Slashdot Mirror
Irish Legislator Proposes Law That Would Make Annoying People Online a Crime
An anonymous reader sends this report from TechDirt: Is Ireland looking to pass a law that would "outlaw ebooks and jail people for annoying others?" Well, no, not really, but that's the sort of unintended consequences that follow when laws are updated for the 21st century using little more than a word swap. Ireland has had long-standing laws against harassment via snail mail, telephones and (as of 2007) SMS messages. A 2014 report by the government's somewhat troublingly-named "Internet Content Governance Advisory Group" recommended updating this section of the law to cover email, social media and other internet-related transmissions. ... The broad language -- if read literally -- could make emailing an ebook to someone a criminal offense. Works of fiction are, by definition, false. ... It's the vestigial language from previous iterations of the law -- words meant to target scam artists and aggressive telemarketers -- that is problematic. Simply appending the words "electronic communications" to an old law doesn't address the perceived problem (cyberbullying is cited in the governance group's report). It just creates new problems.
ACs become criminals. /., prepare your IP logs...
Aye, as long as I can still get piss drunk at the pub, beat me bitch wife, and spit on an Englishman, then I'm alright with it!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
It's funny he's breaking his own law already!!!
Ignoring people?
The problem with our legal system are the things that often start with "There ought to be a law".
No, there shouldn't be a law, because laws that can be abused, will be abused, and the law will not actually stop anyone from anything.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Really ? You think any government wouldn't love a law that lets them persecute people for their speech ?
Be willing to bet this law passes. It's a big blunt club that can be used by a government to hit people with, and too many people will think it will only hit people they don't like.
Throw Ireland in jail!
What about people that annoy me out in public?
Execpt of course old blighty is the binge drinking capital of Europe: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Wait wait wait. If we are talking about little more than a word swap, wouldn't the standards that were previously applied to things like snail mail be the same for electronic communication? Has the law ever been used or interpreted to cover mailing a paperback fiction book counting?
This strikes me as going beyond a 'literal' interpretation of the law and goes well into the territory of taking serious liberties with the text and its interpretation. If all this is doing is extending existing laws for fraud and harassment to cover electronic transfers too, then looking to how those laws were applied by judges and lawyers would be a strong (if not outright binding) indicator of what the change actually means.
Were it not for the first amendment, there's no doubt in my mind that the people yelling "triggering!" at Christina Hoff Sommers at Oberlin would have sought her prosecution under a law like this. There is a not so fine line that many ignore between opposing cyberbullying and coddling pathetic little weaklings who simply cannot stomach the idea that there are people who hold different, maybe even offensive, views. My view as a free speech partisan is that "safe spaces" need to be smashed as aggressively as the concept of "free speech zones." If someone simply will not leave you alone, that's harassment and warrants a basic sanction under the law. However, no one has a right to not be annoyed or hear things upsetting to them. We as a society should be utterly intolerant of people who expect to be protected from such things. It should be a mark of scorn and shame to be that thin-skinned and publicly notorious for being so.
Ireland is risking a very serious mistake that will hollow out much of its claim to being an open and democratic society if this is passed.
On the very small plus side, perhaps this will make using Ireland as the tax dodge for your tech company slightly less convenient. Otherwise, isn't this the same country that decided that outlawing blasphemy would be a cool idea in 2009? There may be a screw or two loose.
Law That Would Make Annoying People Online a Crime
What if someone annoying is online, can I punch them?
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
The it only becomes an offense if it is done for "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless
anxiety to another".
Come on, guys, actus reus and mens rea. It's not rocket science.
Down with that sort of thing!
That guy annoyed me online and he wasn't even logged in.
If you want to outlaw annoying people, just outlaw it regardless of the medium.
people who are annoying should be banned everywhere, not just online.
Why would you read the law literally in a common-law system? The way the law works is by precedent.
I would lose half my residential IT fixit business.
Great. I'll be locked in jail with my entire family.
Table-ized A.I.
Lawmakers are too fucking stupid to understand technology.
This clown is no exception.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You say that group is troublingly named. I say it's the best name ever. If the acronym ICGAG (pronounced "Icy Gag") isn't the most perfectly apropos thing ever I don't know what is. I mean, it combines the "gag" that best describes censorship with the modifier "icy" to remind us of the chilling effects that go along with such censorship.
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
In (whole of) Europe (i am Greek), thanks to our (in)famous "anti-racism/discrimination" laws, it is already a crime to "annoy" left-wing people while trying to COMMUNICATE with them... OR others, even if those others were NOT left-wing!
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
Aye, as long as I can still get piss drunk at the pub, beat me bitch wife, and spit on an Englishman, then I'm alright with it!
Yes, no problem mate, just remember our (greetings from Greece fellow European) "anti-racism/discrimination" laws and make sure the "Englishman" is not some Muslim/Brown from who knows where, and he is not a homo... ah, wait, you can't spit on an Englishman.
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
Annoying people online is a crime?
Windows is so much better than Linux in every way!
Ok, I'll go turn myself in now. ;-)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
danm, I probably have to stop posting on slashdot now.
If it is crime to annoy offline than it should be crime to annoy online as well.
The civilized world needs more rules, not less. It's high time to crack down on that last bastion of anarchy, the internet, and force it to abide.
Ireland is small. Roughly the size & population of the American state of Maryland. Everyone knows that Maryland is one of the least significant places in the US much less the world. Yet Ireland thinks it can control the internet and how people use it. Even the entire USA can't do that. Silly Ireland. (Sorry to include you in this, Maryland. You're not really a total loser.)
...omphaloskepsis often...
This one's *really* getting old. Private cosmetic dentistry in the UK has gone through the roof in recent years. All the 'young folks' want to look like the 'celebs' with their false-looking perfect white even teeth these days. I suppose you think we all still wear bowler hats and say 'what ho Jeeves'?
I suppose you think we all still wear bowler hats and say 'what ho Jeeves'?
You don't?
There goes my fantasy...
This is discrimination, pure, simple, and fresh-squeezed.
On the other hand, due to my work environment, I need a law passed that would make it a crime for people to annoy me in person.
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Oh the irony.
New flash! Nearly all of Ireland's youth jailed over some damn picture of a dress.
Down with this sort of thing.
. I suppose you think we all still wear bowler hats and say 'what ho Jeeves'?
I met someone in a bowler hat just last week. He was also wearing a kilt. And a bright purple shirt. Picture that combination for a moment.
They key to unlocking the fashion mystery? Jury duty. Sure enough, he didn't get picked. Clearly he'd been living here for quite some time (long enough to be a citizen), so I can't hold him as representative of all the UK - I'm sure you don't all wear bright purple shirts.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The very suggestion anoys me, and since this is online could he be arrested?
"... We thought it was a modest proposal."
I suppose you think we all still wear bowler hats and say 'what ho Jeeves'?
I'm not ignorant. I know it's "tally ho" not "what ho."
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Are you an annoying person? Are you online? Well then, you are a crime, and anyone who commits you may be subject to punitive action.
The really annoying people are the politicians who can't see reality because their vision is obstructed by their anal orifices. Can we arrest them? They annoy us all the time, not just online.
If it means I don't have to put up with David Cameron. He's a very annoying person on line.
return 0; }
Mainly the clergy.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Instead, can we make it illegal to take offense at something? Please?
Look, legislators. I know you want to just write a law that says "Everything's illegal" so that you can go back to your pre-retirement retirement lifestyle, but you're never going to keep anything worthwhile on the books that way. So, to let you stay lazy and still get something useful done, I propose you take a COM-POOT-ER course and learn how to CAW-PEE and P-ASTE.
Sorry for the difficult words, but they let you create 10 laws to target 10 specific activities in only a little more time than it takes to make 1 law and certainly with no more effort. That way, you can make specific legislation that isn't as likely to be shot down by the SJW Supreme Court justices that are always harshing on your laws, and even if it is, you've still got 9 other almost identical laws that might last a little longer. Even if you don't want to take the course, you could at least make your assistants take it and have them write the law for you. Hey, that'd free up even more of your time!
Nobody has the right to not be offended.
Because you can't guarantee that ANYTHING won't offend someone.
Oh! Fluffy kittens aren't offensive!
Trust me, SOMEBODY out there'll be offended.
Just this thought police announcement offends me!
Go to fucking jail with the rest of the criminals you political hack potato farmer!
Defendant stands accused of 15 counts of Rick-rolling, 2 counts of goat-se, and advocating HOSTS.
Do I get any points for wearing a purple shirt whilst walking around downtown Sydney on ANZAC Day?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.