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.

69 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. ACs by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 2, Informative

    ACs become criminals. /., prepare your IP logs...

    1. Re:ACs by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      "Always trying to steal me lucky charms."

    2. Re:ACs by davester666 · · Score: 1

      You are going to be the first one thrown in jail for that racist, stereotypical, commercial remark.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:ACs by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      That sounds about as drastic as the US space program hitting a brick wall before it was ever conceived in 1964 over hospital fund raiser money that was wired from the north shore Lake Tahoe being stolen by the mob.

  2. But I can still get piss drunk at the pub, right? by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  3. He's breaking his own law by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's funny he's breaking his own law already!!!

    1. Re:He's breaking his own law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I find lawyers and politicians to be highly annoying...does this mean we can lock all of them up for life? Or better yet execute them all?

  4. There ought to be a law by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:There ought to be a law by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, there ought to be a law against adding new laws?

    2. Re:There ought to be a law by praxis · · Score: 1

      and the law will not actually stop anyone from anything.

      Laws aren't meant to stop things from happening.

      When the people writing the law state that one of the purposes they are introducing the law is, wait for it, "deterrence", they, by definition, are meant to stop things from happening. You cannot really claim that what a people did was not meant to do exactly what the people doing it stated they wanted to accomplish.

    3. Re:There ought to be a law by jythie · · Score: 1

      Yes, laws can be abused. What needs to be weighed is the benefits of the law against the costs.

      By the looks of it, the original law was designed to address serial offenders like scam artists. So if they get caught and prosecuted, those individuals are less likely to keep doing it.

    4. Re:There ought to be a law by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Laws typically do not deter people from anything. There are plenty of laws against smoking Pot, it hasn't stopped any of it

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:There ought to be a law by khallow · · Score: 1

      Laws aren't meant to stop things from happening.

      They provide deterrence to certain behavior by providing negative consequences.

    6. Re:There ought to be a law by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Walking through the City Plaza park, which is right across the street from the police department, one will always smell pot. Always.

      There is a park that is supposedly a "drug free zone" with "enhanced penalties" (super law) where you can find people smoking pot throughout the day.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:There ought to be a law by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      You said:

      it hasn't stopped any of it

      Your anecdote is not enough to prove your position, and no number of examples will do so.

      I haven't smoked pot. Not that I was never curious... rather, doing so may get me arrested, thrown in jail, or fined.

      My anecdote is enough to entirely disprove your statement.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    8. Re:There ought to be a law by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      What needs to be carefully looked at is interpretive laws and the way they actually work in application. The rich basically use their wealth and lawyers to abuse the poor. Not only can the rich most abusively annoy the poor and get away it, they can also claim any imaginable action of the poor is annoying and ensure the poor are punished for it.

      Just to be clear about an understanding of annoyance. A criminal runs up and shoots people in a bank and takes the money. Now don't you think that criminal finds in annoying when police investigate the matter, find out who did it, hunts the criminal down and arrests them. Don't you think the criminal finds the prosecution, judge and jury annoying when the evidence in presented and the criminal is successfully prosecuted. Now don't you think the criminal is extremely annoyed by the correctional services people who will not let the criminal run free to able to commit more crimes.

      Be very, very careful of the legal dance with the idea of annoyance because the most glaring example, don't you think investors find it annoying when unions demand better wages and conditions for their workers, extremely annoying, let alone an actual strike. Don't corrupt politicians find protesters to be extremely annoying and look those corrupt politicians actually do seek to prosecute those people expressing their political rights under what are basically annoyance laws under another name.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:There ought to be a law by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I haven't smoked pot. Not that I was never curious... rather, doing so may get me arrested, thrown in jail, or fined.

      Yeah, right. You're just afraid because you believed the propaganda about sperm count and tiny nuts, and yours are already minuscule. Anyone who wants to smoke pot can do so and get away with it, if they care even a little. There's lots of states where it's legal now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:There ought to be a law by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      In the states where it is legal, did usage increase? Of course it did... because there is no longer a legal deterrent.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    11. Re:There ought to be a law by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In the states where it is legal, did usage increase? Of course it did... because there is no longer a legal deterrent.

      You can't separate the social and legal deterrents.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re: There ought to be a law by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Just because you put words together, it doesn't mean the resulting sentence is true.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    13. Re: There ought to be a law by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Just because you put words together, it doesn't mean the resulting sentence is true.

      And you just made a meaningless statement which advances the conversation in no way whatsoever, since it could equally be applied to anything anyone said ever. If you want to provide some sort of meaningful information, you can do that. Or can you?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re: There ought to be a law by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Your statement about not being able to separate social and legal deterrents makes no sense. You appear to be of the belief that the enforcement of law does not deter crime. This goes against well established legal theory, as well as pretty much all common sense. So please feel free to explain your position and how the vast majority of people are wrong. Or if you cannot, feel free to STFU.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    15. Re:There ought to be a law by jythie · · Score: 1

      The 'annoyance' part was commentary created by the OP. The actual law is anti-harassment, which has a higher legal standard then 'annoyance'. Which leads me to suspect that the people behind the piece are worried that their harassing behavior might get called into question so they are trying to paint it as 'this law might be coming for you too!' when, in reality, it isn't.

    16. Re:There ought to be a law by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "ANY" of it meaning that plenty of people still smoke pot in public, even though there are laws against it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:There ought to be a law by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Then perhaps you need to learn what the word "any" means. You were definitely using it wrong.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  5. Unintended consequences ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Unintended consequences ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Every government has a law that lets them prosecute someone for their speech. The only question is where to draw the line.

      How many more ways do you want to be guilty on any given day ?

  6. This Proposed Law Annoys Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Throw Ireland in jail!

  7. Word swap? by jythie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Word swap? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      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?

      Two words: Selective Enforcement.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Word swap? by erebus2161 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is an excellent point and I'd like to extend it a little further. The law doesn't even say what the summary or linked article says it does. If it did, sending a paperback through the mail would have already been against the low. First, notice that the part about sending false messages isn't by itself, but a sub section of the part about "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another". So just sending a work of fiction doesn't count. If I send you a story about how your wife is cheating on you with me when she actually isn't, then I could be fined. Or if I send you hundreds ebooks to annoy you and fill up your inbox, then I could be fined.

    3. Re:Word swap? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Unless the law has been selectively enforced already, expanding its interpretation would go against precedent and thus be an uphill battle. I think some people here are falling for the 'adding an e changes everything!' when it does not always do so.

    4. Re:Word swap? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you are mugged you should be a man and just get over it, no reason to catch or prosecute the robber. People should just do whatever they want and their victims just need to man up and do whatever they want back. Who needs laws anyway.

    5. Re:Word swap? by Fortran+IV · · Score: 2

      Ditto the part about "persistently and without reasonable cause makes use of a public electronic communications network"—again, that only applies if it's for the purpose of causing annoyance etc. Despite what the first (more hysterical) linked article says, refreshing Facebook every 10 seconds won't violate this law.

      (Unless, of course, you're doing it to deliberately annoy or inconvenience Facebook.)

      --
      I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
    6. Re:Word swap? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This law is not new. It has significant amount of legal precedent already established. You will have to demonstrate why expanding the definition will suddenly bring up selective enforcement where there hasn't been any to push this argument.

    7. Re:Word swap? by jythie · · Score: 1

      I suspect a lot of the outrage is rooted in forum dwellers freaking out at the idea there might be limits on how much they can harass people and any suggestion is attacked. In short, being horrible people is REALLY important to a significant and vocal part of the nerd/geek community, and they really do not want any tools for victims to counter them other than 'man up and ignore!'.

  8. Free speech and trigger warnings, take a pick by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Free speech and trigger warnings, take a pick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Freedom is the right to do things people don't like - up until the moment when you are restricting their freedom to do things they do like. Slightly different thing. But this is the Internet - where sociopathy and solipsism rule!

    2. Re:Free speech and trigger warnings, take a pick by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Eventually the courts will apply "yelling fire in a theater" to more types of speech if that's what society wants. The only question will be whether it is legal for the crowd to beat the speaker to death in self defense, or if it should be left to the authorities.

    3. Re:Free speech and trigger warnings, take a pick by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Like shoot them in the head, or play loudspeakers outside their house 24 hours a day at 0.1 dB below the OSHA defined damage threshold. People don't like either of those happening to them, so by your logic, they should be legal.

      Indeed that's exactly what I said and what I was trying to convey. /sarcasm

    4. Re:Free speech and trigger warnings, take a pick by Livius · · Score: 1

      coddling pathetic little weaklings who simply cannot stomach the idea that there are people who hold different, maybe even offensive, views.

      Some people have views that differ from yours.

      The solution is never either one of the extremes.

    5. Re:Free speech and trigger warnings, take a pick by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      An interesting thing that happens to be topical right now.

      On one side you have people saying that we shouldn't require a referendum to allow equal rights to marry regardless of gender. On the other side you have the fact that you don't want a precedent set whereby they change the constitution without a referendum.

      I'll be voting yes, but I (and so many others) with it weren't necessary. I suppose we wish it were never there in the first place. If the referendum fails, it will be deeply shaming for our nation as a whole.

  9. Well... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Annoying Law by alphatel · · Score: 1

    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.
  11. Carefull Now ! by ei4anb · · Score: 2

    Down with that sort of thing!

  12. Why online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you want to outlaw annoying people, just outlaw it regardless of the medium.

  13. Don't read it literally by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

    Why would you read the law literally in a common-law system? The way the law works is by precedent.

  14. But if we outlawed Windows... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    I would lose half my residential IT fixit business.

  15. And mother-in-laws by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Great. I'll be locked in jail with my entire family.

  16. And once again ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Lawmakers are too fucking stupid to understand technology.

    This clown is no exception.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  17. I love the name... by lazlo · · Score: 1

    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?
  18. Re:But I can still get piss drunk at the pub, righ by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1, Funny

    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!
  19. Annoying People Online by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Annoying People Online by Livius · · Score: 1

      If instead you had said Linux was better than Windows, you'd have annoyed a different group of people, but you'd be in the clear because it's a true statement.

  20. Online Vs Offline by jangid · · Score: 2

    If it is crime to annoy offline than it should be crime to annoy online as well.

  21. annoying Ireland by swell · · Score: 1

    ... like the flea with ambitions to rape the elephant ...

    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...
  22. Re:Have they considered by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    How do i ignore you without having to ignore ALL Anon Cowards? Why should i have to ignore everyone just to block you..

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  23. Entirely unfair by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    This is discrimination, pure, simple, and fresh-squeezed.

  24. Re: Have they considered by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

    Some persons are real jackasses, especially online. They will follow you, sometimes to different forums too, and all they do is insult and denigrate you... Just because they can. And sometimes moderators aren't just enough.

    If this law can teach them how to behave in a civil manner, then I welcome it. Unfortunately some persons learn to behave and leave others alone only if they actually risk something, like a big fine or jail. Sad, I agree, but I even had to stop logging in in many forums to get rid of one of them... and this shouldn't happen.

    Couldn't you say block them??? On Slashdot you can block people, on Google+ you can block people, and Facebook you can block people, and any email service you can block people, what major site can you not block people?

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  25. I'm opposed to this by VAXcat · · Score: 1

    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.
  26. Irish youth jailed! by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

    New flash! Nearly all of Ireland's youth jailed over some damn picture of a dress.

  27. Re: Have they considered by khallow · · Score: 1

    If this law can teach them how to behave in a civil manner

    It can't. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

  28. Re:But I can still get piss drunk at the pub, righ by lgw · · Score: 1

    . 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.
  29. Re:But I can still get piss drunk at the pub, righ by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    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.
  30. Pot - Kettle - Black by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    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.

  31. I'm in favour... by TangoCharlie · · Score: 1

    If it means I don't have to put up with David Cameron. He's a very annoying person on line.

    --
    return 0; }
  32. Re:But I can still get piss drunk at the pub, righ by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Mainly the clergy.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  33. Next up on the docket... by aevan · · Score: 1

    Defendant stands accused of 15 counts of Rick-rolling, 2 counts of goat-se, and advocating HOSTS.

  34. Re:But I can still get piss drunk at the pub, righ by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    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.