Jackson Free Press

Wow. Declan McCullough of CNET reports:

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

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."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

Previous Comments

ID

104250

Comment

This must be scaring the daylights out of some local trolls and their trollmasters! As someone who is routinely "cyberstalked" with lies posted to sully my reputation, I must say that I have mixed feelings about this. I totally support the idea of anonymous speech; however, I have seen first hand how harmful it can be when people simply post and tell lies anonymously, without anyone moderating them because they think it's "free speech." So if a law like this could be enforced in a way that actually sends people who cowardly lie about other people to jail or fine them heavily in order to hurt them, their reputation and livelihood -- which is sounds like it intends to do -- I might have to go along with that. Then again, I know that I am biased, being that I am cyberstalked constantly. What do others think?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-10T14:10:39-06:00

ID

104251

Comment

Here's the actual language of the law; sounds pretty vague: "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."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-10T14:12:03-06:00

ID

104252

Comment

...ya know... Barbour's State of the State address really annoyed me. And since it's on his website... Citizens arrest! Citizens arrest!

Author

Rex

Date

2006-01-10T14:12:40-06:00

ID

104253

Comment

I'm assuming the standard for proving annoyance must be at least a three-part test. Of course, this could simply be to stop people from criticizing Mr. Bush online. But it sure opens up a lot of potential issues. Wonder if it'll stand constitutionally?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-10T14:14:31-06:00

ID

104254

Comment

I do certainly think there is a lot of gray area between free speech and harassment and defamation. The law already distinguishes between stating opinion about someone, and stating opinion using false facts. And it has long bothered me that, as much as I like having such an immediate medium as the Internet, that the standards for being "responsible" for what you publish is thought to be lessened. (This is where I get more conservative on you.) It doesn't actually make sense to me that there can legally be open forums for people to anonymously say anything they want about other people without anybody being held responsible for that. We certainly don't have a First Amendment right to tell lies to hurt other people. So I've long expected that this would play out in a much more regulated way. Or, to put it another way, a few rotten apples ruin the frontier for the rest of us. But I suspect that's just going to happen. Checks are balances are necessary to balance our right to free speech with others rights not to be feel threatened or defamed by what we say. There's a certain logic to that for me.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-10T14:23:25-06:00

ID

104255

Comment

ladd-- standard for proving annoyance must be at least a three-part test... you mean 1) use of internet 2) anonymous 3) intent to harass, annoy, threaten, etc. Ok, so State of the State address only met one maybe two: 1)use of internet 2) intent to harrass, annoy, threaten students, grocery buyers, and Senate cig-tax supporters. But since “Big Fat Elephant Man” didn’t post it, it's not a crime?

Author

Rex

Date

2006-01-10T14:23:47-06:00

ID

104256

Comment

but I guess my last comment would be...

Author

Rex

Date

2006-01-10T14:25:01-06:00

ID

104257

Comment

Rex, I'm calling the cops. You're harassing me. ;-D I see the question you're raising. If it's defamation, it's defamation. But I suspect they're trying to deter anonymous posting that is hard to prosecute or sue for. Not saying it's a perfect plan, though. Personally I wish people were big enough not to pretend to be other people to hurt others. But that's not a perfect plan, either.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-10T14:25:53-06:00

ID

104258

Comment

Also, who must know the identity to make it not-anonymous?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-10T14:26:21-06:00

ID

104259

Comment

Rex, I'm calling the cops. Better be the Effa Bee Eye. It's federal jurisdiction ya know. (not like they don't have anything better to investigate...)

Author

Rex

Date

2006-01-10T14:28:04-06:00

ID

104260

Comment

Well hey! I[/] know who I am! I'm not anonymous!

Author

Rex

Date

2006-01-10T14:29:17-06:00

ID

104261

Comment

There's a lot of speculation regarding this.... I posted a link to an ongoing debate between a few people claiming to be lawyers on my blog this morning. Click here to find the link. <<

Author

kaust

Date

2006-01-10T15:18:09-06:00

ID

104262

Comment

Hey, I should have given props to your blog, Knol. You're the one who sent it to me! Agreed about vagueness.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-10T16:47:48-06:00

ID

104263

Comment

It's just a poorly-written law. I don't think it'll be used to lock up people who criticize Bush--there's an implicit "First Amendment exemption" in laws like this, protecting most forms of political and religious speech--but I do think the Supreme Court will end up throwing it out. I can't believe Arlen Specter was the guy who put this in the bill, BTW--Arlen Specter, who in '96 promoted himself as the libertarian Republican candidate. And now he's backing Alito. I'm beginning to think he's lost his damn mind. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-10T19:35:51-06:00

ID

104264

Comment

Donna, I did think of our local trolling "friends" when I read this, though. :P I also thought of a buddy of mine, who was lambasted by 35,000 (yes, 35,000) defamatory public posts in multiple forums from an anonymous person who was never identified, over a period of about 18 months. I don't see why all of these laws have to start off with two years in prison. The CDA was like that, too. Whatever happened to fines? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-10T19:38:18-06:00

ID

104265

Comment

Forgive me for my doofishness, but...what's so vague about the law (totally ignoring the moral, ethical, and constitutional issues) "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..." Seems to me that "Whoever" = no person is exempt from this law. That sounds pretty clear-cut to me "Any": That seems to say that if even one kind of device (hardware) or software (self-explanatory) that can be used to communicate over the Internet, whether in whole or in part. That sounds pretty cut-and-dry to me as well. In fact, communication is the very essence of the Internet (all our posts are being sent to the JFP server, and likewise we retrieve all these posts from the JFP server). "used to originate telecommunications" - My computer is certainly used to originate telecommunications. I'd think the law would cover this computer and any (notice that word again) similar devices. I see no vagueness here. "without disclosing his identity" - Either you disclosed your real name on the Internet for the public to see or you haven't. (I take the law to mean "discloing his/her identity in such a way that no person of sound mental faculties that are fully functional can be mistaken about the identity of the person). I can't see what's non-specific about this. "...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." The "and" part seems to imply that ALL conditions must apply before the act can be termed illegal. This means you can chat under a username you make up IF you have no intent to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications". Again, I see no vagueness here. I could be wrong, but "annoy", "abuse", "threaten", and "harass" seem to have pretty specific legal definitions. Unless the legal definitions of these words are likewise vague, I see no vagueness in the law. "shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." This would seem pretty specific to all. No need to discuss this one. Is there anything about the art of interpreting statues that I'm missing? If so, how can I learn to see these things more specifically?

Author

Philip

Date

2006-01-10T21:17:31-06:00

ID

104266

Comment

It does easily sound like our friend who posted all those nastygrams (and threatening ones) to the Edgar Ray Killen petition would be in clear violation of this law. And, more recently, all the lovely posters who spammed our Best of Ballot with hate-grams as late as lat week (and we have all their IP addresses). Hmmm, wonder if the law is retroactive?!? ;-) You can tell I'm not completely hating this law, although I may be persuaded otherwise. Is it in effect yet?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-11T00:08:25-06:00

ID

104267

Comment

Interesting story in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune about the emerging legal area of blogging and defamation. This is a predictable fight, and it sure to rage on, about whether or not blogging is held to the same standards as publications. I suspect it's particularly important for anyone who calls themselves "media" to consider where these lines and standards are drawn. Of course, as a media outlet, we have chosen the conservative approach of not allowing ugly anonymous trolling -- which is about the only way I personally would run a site anyway. The case in this articles seems particularly interesting due to the political nature of the blog in question: A feisty anonymous Minnesota political blogger has unmasked himself in the face of a lawsuit that claims his blog defamed a local public relations firm. The case against Michael Brodkorb and his website, www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com, could break new legal ground in the Wild West frontier of blogging. Lawyers who filed the suit say that Web logs and other new media should be held to the same standards of accountability as traditional media and journalism. Brodbkorb, a former operative for the Minnesota Republican Party, pledges to protect his source and to keep his website going. The suit alleges that Brodkorb, citing an unnamed source, defamed the St. Paul-based public relations firm New School Communications when he posted a claim that New School had become publicly critical of the congressional campaign of Coleen Rowley only after Rowley rejected a contract with the firm. Despite being told that New School does not perform political campaign work, Brodkorb, the suit says, continues to make the claim, even though his source "may, in fact, be a fabrication." Joe Elcock, Rowley's campaign manager, said that Hubert (Buck) Humphrey, now a senior counselor at New School Communications, did submit a proposal for fundraising to the campaign in June of 2005 but that it was rejected. [...] The suit, filed in Dakota County District Court, seeks damages against Brodkorb and also asks that he be ordered to remove all the alleged defamatory statements from his website and be stopped from making any further defamatory statements about New School or Olson. The suit has the potential for breaking new ground on legal issues associated with blogging. While some states' courts have ruled on issues such as anonymous blogging, the territory remains largely uncharted, particularly in the federal courts. While Brodkorb voluntarily revealed himself, some legal experts suggest that federal law would have made it very difficult to unmask him.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-11T11:48:31-06:00

ID

104268

Comment

MORE Additionally, in a Delaware case last year, the state's Supreme Court ruled that people aggrieved by a blog had the opportunity for redress simply by posting on the offending blog. Political debate, such as that engaged in by Minnesota Democrats Exposed, also is usually afforded the highest form of First Amendment protection by courts, said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. One result from the Delaware case could be that bloggers may benefit from their own gunslinger reputations, Kirtley said. "A lot of stuff that appears on blogs, whether it's meant to be or not, is usually not taken by readers as being statements of fact," she said. "Bloggers, by their very nature, are not expected to adhere to the same standards of accuracy that those in the mainstream media would be." Of course, several questions come up here. One, how will the new federal law about anonymous harassment affect this emerging case law? And, are the defamation standards different for "media" blogs than for individual bloggers? 'Twill be intriguing to watch all this unfold.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-11T11:48:52-06:00

ID

104269

Comment

Interesting quote about the "troll bill" over on the Facing South blog: "There is this thing called NetFlow that reports to a log every IP traffic flow. You just play connect the dots. All core routers everywhere in the world run it. So if your half-ass ISP doesn't, then the ISPs ISP does. You can't hide. That being said, you can't stop the best crackers out there, you can only live with them. There are less than 1000 people in the world who have the skills to defeat all forms of detection. 900 of them work for the NSA watching you."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-11T11:52:42-06:00

ID

104270

Comment

I find all this fascinating. It would never have dawned on me that bloggers, or indeed individuals, are given special lenient standards vis-a-vis defamation. This is one of the reasons why my own posts are so carefully worded: A good friend of mine got eight nuisance suits, several of them based on information that he had posted online, and in fact I'm sure I can name at least a half dozen friends who have gotten nuisance suits for defamation at one time or another for Internet-related speech. I don't know of any that actually went to court (as is generally true of nuisance suits--the objective is to make the victim/defendant hush up), but they certainly did get filed. I suspect that if more lenient standards are observed for blogs, they will only be observed for personal blogs. I also think that administrators of online forums in general will be far less liable for what is posted by members, especially in forums that are not pre-moderated, than they are for their own speech. In many cases, on listservs for example, I imagine that administrators/moderators may not be liable at all. But I think that, if only for the sake of ethics, your policy makes a whale of a lot of sense. (And that's a difference between you and certain other local political forum administrators, I think: You care about ethics, not just current actionability.) Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-11T14:25:34-06:00

ID

104271

Comment

Arlen Spector helped this pass through? why am I not suprised? the Bill of Rights amendments I and IV have been usurped by this "law", which is just another sly attack on the Constitution. not good. I used to get "cyberstalked" all the time until I realized that all I had to do was change my email address. and now, no more stalkers...and they hate it too.

Author

JSU

Date

2006-01-12T11:40:25-06:00

ID

104272

Comment

I'm very surprised Specter did it. He used to be pro-choice, pro-gay, very openly libertarian. Ran in '96 on that ticket and got completely shunned by the Christian Coalition for it, resulting in a mere 6% of the vote. (Take notes, Mayor Giuliani.) Now with Alito he's either gone wingnut or knows something I don't. And "he must know something I don't" is already such a big political strategy at the city, state, and federal level that I don't really feel like extending it to my boy Specter, too. I don't think it's a strategic attack on the Constitution. The CDA was, but I think this was a legitimate attempt at passing an anti-cyberstalking bill. It's content-neutral; in fact, as Donna and I have noted, certain local conservatives could have gotten in trouble over it a long time ago. Cyberstalking is a very real, serious problem for people--especially women--who use their real names online. One of my favorite feminist blogs right now is run by a woman who is getting flooded by anonymous students at her university who call her "fat"/"ugly" and/or say they want to "hate f--k" her, whatever that means. (The fact that she looks like a fashion model makes this cross the line between cruel and inexplicable.) Another of my friends was the victim of a very long, very ugly cyberstalking campaign. And as a freelance writer on controversial topics, I can look forward to a lifetime of anonymous, vaguely threatening emails. So I have nothing, in principle, against cyberstalking laws, but I think this is a bad one and I think it'll get struck down pretty quickly for that reason. Remember the bill this got stuck in with: the Violence Against Women Act. Yeah, irrelevant legislation gets folded in all the time, but Specter wouldn't have to be a total idiot to support this as a women's safety issue. He'd just have to be stunningly dense about the First Amendment implications. I'd settle for better enforcement of existing federal laws concerning physical threats delivered over the Internet, especially those delivered anonymously. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-12T12:28:39-06:00

ID

104273

Comment

Ran [for president] in '96, I mean to say. He's actually a pretty popular guy in Pennsylvania, and wins Republican primaries consistently despite it being the state of Rick Santorum. Actually, wanna know God's honest truth, I think it's the state of Arlen Specter, not the state of Rick Santorum, and I think ol' Rick will be heading to the private sector after he gets whupped in November's election. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-12T12:29:53-06:00

ID

104274

Comment

There was supposed to be a bracketed {for president} between "Ran" and "in '96" in the second email, but I keep forgetting the software strips bracketed statements as UBBCode. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-12T12:30:45-06:00

ID

104275

Comment

Here is a story on a lawsuit brought against a person who (supposedly) bullied another in a chat-room. Man sues chatroom pals: I was humiliated beyond what 'no man could endure' Notice AOL mentions that they are immune to the suit because of the "Communications Decency Act" Like the eminent domain ruling this is one that will need to be watched.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-01-12T12:49:07-06:00

ID

104276

Comment

Cyberstalking is a very real, serious problem for people--especially women--who use their real names online. This is all the more reason to be "anonymous" in such chatrooms and blogs and the like. why bring undue emotional harm to yourself because you insist on using your real name? the idea that individuals can sign on as "nobody" is the best protection you can get, especially if you have a deranged boyfriend that won't leave you alone and he knows your email address. I feel that this "law" is a step in the wrong direction towards protecting people. I feel like I have enough in me to make this type of decision by myself. Allowing the government to hold my hand is not appealing at all.

Author

JSU

Date

2006-01-12T12:53:33-06:00

ID

104277

Comment

This is a crap law designed to protect the vey government that made it. The very government that suffers grief from anonymous bloggers. Blogging changed the face of politics and the way they are discussed. I've been cyberstalked. I took care of it. Of course, I'm sure someone has said this But, that's just my two cents. (I'm sorry if someone else said that already, but I haven't had time to read ALL the replies) ;) I don't like it. 'Course I am an anonymous blogger at times.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-01-12T13:52:32-06:00

ID

104278

Comment

Sorry that post was so disjointed. I wrote part of it, went to add something in the middle, and forgot abou those trailing last two sentences. I blame it on this crap laptop I'm on. :)

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-01-12T13:56:37-06:00

ID

104279

Comment

JSU writes: This is all the more reason to be "anonymous" in such chatrooms and blogs and the like. why bring undue emotional harm to yourself because you insist on using your real name? That's very much like saying that we shouldn't pass laws against carjacking when the vehicle costs more than $70,000, because people should expect to be carjacked when they make conspicuous displays of wealth. Truth is that there are many good reasons to use your real name online, including: (1) Building a reputation, if you have any long-term creative goals in mind. (2) Building real relationships, rather than having inscrutable conversations with inscrutable people. (3) Because you frigging want to. People have a basic human right to use their names online without being punished for it. Period. I've used my real name online since I was 12. None of that's changing. Besides, do you really want to live in a society where threats of violence, obscene harassment, etc. are considered par for the course for anyone using their real names online? Do you have any idea what kind of online culture that would create, the concession that would imply? Not to mention the fact that if you identify yourself as female, you will get threatening crap whether you use your real name or not. And that seriously needs to change, now, with better enforcement of existing laws--and, if necessary, with new laws. I agree that the law that just got signed is poorly written, unconstitutional, even draconian. But the problem it was most likely written to address is a very real one, and needs to be dealt with. Total anonymity on the Internet needs to become a thing of the past. There should be no post of any kind that can't be traced to a real, prosecutable human being by court order. And anyone who posts to somebody saying things that they'd get arrested for saying over the phone should be prosecuted. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-12T15:01:09-06:00

ID

104280

Comment

1) Building a reputation, if you have any long-term creative goals in mind. (2) Building real relationships, rather than having inscrutable conversations with inscrutable people. (3) Because you frigging want to. People have a basic human right to use their names online without being punished for it. Period. These reasons could very well be the reasons a person ends up getting cyberstalked in the first place. Secondly, I would rather build real relationships in person. sharing information, building reputations are not an interestof mine as far as the net is concerned.. read blogs for information and information only, but that's just me. You might be interested in making close friends over the net but not me. too many horror stories about people not being who they claim to be online and end up hurting somebody worse than an annnoying email spam fest. People have that right yes, but you also have the right to attach your mailing address or social security number to your emails so your "new" online friends can dabble even further into knowing you. I'm against it, sorry,. I feel like it's infrigning on my privacy.

Author

JSU

Date

2006-01-12T15:38:30-06:00

ID

104281

Comment

JSU writes: These reasons could very well be the reasons a person ends up getting cyberstalked in the first place. No, the reason people end up getting cyberstalked is because those cyberstalking them choose to practice that behavior--and the offenders should be duly punished for it in a court of law. Secondly, I would rather build real relationships in person. sharing information, building reputations are not an interestof mine as far as the net is concerned.. read blogs for information and information only, but that's just me. There was a recent study on statistical variations in how men and women tend to use the Internet that might be relevant. Bottom line is that I use it for information and relationships, just like I use the telephone and other participatory media. Your mileage may vary. Obviously people shouldn't be forced to use their real names in every context, but those of us who do so don't deserve to be stalked for it. You might be interested in making close friends over the net but not me. too many horror stories about people not being who they claim to be online and end up hurting somebody worse than an annnoying email spam fest. Possible with any medium. I'd never build a romantic relationship strictly over the net, but many of my most valued friendships over the years at least started off online. People have that right yes, but you also have the right to attach your mailing address or social security number to your emails so your "new" online friends can dabble even further into knowing you. Apples and moon rocks. My publisher puts my name on the cover of every book I write, but I'd be mighty offended if they put my address and social security number. I'm against it, sorry,. I feel like it's infrigning on my privacy. Nobody's asking you to do it. But don't go around saying that the laws shouldn't protect people who do, because I know better than that and I suspect you do, too. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-12T16:12:20-06:00

ID

104282

Comment

Besides, do you really want to live in a society where threats of violence, obscene harassment, etc. are considered par for the course for anyone using their real names online? Do you have any idea what kind of online culture that would create, the concession that would imply? Using your real name for personal things such as paying your bills online or making an order is ok...using your real name in chat rooms, blogs, etc...is just too risky. Just because you may have a good heart, there are other malicious people out there that only want to do harm..that's it. Not to mention the fact that if you identify yourself as female, you will get threatening crap whether you use your real name or not. And that seriously needs to change, now, with better enforcement of existing laws--and, if necessary, with new laws. Identifying one's self as female online won't neccessarily bring on such stalking. but attaching a real name with it makes it that much more personal so you have to be willing to accept the consequences, especially in chatrooms and blogs. . not to mention people using other peoples real names to hurt their reputations. I agree that the law that just got signed is poorly written, unconstitutional, even draconian. agreed But the problem it was most likely written to address is a very real one, and needs to be dealt with. Total anonymity on the Internet needs to become a thing of the past. why? that's the beauty of it. There should be no post of any kind that can't be traced to a real, prosecutable human being by court order. And anyone who posts to somebody saying things that they'd get arrested for saying over the phone should be prosecuted. From the Bill of Rights: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ^this is the freedom chatrooms and blogs deserve. It's a right not a priviledge. Government can't make laws to overthrow these laws of the land. You are in effect censoring people's speech if you support this. A person shouldn't have to be prosecuted for razzing on another in cyberspace. it's a completely harmless environment, unless you are willing to divulge your real name, address, etc...in environments that are subject to do you harm.. Would you rather these crazed individuals act out their disgust in person on that person they are taunting?

Author

JSU

Date

2006-01-12T16:15:28-06:00

ID

104283

Comment

Nobody's asking you to do it. But don't go around saying that the laws shouldn't protect people who do, because I know better than that and I suspect you do, too. On the same token, don't expect everyone to offer you the best of them in cyberspace. If the law stated that for those who want this, just sign up and get plugged into some mainframe that tracks only your own personal emails to nab the cyberstalkers, then fine. do that. I'll support that. This law is vague at best.

Author

JSU

Date

2006-01-12T16:32:27-06:00

ID

104284

Comment

Guys I'm really appreciating this discussion. Mainly because I've long been a proponent of the Internet being "free". Being FREE of everything...names, laws, rules. I actually kind of liked it. But, I've never really been harrassed by someone spamming my blogs or sites with "not nice" comments. I'm mean, I've had some asses that I had to take care of. (Only ONE truly scary situation). SO maybe my opinion would change if that happened. I've used my name on the internet, and I do that with the understanding that certain risks come WITH that. Anyway, just wanted to say that reading you guys talking about it is leading me to really think about it. So, thanks.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-01-12T16:43:41-06:00

ID

104285

Comment

Ali, I aim to please. :D JSU writes: Using your real name for personal things such as paying your bills online or making an order is ok...using your real name in chat rooms, blogs, etc...is just too risky. But risk is about perception. If the Internet is legislated like the Wild West, and the perception is that it's like the Wild West, then don't be surprised if there are a few banditos wandering around taking advantage of the anarchy. But I don't really know that a radical new law is necessary; federalization of old laws already on the books might be enough. I sent this to a friend the other day. It's from the Mississippi Code: SEC. 97-3-107. Stalking. (1) Any person who willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, or who makes a credible threat, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury is guilty of the crime of stalking, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment. (2) Any person who violates subsection (1) of this section when there is a valid temporary restraining order, ex parte protective order, protective order after hearing, court approved consent agreement, or an injunction issued by a municipal, justice, county, circuit or chancery court, federal or tribal court or by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subsection (1) of this section against the same party, shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one (1) year and by a fine of not more than One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00). (3) A second or subsequent conviction occurring within seven (7) years of a prior conviction under subsection (1) of this section against the same victim, and involving an act of violence or "a credible threat" of violence as defined in subsection (5) of this section, shall be punishable by imprisonment for not more than three (3) years and by a fine of not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). (4) For the purposes of this section, "harasses" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person. "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." (5) For the purposes of this section, "a credible threat" means a threat made with the intent and the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. SOURCES: Laws, 1992, ch. 532, Sec. 1; 1996, ch. 326, Sec. 1, eff from and after passage (approved March 17, 1996) Amended by Laws 2000, Ch. 553, Sec. 1, HB565, eff. July 1, 2000. I would amend the law to specify rape and sexual assault along with death and great bodily injury--come to think of it, I can think of several changes I'd make to the way the law is worded--but I can see this forming the basis of some kind of federal cyberstalking legislation, and I'd support that. The irony is that "annoying" somebody under the new federal law gets you two years, while following someone around and threatening that person's life under this law only gets you one. WTF?! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-12T18:25:53-06:00

ID

104286

Comment

On the whole "real name" question; I guess, as a journalist, this seems like a non-issue to me. Just don't ever write (or post or blog about) anything or anybody that you wouldn't sign be proud to have associated with your real name. I'm not going to live in a world where I can't state my opinion with my real name attached. That's ludicrous. Of course, there are people who lie and defame with their real name attached, but they're just stupid. But at least they don't hide their stupidity behind a fake name.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-12T18:34:12-06:00

ID

104287

Comment

Also, I should add that I do not believe the Internet can or should be completely "free" — in the sense that it can be used to hurt and harass and stalk other people. This is a use for regulation; it's just a matter of what kind of regulation makes the most sense and is the least prohibitive of free speech. It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to allow idiots to go around adopting different fake names and harass anybody they want online who are trying to express their First Amendment rights. It's kind of like blogs that allow nasty postings between people. It runs off *everybody* trying to have an intelligent conversation. That's truly not the purpose of the First Amendment — to protect those trying to inhibit speech and hurt others. But it is remarkable how dense people are today about the difference between expressing opinions and harassing/defaming others. Our dialogue has gotten so poor in this country that people are just naive about the differences -- they think that hurling insults is what "free speech" is about. I think Ben Allen's got it right on his new blog; we should *enjoy* people with different ideas, not hate them or try to harass them out of existence. That's absurd. He and I have great lunches, for instance, during which we tease each other, disagree on some points and have wonderful discussions about the city. We don't hate each other, or anger each other, because we don't agree on everything. We're not supposed to. But I see it right here on this site. People (mostly from right, but also from left) come on nastily attacking people, thinking that is somehow going to discredit their target. They won't stop when warned, then get all sniffly and offended when their disgusting a$$es get booted. They take no responsibility for their actions. They act like children. They make utter fools out of themselves. Then they go to some nasty Web site and start whining about their poor witta rights being violated. Whack, whack. It's absurd. Either way, it's those fools who will cause the regulation. And there's not a whole lot we can do about it, but try to keep the regulation from being too prohibitive.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-12T18:41:59-06:00

ID

104288

Comment

Donna writes: I'm not going to live in a world where I can't state my opinion with my real name attached. That's ludicrous. And that's the gist of it. JSU, you cite free speech and freedom of the press. How is this served by a system that allows people to be subject to anonymous threats, anonymous libel, and anonymous invasion of privacy if they say anything worthy of drawing criticism? We have long ago accepted that freedom of speech is not absolute. We can't say "fire" in a crowded movie theater, we can't post other people's credit card numbers, and we shouldn't be able to go around posting "enemies' lists" of people with their physical addresses (though one anti-abortion web site did just that, with impunity). We need better laws, or we at least need to federalize existing stalking laws as applicable to the Internet and make them enforceable. I really like what I believe to be the intent behind this law. I just don't like the law itself. As the ACLU spokesperson said, "annoy" is, when used by itself, an awfully vague standard. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-12T18:42:16-06:00

ID

104289

Comment

I'm not going to live in a world where I can't state my opinion with my real name attached. That's ludicrous. ^This comment is not stalker specific so I'll respond to it from both angles.... #1 People write in and call in to talk shows, radio broadcasts, weblogs, chatrooms, etc.. all the time to state their opinions on any given subject and prefer not to draw attention to themselves if their comments are unsavory...that's not ludicrous to me. I see that as a person who had something to say and for all we know if they added their real name to it, it could've cost them their job if their boss saw or heard it. it's about privacy. nothing more. those people aren't ashamed of themselves, just protecting themselves while still voicing their opinions. Watch O'Reilly tonight and see if he has any emailers that post to him anonymously. He doesn't care and it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. #2 Now when it comes to being stalked, specifically, that's a whole other issue. People who stalk others(real or cyber) aren't stupid enough to tag their names on their tactics of hatred for a person. Rarely happens. Also, most stalkers have a reason to be at such odds with a person in the first place to stalk them so of course adding their name is a way to hide their identity. but if they didn't care, they would add their name and still stalk the person. Having a vague "law" in place that throws a person in jail over email harrassment is a bit much. If the governement enforces this new law then the companies that spam my email to the high heavens need to be prosecuted as well because they are worse than any cyberstalker I ever encountered.

Author

JSU

Date

2006-01-13T10:12:46-06:00

ID

104290

Comment

.... I think Ben Allen's got it right on his new blog; we should *enjoy* people with different ideas, not hate them or try to harass them out of existence. That's absurd. He and I have great lunches, for instance, during which we tease each other, disagree on some points and have wonderful discussions about the city. We don't hate each other, or anger each other, because we don't agree on everything. We're not supposed to. We should. But there are people in this world that no matter how much you try to carry on a decent conversation with them, they don't want to *enjoy* different ideas. It's a matter of ideals. If you and Ben Allen have at least 50% of like ideals, then you wouldn't block him out no matter how much you disagreed with him. You would give him a chance to have his ideals heard and bounced around. but if you made up in your mind that you don't like a person,period, you're not going to accept anything they have to say and that is where friction can occur. It's our human nature. Take Town Hall meetings for example...lots of different walks of life, lots of different opinions and concerns, and they do get heated and people do walk out when they feel like they've heard enough or their point isn't being heard or respected. and that's ok. That's the beauty of living in a free country. People actually call out each other as idiots and stupid, and that's fine. It's the way we learn to hammmer out differences. You can't Police an attitude on to someone and expect conforrmity. You'll get even more rebellion instead. And what's to stop a cyberstalker from going to the local library to stalk you? you can't trace that. What do you do? penalize all the people who log on at the library for one individuals actions? Again, this new law is so vague and potentially far reaching it should've never been brought up or added in the first place until specific penalties concerning "cyberstalking" were addressed or voted on by the people. And sneaking it into another bill as a piggyback throws up even more red flags in my opinion. Why Arlen Spector why?. What I hate is how people passively allow government to dictate and steer their lives and then want to react to the outcome of the govt's actions afterwards. It defeats the purpose of Democracy. Governement is suppose of the people, by the people and FOR the people. Not control the people.

Author

JSU

Date

2006-01-13T10:14:40-06:00

ID

104291

Comment

And that's the gist of it. JSU, you cite free speech and freedom of the press. How is this served by a system that allows people to be subject to anonymous threats, anonymous libel, and anonymous invasion of privacy if they say anything worthy of drawing criticism? Geraldo and Bill O'Reilly get more hate emails than all of us combined I'm sure. You think they care? They know they can't please everyone, and they don't try to. That's the beauty of America, you don't have to walk on eggs shells. Your mailbox outside is the same way . you could walk out there tomorrow and it be filled with hate mail...who do you prosecute? where do you start? Do you get a special request police cruiser to ride by periodically to hopefully nab Mr.Hater with the hate mail? We need better laws, or we at least need to federalize existing stalking laws as applicable to the Internet and make them enforceable. I really like what I believe to be the intent behind this law. I just don't like the law itself. As the ACLU spokesperson said, "annoy" is, when used by itself, an awfully vague standard. Speaking as someone whose been "cyberstalked" in the past, I can say it's no fun. But as a man of strong mind and and character I distanced myself from those email accounts to which I was being stalked and started to use anonymous emails to protect myself from that person and they've never been able to stalk me again. I didn't need big brother Arlen for that. and neither do you. And you continue to say that the law is poorly written tells me that you aren't so sure about it yourself although you agree with the intent.

Author

JSU

Date

2006-01-13T11:08:30-06:00

ID

130400

Comment

I just searched the JFP website to see if there had been anything written about cyber harassment. The media tends to be more clear about what the laws are than the actual government who is supposed to take care of things like that. I searched because I was sent 2 frightening emails and ironically enough, being blamed for them. It's a long story that is too ridiculous to even get into. But my big issue with the whole thing is that I can't prove that it wasn't me becuase the content of the email was not a literal death threat. And because I can't prove it I am losing supporters in my music as well as a new business. So I am curious about this part of one of the comments " (4) For the purposes of this section, "harasses" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person. "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." I think being told in an email that someone feels that he or she has been given the power of God to punish me for my sins and that I would soon be face to face with the devil himself constitutes an email that is inteded to cause emotional distress..especially when I have two young children at home to take care of. And this is a little unclear, at least to me... "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose." So I guess if my stalker really has it in for me and forgets to pay their bills and can't send an email then I'm not able to press charges and no investigation will take place? Well, that just sucks doesn't it? I really don't know what else to do.

Author

caroline

Date

2008-06-03T12:43:42-06:00