Talk:Annoying someone online becomes federal crime

Upon reading the text of the law, I'm not sure if this does apply to the internet or not. The full text as a PDF is located here. The relevant section is: ''SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.''

The text being amended states this after amendment (to see it before amendment, read section (h) here):

"(1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—   (A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter;    (B) does not include an interactive computer service; and    (C) in the case of subparagraph (c) of subsection (a)(1), includes 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note))."."

So it clearly states that it "does not include an interactive computer service" yet goes on to say it "includes 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" so I'm a bit confused. Is it only talking about VoIP-type things or does it contradict itself? Or is it a bit of a loophole? The software and device that transmits the communication signal is not necessarily interactive even though it is connected to something interactive. What do you think?

--Jonathan Patt 05:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to diminish what you said, but I don't think Congress knows what it is passing or that Bush knows what he is signing into law. -68.232.153.54 05:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe not - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised - and if that is the case, all the more reason to get the facts correct. --LoganCale 05:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

We won't know what the law really means until the courts interpret it -- which I suspect will never happen. It is my hope (as a slightly right of center pseudo-conservative) that this law will quickly be struck down by the Supreme Court. I can understand the need for there to be some law, similar to this, but this is worded horribly. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is horribly worded and it seems it could be interpreted to mean just about anything at its present state. --LoganCale 05:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was hard to believe this.. I prepared a little mark-up of how a particular part of this bill changed the particular part of the U.S. Code. See here: http://www.writely.com/View.aspx?docid=bac3b5fdk4tw7

Regarding the Interactive Computer Service issue: my understanding is that it does not limit the effect of the bill. When you use a blog, wiki, or mailing list to anonymously/pseudonymously annoy somebody, you are using an interactive computer service. But at the same time, you are very certainly using a computer, PDA, cell phone, or some other device to transmit an annoying message or to take an annoying action, then it would fall in the prohibited act as defined.

And only now, I realize that this is not intended to "change" the definition. It is intended to be a clarification of what had already been in the Code. It mean the article's title should not say annoying.."becomes"..crime It had been a crime, but now only more clearly a crime as a result of this bill..

But I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. Tomos 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * GOOD stuff, I gotta go to bed. -68.232.153.54 06:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :)
 * Additional comment: I think it is up to the courts how to interpret the word "annoy," and I suppose there might be some precedents.. I checked some legal sources (to the extent that I could comprehend them), and see some issues related to indecency (which, I suppose, some people find annoying). It seems indecency except for obscenity is a protected speech even under this clause.
 * From the context of this law, I would guess stalking someone is more likely to be a crime than other actions. Trolling of some sort as I perceive is quite close to this. Many other types of speech would seem to my eyes fall technically in the prohibited act.. which I think is strange. Perhaps we will see some lawsuit to strike this down? I cannot wait reading lawyers blogging about this.. Tomos 07:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

title
What are fealings on trying a slightly less acurate, but funnier, title, like "U.S. congress bans online trolling". Nyarlathotep 11:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, can you add "US" to the title - the crime doesn't apply to any other federation (e.g. Germany, Australia...)! AndrewRT 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)