Comments on: Blogging and the Law

By: _Jon

_Jon — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:40:55 +0000

The draft version of the bill quoted by Declan McCullagh is very old. He appears to be very wrong. Michele writes a good summary.

By: Ed Darrell

Ed Darrell — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:22:22 +0000

One thing is pretty clear: No one in Congress is in charge of what’s going on. Leadership, under the Republicans, is almost completely absent.

Wouldn’t you love to have heard hearings on such a provision?

By: jet

jet — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:49:59 +0000

Since only a small percentage of users on the internet are truly anonymous, does this really apply to anyone? CT’s webserver logs could identify quite a few people here, and the router logs of your ISP could identify most of the rest.

I’m thinking this only applies to spam and people behind proxies in uncooperative countries.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:33:09 +0000

Go for it, Meyers! But you have to post your true name.

we’re entering the golden age of nymous internet annoyance.

By: Real John Emerson

Real John Emerson — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:08:02 +0000

How do I know you’re ‘nymous’?

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:33:24 +0000

Adam, you find the Troll of Sorrow annoying? ANd not delightful? What a surprise!

Abb1, as a nymous blogger I can annoy people freely and with complete impunity.

By: Pharyngula

Pharyngula — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:14:46 +0000

Half full

Since I always post under my name and a valid email address, does this new law against anonymous internet communication mean I have carte blanche to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person"? That would be awesome.

By: Ann Bartow

Ann Bartow — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:14:26 +0000

Here is the text of Section 113 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act:

SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended—(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and’ at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
(C) in the case of subparagraph© 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)).’.

(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device’ in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section. [emphasis added].

Legislative history also will support the position that the amendment was pitched at “telecommunicatiosn devices” like VOIP. See e.g. this: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/135271.html

By: Adam Kotsko

Adam Kotsko — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:03:23 +0000

Would near-constant groundless personal attacks, including accusations of pedophilia, under multiple names, thwarting every attempt to block by using a proxy to spoof a different IP every ten minutes—would that count as unambiguously annoying behavior? (I’d like to think that behavior like that was already illegal before this particular law was passed. I’m pretty sure it’s directed solely at Atrios.)

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:26:05 +0000

For people who don’t realize how many pounds of salt (not grains, but industrial-strength truckloads) should be taken with anything written by Declan McCullagh, note he’s also the person who fabricated the Al Gore “invented the Internet” story.

His stock-in-trade as a pseudo-journalist is in part scaring people and crying wolf in ways which stoke net fear and paranoia. As Orin Kerr put it in the above:

“This is just the perfect blogosphere story, isn’t it? It combines threats to bloggers with government incompetence and Big Brother, all wrapped up and tied togther with a little bow. Unsurprisingly, a lot of bloggers are taking the bait.

Skeptical readers will be shocked, shocked to know that the truth is quite different. …”

By: jonst

jonst — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:13:51 +0000

Maybe some one with time on his or her hands will do a research project to ascertain if Kerr has reacted negatively to ANY expansion of govt power. I believe a cursory examination will demonstrate he has not come down against any expansion of govt power. His position, at all times, on all points, seems to be ‘you are overreacting. All this means in reality is…” Fill in with soothing sentiments. And yet somehow govt power to monitor citizens actives, and to detain citizens, and interrogate them, in aggressive and unique ways, expands. The totality of the machine is evil. But each individual piece in seems innocuous.

But as I noted above…this is simply a cursory conclusion on my part. Wish I had the time for the in-depth study. Rap on, Prof Kerr, Rap on, as the frog swims in the slowly boiling pot of water.

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:17:41 +0000

“So fuck you all!” clearly is indecent with with intent to annoy.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:53:00 +0000

This came up in Australia (different laws, but many of the same issues) and was resolved in favour of anonymous political comment. We don't have a First Amendment, though some recent High Court decisions have read an implied freedom of political speech into the Constitution.

By: saurabh

saurabh — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:50:55 +0000

This is dumb. The actual bill text should be quoted in full. It’s quite clear that the subject is not merely “to annoy”, but to annoy in the context of harassment. Specifically, section 223 a (1) subparagraph A (ii) reads:
“initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;”
In the loving arms of legal precedent, I’d say this leaves you quite safe from being persecuted merely for blogging. Tempest in a teacup.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:34:36 +0000

It annoys me to be criticized or disagreed with. In light of the present notice, any disagreement or criticism from an anonymous blogger can be assumed to be a dliberate, actionable attempt to annoy me.

I am nymous, however, so I can annoy anyone I want to!

So fuck you all!