amendment was clearly not written by lawyers. Not good ones anyway.
Of course it also was written a long time ago when if you wanted to say something you had to either own a press or stand up in front of your audience. The tech to speak from another continent without ever having to show yourselve was unheard perhaps even undreamed of.
This law has a lot of nasty possibilities but as someone who has had to clean to many websites after a visit by a person with the intent to annoy I am torn in two. The majority of me knows this is going to lead to trouble and the other part of me has a list of IP's in his firewall that he would loved to have traced by the feds and their users put in a wooden chair with leather straps and a link to another kind of net.
Should at least make for some intresting bash.org posts when someone convinces an annoying kid they are about to be arrested for talking in caps.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"If you think we are not at war now, you must have been living in a cave for the last few year."
Well I think we are not at war and I haven't been living in a cave. There is nothing technical about it-we have been fighting terrorists for a long time. We are engaged in multiple conflicts and troops are suffering casualties. Nothing unususal there-it happens regularly.
Frankly the "war on terror" is roughly akin to the "war on drugs" or the "war on x". They all are poorly defined and generally impossible to win. Because they fail to address the underlying problems. Invading a country is easy. Changing a society is hard.
Frankly I am not concerned about Osama. Neither is the US government based on its actions. I am concerned about a government that wants to reduce my rights and priviledges for a false sense of security and so they can be seen as "doing something". Of course, I am more afraid of the clueless people like you who support those measures. That is the real threat.
Remember that terrorism is insignificant when compared to other preventable deaths. More people are killed driving in a month than died in 9/11. But you don't see a "war on road deaths".
Most of you are looking at this from an individual perspective and you are grossly mistaken. How foolish you all are to think this law is to protect you! You the people! Hah! This administration doesn't do things for the people, they do them for big businesses with lots of funding to contribute to campaigns and with lobbyists who have big entertainment budgets. In other words corporations who are tired of trying to use ineffective civil law suits to stifle free speech about them. So this law is _not_ to give you power--it is to give corporations the power to criminalize product and corporate criticism on the internet. After all, civil suits are so darned expensive, but if a corporation can send a few people to jail, then that will have an immediate and severe chillng effect and squelch bad product reviews and negative comments about customer service and corporations. Don't believe me? Wait an see.
Perhaps this is the legal vehicle to aid in the prosecution of electronic harassment. A growing trend with middle and high school kids is to create blogs/website/emails to harass fellow students.
I have seen some very vicious blog sites devoted to the defamation of a fellow student. Without the legal ammo, law enforcement has their hands tied as to the extent they can investigate and remove the content.
With the web, you can anonymously bully fellow students from the comforts of your own bedroom.
We need to weigh your right to flame someone with the rights of people to be protected from harassment.
What amazes me, more than anything, is that some people seem to feel the need to draw a line between the real world and the Internet. For example, are on-line auctions THAT different from real-life auctions? How about shopping carts?
What the heck are you whining about? A republic is often, and definitely in the case of the US, also a representative democracy. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. If you're getting all pissy because you think the use of the word democracy should refer soley to direct democracies and no other forms, that's an issue you need to work through with your therapist.