It's illegel to flame anyone in the US now

[Comstar]

Story here

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."
 

Me, I'm not in the US, but I wounder who's going to be the first to snitch to the feds about a perceived flame. Who needs to BAN people when you can sick the FBI or somesuch onto them instead. Lucky SirBruce isn't allowed to post here these days, though you'd probably both go to jail in the ensuring flamewar. coarse you're safe, so as long you put your name in the message is my understanding from the cnet report.

[Sunbury]

That language sounds like it would pertain to chat inside of MMORPGs...

Here is the actual relevant text of the amended law:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000223----000-.html

"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;"

Humm, another relevant section:

"any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication; "

[tazelbain]

The closest Authoritarians have been trying to bring the internet under their thumb for a while now.

1) make a law that renders 90% of the internet illegal.
2) selectively enforce against you political opponents.
3) profit! (from kickbacks and abuse of power)

I am kinda surprised it is Spector, he's usually more reasonable.

[Miasma]

I am completely dumbfounded.  That will get overturned right?

Perhaps Specter frequents the vault and got flamed one too many times for his views on PvP in WoW, payback time.

[Shockeye]

Does posting winger and tubgirl constitute purposeful annoyance?

[cevik]

I am kinda surprised it is Spector, he's usually more reasonable.

No he isn't.  He belongs to the most corrupt political party in the history of time.  He kowtows to his masters any time they demand he grovels.  He is a Republican.  He is NEVER reasonable.  He hates America.

[tazelbain]

This brings up another issue.  I really don't want to play with people under 18.  As if it was bad enough dealing with the behavior of teens and pre-teens, its now becoming a legal liability just to talk to strangers. For a while in GW, I was joining pickup groups with voicechat.  I noticed how young the voices were and stopped.  The last thing I needed was one of these kids to make a false accusation. So that's that.

EDIT: Cevik, me love you long time!  The only reason democrats aren't as corrupt is because they don't have as much influence to peddle.

[cevik]

This brings up another issue.  I really don't want to play with people under 18.  As if it was bad enough dealing with the behavior of teens and pre-teens, its now becoming a legal liability just to talk to strangers. For a while in GW, I was joining pickup groups with voicechat.  I noticed how young the voices were and stopped.  The last thing I needed was one of these kids to make a false accusation. So that's that.

EDIT: Cevik, me love you long time!  The only reason democrats aren't as corrupt is because they don't have as much influence to peddle.

You annoy me.  I'm reporting you.

EDIT:  In all seriousness, that is literally the WORST defense I've ever seen anyone ever try to pull in the entire history of time.  Jesus, get a life man "Welll well well they would do it too if they could" should be reserved for school lunchrooms.  It certainly isn't fitting of politics.  Talk about attempting to justify your position with any means necessary.

[tazelbain]

It's not a defense.  It's a grim assesment of the political realities of US Congress.

[cevik]

It's not a defense.  It's a grim assesment of the political realities of US Congress.

If you continue to vote these assholes back into office (all the while telling yourself "the other guy would do it too"), then it's a defense.  Sad but true, unless you punish these dogs (and I don't care WHICH dogs are pulling this shit, I wouldn't vote for a Democrat who stunk as badly as the Republicans did 2 years ago, much less today), they will continue to do it.  Prove to them that you aren't all about brand loyalty and vote the fuckers out of office.  Otherwise BOTH sides get the idea they can do this shit and get away with it.

[schild]

Does posting winger and tubgirl constitute purposeful annoyance?

Not if it's a birthday gift.

Edit: Cevik, stfu. Your whining about politics needs to stay in politics.

That flaming and moderation was brought to you by Eric Schild.

[cevik]

Edit: Cevik, stfu. Your whining about politics needs to stay in politics.

Then post messages about new LAWS being passed in politics, where it belongs.

[schild]

Edit: Cevik, stfu. Your whining about politics needs to stay in politics.

Then post messages about new LAWS being passed in politics, where it belongs.

Nah, if only because you're fanatical and I find this new law funny and completely unenforceable.

[cevik]

Edit: Cevik, stfu. Your whining about politics needs to stay in politics.

Then post messages about new LAWS being passed in politics, where it belongs.

Nah, if only because you're fanatical and I find this new law funny and completely unenforceable.

Congratulations, you're the second person I've reported for annoying me.  ;)

EDIT:  The last dying gasps of the few remaining defenders of a failed political ideology:  "You're just a fanatic."  No, I'm a troll, there is a difference.. :)

[schild]

Nah, you're definately a fanatic. You're too emphatic to be a troll. You CARE. Trolls don't.

[cevik]

Nah, you're definately a fanatic. You're too emphatic to be a troll. You CARE. Trolls don't.

*shrug* Your call..

[tazelbain]

If you continue to vote these assholes back into office (all the while telling yourself "the other guy would do it too"), then it's a defense.  Sad but true, unless you punish these dogs (and I don't care WHICH dogs are pulling this shit, I wouldn't vote for a Democrat who stunk as badly as the Republicans did 2 years ago, much less today), they will continue to do it.  Prove to them that you aren't all about brand loyalty and vote the fuckers out of office.  Otherwise BOTH sides get the idea they can do this shit and get away with it.

That's bullshit. You weren't talking about voting for individual candidates, you were making a broad generalization about Repubicians. I am an independent; and candidate positions and character are very important to me.

If integrity of the democratic process was the only issue you care about, who do you vote Republicans or Democrats?  My point is neither.  Both parties have members that this issue seriously.  But the vast majority of them only care about it if they think can score political points with it, until then they are happy to ride the gravy train.

I definitely have no problem punishing those who do wrong, but I am not going vote against all Republican because on this issue because I don't see a difference.  Actually I plan to vote against all Republicans on a federal level but that's on a completely different issue (Failure conduct meaningful oversight of the Executive).

[Krakrok]

I just reported all of you to the gestapo.

[Margalis]

It's not enough to simply be annoyed, the person must have the intent to annoy. So the law is very reasonable. After all, real life pretty much works the same way. That's why at sporting events you hear a lot of "Jeter you SUCK - I'm John Worthington and I live in 1029 1A 6th street!"

[Yoru]

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,

Looks like the staff is liable for all of our misconduct too. :)

[schild]

I'm fairly certain we'd be protected under the DMCA. But IANAL and it doesn't matter. It's a stupid unenforcable law. It'll only be used by the most extreme politicos who have the money to persue such frivolous things.

[Bunk]

Reported

[Murgos]

Heh, this effectively outlaws all online dating services...

SomeDude: *WINK*

SomeChick: "ZOMG!!  Eww he's ugly! Annoying!" *Report to FBI*

[schild]

When everyone signed up for f13 they waved their rights to be insulted, annoyed, or irritable. Every emotion you see on the board is a lie.

[Jain Zar]

This law is funny.  If we put it to the real world, every news channel talk show host, the Daily Show, every opposing sports team, both of the big late night supernatural radio shows, most of the morning "comedy" radio shows, and every school child who ever existed would be in trouble.

Annoying and insulting people is what PEOPLE FUCKING DO.

And everything annoys and insults somebody.  "Hello!" insults someone out there!

This law won't do anything but give some ALCU lawyers big hard ons at making the government look like oppressive assholes.

[Mesozoic]

make them look like?

edit:  This law is so thoroughly stupid its going to be awesome.  Personally I'm going to start off with everyone who refuses to learn to spell "rogue" and "definite."

[schild]

You're a clever shade of rogue, you dastardly rouge. /goatse


...I'm so bored.

[Mesozoic]

You're a clever shade of rogue, you dastardly rouge. /goatse


...I'm so bored.

difinately.

[Llava]

Personally I'm going to start off with everyone who refuses to learn to spell "rogue" and "definite."

Don't forget "rediculous".  Which is to diculous something again.
Or "hypocracy".   Sometimes pronounced "hippo-cracky", otherwise refers to the rule of those who reverse their statements.

[Johny Cee]

This law is funny.  If we put it to the real world, every news channel talk show host, the Daily Show, every opposing sports team, both of the big late night supernatural radio shows, most of the morning "comedy" radio shows, and every school child who ever existed would be in trouble.

Annoying and insulting people is what PEOPLE FUCKING DO.

And everything annoys and insults somebody.  "Hello!" insults someone out there!

This law won't do anything but give some ALCU lawyers big hard ons at making the government look like oppressive assholes.

In response to your points:

1.  Political satire is expressly protected by law, precedence, etc.

2. None of these (Jon Stewart, for example) is anonymous.

3.  Try to prove intent.

People here are missing the point.  This law is impractible to enforce,  but it's necessary to have on the books for extreme cases.  

The key word is "intent".  Legally, it's real fucking difficult to prove intent.  And the government generally doesn't try, unless there's a related crime.

I put this law in the same category as the various laws against instigating fights.  If you taunt or otherwise goad someone into assaulting you,  you're generally going to get hit with some kind of charges as well. (I think most states have "intent to incite assault/riots/etc" laws on the books).

Basically, this kind of law isn't new in the real world. It means jack and shit, since it's exceedingly expensive/impossible to prove intent unless there was some illegal action from the incitement.  It's there to prevent people from goading others into illegal actions.

Example:  You can't walk into a Hasidic neighborhood,  proceed to mouth anti-semitic phrases and insults directly to specific people,  then expect to be completely off the hook when one of said people decks you.

(As always,  not my main field of study, so I'll bow out if any of the attorneys want to correct my interpretation)

[Fabricated]

[Hokers]

I'm afraid to ask, but what the heck is winger?  I assume its another pic that no one should ever want to see.

This law is stupid, is the day where you have to use your implated chip to sign onto the net be far off?  You know it is for you own protection.

[tazelbain]

No, not really. But you are better off.

[Tebonas]

The land of the free indeed.

I would laugh at you if our stupid governments wouldn't have the unsettling tendency to copy US laws because the USA has them.

[Triforcer]

I'm afraid to ask, but what the heck is winger?  I assume its another pic that no one should ever want to see.

Which do you want more: the answer, or to keep your immortal soul?