We've had our debates on this site as to the merits of posting anonymously.
Well, now it's now illegal to annoy people on the internet without revealing who you are.
As someone who runs an anti-statist website where I write under an assumed name with the sole purpose on annoying the government, and encourage others to do so, I find it troubling.
Watch out TimeUp, Critical Mass, TA and anyone else who might be found annoying. A few anonymous posts could get you jail time.
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022...
Warning to anonymous posters
Tue, 01/10/2006 - 5:53am
Tue, 01/10/2006 - 9:11am
#1
Oh yeah?
Not so.
See the following:
http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1136853945.shtml
Tue, 01/10/2006 - 9:34pm
#2
Yeah!
"While I am a Libertarian, (leaning towards anarcho-capitalism), I've never thought of C-net as part of the ""Libertarian wing of the Blogosphere"", as it's called by the writer in your link. It's a site about tech gear.
The government, (Federal and local), never passes up a chance to overstep its bounds, whether it's the city using parade permit laws to squash group cycling that has a political message they don't like, (hooray, we beat that one), or using laws about obstructing sidewalks to steal bikes, or the Feds supporting eminent domain abuse to steal homes from citizens to give to private developers.
As for how vague terms like ""transmit"" will be interpreted, always assume the government will interpret vague terms to suit themselves... and it suites them just fine to shut up unpopular speech.
Heck, I've got an FTP program for uploading web pages and it's called ""Transmit!"" It's not a stretch to see some Federal weenie decide that I ""transmitted"" content over the internet to my ISP, using a program called ""Transmit"" and it annoyed someone doing a Google search who clicked on a link to my site.
I don't buy the conspiracy theories about government actively conspiring to steal our freedom. Bureaucracies just tend to grow– law-makers make more laws– it's the natural order of things. If we turn a blind eye to it, one day, everything that is not mandated will be forbidden. And cycling is likely to end up on the forbidden list as we are a minority that most non-cyclists are either annoyed by or indifferent to."
Tue, 01/10/2006 - 11:38pm
#3
Read the actual statutes.
"No intent here to endorse another's characterizations of any current administration's activities or motives, but the analysis cited previously is not his alone.
Plenty of other sites, e.g.:
http://volokh.com/posts/1136873535.shtml
http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/archives/001318.html
Also, consider the original source, which, as you point out, is a ""tech"" site, not known for its statutory or constitutional analysis, and is obviously in error in contending that the ""annoying"" language was just added. You should also note that the ACLU's site makes no mention of this ""threat"", even though some ACLU person is quoted (undated) in the original posting.
There are links to the applicable statutes on the original site and references on the others.
"
Wed, 01/11/2006 - 5:55am
#4
confusing diatribe
"""Watch out TimeUp, Critical Mass, TA and anyone else who might be found annoying""
Say what?"
Wed, 01/11/2006 - 6:14am
#5
What are you confused about?
"The sentence that followed it put it in context: ""A few anonymous posts could get you jail time.""
What are you confused about? Why do you think the cops jailed people on Critical Mass rides and stole locked bikes off the street? Not public safety– they were annoyed by the cyclists and used their power to show their displeasure.
Any vague law that makes being ""annoying"" a crime will be abused. And if you doubt it's vague, just look at the various interpretations of it in this thread and the links we reference.
Oh, and to ""af"": If we should not turn to C-net for legal issues as they are a tech site, (even though this law deals with tech), why should we turn to ""footballfansfortruth.us"" to clarify anything beyond the Superbowl?"
Wed, 01/11/2006 - 7:24am
#6
Do your own analysis.
"Read the actual statutes and make your own judgment.
Doesn't matter what web site you find it on, analysis can be good or bad (e.g.,the thing you quote in your first sentence above is ""bad'), so go to the source, in this case the statutes, which is what the writers on the other sites pointed to above actually did.
(Hint: the statute in question doesn't make being annoying a crime, not before, nor as recently amended.)"
