Warning: Its illegal to Annoy

[Guest]

It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"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."


Link

[Cyber Warden]

In past centuries we had debtors' prisons. In 2006 we have prison cells devoted to annoying message board guests.

Hey! Thanks to technology we've really come a long way!!!

[wading thru the muck!]

There may be an element of truth to this article, but the author seems to be sprinkling in a lot of "Bush Bashing" so I for one, am sceptical of whether or not it represents the whole truth.

[Perry]

Actually, it is not illegal to annoy. Just to annoy anonymously...

There was a big discussion on this on another forum several weeks ago that I stumbled on (not sure which forum). If I recall correctly this new language was inserted into the section of laws regarding sexual and other harassment and treats. Apparently, it was felt that this was needed to help prevent - and to punish - a lot of email and cellphone/pager textmail harassment.

Keep in mind though - that the wording is very clear - that you cannot be charged under this section if you disclose your actual identity.


Perry

[Severeena]

Here are the KEY WORDS

ACTUAL IDENTITY

So if Guest wants to use this, he/she must come clean and not hide. got caught with his/her own words.

[rested gal]

From the linked article:

"the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets."

[neversleeps]

Anonymous communications have an important place in our social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling reads, in part:

"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."

Johnny said he'd take care of the mean guests. As for the rest of it, Mike Moran put it so eloquently:

Trolls and flamers are the nature of any board and the only thing that gives them satisfaction is how much attention is paid to them. ignorance is truly bliss in these kinds of circumstances.

When I worked as a chat room host on AOL we were taught to smile from the wrist down. If someone was disruptive then you verbally smiled at them and moved on and eventually they just found it to be no fun.

If someone has a different opinion or even initates an attack it really doesn't matter if they have a name or are anonymous. The best thing for us all to do is make the assumption guests are just that. Welcome them to the board and greet them nicely. They are welcome to their opinions just as you are welcome to yours.

CPAP.com has given us a great opportunity and we all (including guest) have made this board what it is, a help and a community.

Relinquishing the soapbox to the next orator.

PS i did think about signing in as guest just to see if you could figure out who wrote this. But as we all know I am to egotistical to do that LOL

[Perry]

I believe you are all over-reacting.

The provision was in the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act" for fiscal year 2006 and is labeled "Preventing Cyberstalking."

This is not aimed at free speech, anonymous posting, etc. It's aimed at stalking. While the supreme court has indeed ruled that anonymous speech is a necessisty - I belive you will also find that they have ruled that threats are not acceptable (there are limits to "free speech"). Most states have laws restricting a person from stalking another. In this case the federal government is stating that you cannot use the internet to do so (at least without identifying who you are).

It is not uncommon in Federal, state, and local laws for their to be language that if excised from its parent section sounds really bad. However, if considered as part of the general section is very understandable.

Methinks that some people who do not know how laws work are trying to have a field day over something that is nothing.

Here is a tidbit I found on the subject that should put you at ease:

Law professor and author Daniel Solove writes that "The law clearly is not a prohibition on anonymously annoying another person. It is far more restrictive than that. One must have a particular culpable state of mind in order to be guilty of violating the law," he wrote.

Perry

Perry

[wading thru the muck!]

Methinks that some people who do not know how laws work are trying to have a field day over something that is nothing.

Here is a tidbit I found on the subject that should put you at ease:

Law professor and author Daniel Solove writes that "The law clearly is not a prohibition on anonymously annoying another person. It is far more restrictive than that. One must have a particular culpable state of mind in order to be guilty of violating the law," he wrote.

As I suspected... there is more to it, than deployed in the original article. The WHOLE truth would have not offered the author as much ammunition in his attempt to "bash."

[MissAmethyst2U]

This is sad very sad This is a MESSAGE BOARD on the INTERNET for goodness sakes! If you don't like something someone says or they bother you IGNORE THEM! I thought we were all grown adults here. Why do I feel like I am back in school?

I can see if someone is truly harrassing/threatening someone but goodness! The world has gone too far! This is petty stuff come on, grow up!

And dont you all think 'Guest' posted as a guest just to stir you all up?!? Hello? DUH!

[rested gal]

If you don't like something someone says or they bother you IGNORE THEM! I thought we were all grown adults here. Why do I feel like I am back in school?

Regarding this kind of message board, you summed up my thoughts, MissAmethyst2U. Well said!

[Guest]

The comfort any "Guest" can gain from this forum is its most important aspect. For some of those Guests, the ability to get an answer to their question can make or break their therapy. And we all know how difficult, and health saving - some even say life saving - this therapy can be. Registration entails giving your email address to the forum admin - and that maybe too much for some people.

Despite the good humor and friendliness, this forum is not supposed to be a social club. The humor, banter, mutual complimenting, etc. are a by product, but not the reason for it's existence. It is not a place where those who consider themselves "good guys and gals" should try to push out those they consider "bad". I was shocked to read a statement like the following "<snip> and NOBODY who is the type of member who truly belongs here should mind.<snip>" That statement makes it sound like someone has the right to judge who is the "type of member" who does and who does not "truly" belong here.

Factual information should be pointed out. Mistaken statements should be corrected, and this can, and should be done politely, and generally is. NOBODY should be told they don't belong here, or don't "truly" belong here. And NOBODY should be made to feel they represent a "type" of human being.

Unfortunately in the area of free speech often in order to allow the good, we have to accept the bad, ignore the bad and go on.

Yes.
And ignore means ignore.

Ignore, according to my copy of the American college dictionary means: "to refrain from noticing or recognizing".

Being recognized is a very basic human need, and I have no doubt that all of us more constant posters express our need for recognition in that way. But let's try to limit it to being recognized for our tips, our sense of humor, our ability to give each other practical help, to find information that others can use. Posting here should not become a "personality beauty contest" nor are we in a "who is the best interpreter of motives" competition.

Dorothy Rowe, a very wise woman, once wrote: "Power is the right to have your interpretations prevail over other people's interpretations". We have recently been witnessing a power struggle between two people very intent on having their interpretations prevail.

Each of the two has a lot to contribute to this forum, and I am begging them: please ignore each other. Let go.

Some support is better given in private. As are some expressions of thanks. As are some expressions of criticism.

Insisting in public that someone else is this or that kind of person is giving that person the recognition they crave.

Ignore. Don't talk about. Don't describe. Don't make in issue of. Don't mention. Don't even say you are ignoring.

Just ignore and let us all go on to other things.


O.

[inacpapfog]

As someone else put it...."Can't we all just get along?"

[LDuyer]

As someone else put it...."Can't we all just get along?"

What's the fun in that??

I think we all thrive on dysfunction!
Haha!


Linda

[Sleepless on LI]

As someone else put it...."Can't we all just get along?"

As long as people keep reviving this same subject and don't let it pass on to the beaten to death, overkilled and officially dead thread cemetery, I guess not. It's kind of like the cpappro thread...always rears its head again every so often, only this one seems to spark a few flames each time it appears. Hopefully those flames will eventually burn the thread officially and permanently out.