I find myself in the uncomfortable position of actually agreeing with something said by a spokesman for the ACLU. Mark it on your calendars, people.
“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.”
Quite true. Things that I believe and write about would probably intensely annoy Nancy Pelosi, for example. What Mr. Johnson is referring to is a snippet of legislation entitled “Preventing Cyberstalking” snuck into a “must pass” bill by RINO Arlen Spector. From an article on news.com called Create an e-annoyance, go to jail:
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.”
Here’s the relevant text of the law:
“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.”
Gee, given McCain-Feingold, various quotes from various politicians including Hillary Clinton and MSMers about how blogging and the internet ought to be controlled, should we be worried? Seems like our right to free speech is just being chipped away.
Linked to Conservative Cat.
I don’t think it’s chipping away at our liberties. I would be delighted to bring up those annoying people from s-x kittens-R-us and every other spammer on charges of “annoyance”.
The problem I see with the internet is that it is so obliging for those who wish to hide behind masks, and with annonomity comes lack of inhibitions and with that lack comes worse abuse of language and content. With our current laws, they have to catch a pedophile almost in the act before they can prosecute. If a person is doing nothing wrong, then why wear a mask?
If you’re bothered by comment spam, try Akismet, it’s fabulous and free. Comes automatically with the new WordPress, too, which is nice. I get zero comment spam since I installed it a few months ago.
I agree that the internet is subject to abuse, and as it happens, I blog under my real name (as I presume you do) because I stand by my opinions. But then I’m lucky enough to work for myself; I know bloggers who use fake names so their boss can’t hold their personal opinions against them. I understand their concerns; even if you don’t get fired you may well be treated differently.
Ben Franklin wrote under a pseudonym as did many other honored figures in our country’s history. Not that I think many (well, ANY) of the anonymous bloggers I’ve seen will be seen in future history books
, but anonymous pundits have ample precedent in this country.
I don’t understand the connection you’re making between laws related to catching pedophiles and laws restricting free speech, though. Can you explain that a bit further?
Yes, I post under my real name. I view it as a ministry, too, not just my opinion factory (although I am very opinionated
Thanks for the heads up on Akismet! I was actually referring to spam emails, though.
I feel for those who must remain anonymous because they cannot express their opinions or be fired. From that angle, I agree with you. However, if a person is going to blast their boss in public, then perhaps they should have more careful consideration.
But, from the POV that many “evil doers” perfer to perform their evil deeds behind masks, I think it is great that the gov’t wants people to state their real names for the record. Pedophiles have clubs using their fake names and exchange all kinds of information for stalking and/or satisfying their perverted needs using the internet as their main resource. That, of course, goes beyond annoyance to breaking the law, but it gives the FBI a more secure handle to catch the bad guys. The purpose of this new law is to prevent cyberstalking, as I understand it.
If a person has nothing to hide, is doing nothing illegal or morally or ethically wrong, then why hide behind a mask? Howard Stern has no problems being as foul as he is wont to do and, praise God, I don’t have to listen to him if I don’t want to. But, he doesn’t send unsolicited emails to my inbox either. Nor does he stalk young girls. It’s the creepy guy that meets you in a chat room and won’t leave you alone, chasing you all over cyberland that this law is directed towards… and I hope we can get rid of the creepy people who keep telling me I’ve gone to illegal websites calling themselves the FBI and keep trying to send me viruses through the email.
Anonymous bloggers don’t have to blog about their boss to get in trouble at work. Simply having opposing religious or political views, like the Allstate employee who wrote an article on his own time from his home computer about homosexuality, can get you fired. I understand the concept of giving the FBI another way to catch bad guys. Kind of like finally getting Al Capone on a tax evasion rap. And the stated purpose of the law may well be to prevent cyberstalking. But the language I referenced was deliberately changed from much tighter wording:
Why change it to something as loose as “annoy?” Just like additional gun restrictions have no effect on career criminals (they are already willing to break the law) this will not prevent a cyberstalker or professional spammer from harrassing you. But it may well be used, just like McCain Feingold was on some DJs, to stifle free speech.