GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Trolling is now officialy illeagal!

POSTED BY: STORYMARK
UPDATED: Thursday, January 12, 2006 15:31
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6123
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:24 PM

STORYMARK


Wow. I find this rather surprising, but a step in the right direction.

It is now illeagal to annoy people, ie "troll", on the internet, if you are not useing your own name.

So, for all the trolls out there, time to go home.... or let us know who you really are.

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022
491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news


"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:33 PM

ANDRE83


"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."

I guess that covers it :)

Soo....how do you report it? :P

Jayne: All those years of preacher training, getting knocked out by one bounty hunter
Book: Oh, dont get me wrong. I gave him a hell of a fight
Jayne: Epic i'm guessing

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:40 PM

THANATUS


Wow...this is truly disquieting! And now, a moment of silence in honor of the First Amendment... At least free speech lasted 230 years, not a bad run, I guess!

(This post was not meant to annoy, merely to jest, and as such, no assertions can made as to intent, as any annoyance was purely incidental and an unintentional outcome of the standard conveyance of opinion.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:48 PM

LITTLEALBATROSS


I did not realize the internet was American.

Although, I find people to be much more annoying in real life - so legislation to jail all annoying people can't be far behind right?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:52 PM

THANATUS


If they did that, I'd be first in line to press charges against Sen. Arlen Spectre! Damn him!

(This post was not meant to annoy, merely to jest, and as such, no assertions can made as to intent, as any annoyance was purely incidental and an unintentional outcome of the standard conveyance of opinion.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 1:09 PM

JONESRA


Quote:

Originally posted by Andre83:
"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."

I guess that covers it :)

Soo....how do you report it? :P



Well, there goes my weekend plans!


Abusive Trollbot #39824

If you take my posts serious, I can only blame you

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 1:12 PM

CAUSAL


I'm pretty sure you meant "illegal". Yes?

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 1:20 PM

SIMONWHO


If they were to make poor spelling illegal, my little heart would just explode with joy.

Seriously, this isn't any more of an infringement on free speech than any other power designed to stop harassment or intimidation.

BTW, anybody misattributes to Voltaire in this thread, I'm reporting you to the Quotation Police.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 1:22 PM

CAUSAL


Yes, yes--and incorrect punctuation, as well!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add: I now know the definition of "instant karma".

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 1:26 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by Thanatus:
Wow...this is truly disquieting! And now, a moment of silence in honor of the First Amendment... At least free speech lasted 230 years, not a bad run, I guess!

(This post was not meant to annoy, merely to jest, and as such, no assertions can made as to intent, as any annoyance was purely incidental and an unintentional outcome of the standard conveyance of opinion.)


I want you to look up the Sedition Act.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 1:34 PM

CHINDI


HAHAHAHA

the politicians annoy me every day...

anyway.. no way this will stand up in the end.. too vague and too much an infringement on first amendment.. remember dear Poor Richard (aka Ben Franklin)?

Hey it's not a nick it's a psuedomnym

and EVERYTHING I write is a parody...lol


trollbot # 5150

Chindi (taking off troll costume)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 1:36 PM

THANATUS


Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
I want you to look up the Sedition Act.



And I want a ham sandwich...Are you insinuating that annoying people is seditious, or that the Sedition Act marked the actual end of free speech? Either way...not so much.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 1:50 PM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Yes, yes--and incorrect puntuation, as well!



I'm pretty sure you meant "punctuation". With a "c". Yes?

--- Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 1:56 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Thanatus:
Wow...this is truly disquieting! And now, a moment of silence in honor of the First Amendment... At least free speech lasted 230 years, not a bad run, I guess!



Nah. You are still free to say whatever you want. You just have to have the nerve to put your real name behind what you say.

Freedom of speech is still intact. It's the freedom to attack people annonymously that's under fire. And I'm just fine with that.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 1:58 PM

GIXXER


My Steven Seagal's* looking quite peaky.

G


*Cockney rhyming slang for "eagle."

All Londoners have only spoken like this for 42 years. Dick Van Dyke taught us all we know.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 2:01 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


I'm just saying that attempts to inhibit free speech are nothing new. Did you know that during World War I some Americans were arrested (in America) for reading a seditious document, and that document was the American Declaration of Independence?

Now they try less obvious things, use words that are vague enough so you can do whatever you want. Of course they don’t always use the vagary on purpose.

Last I checked, which is not recently, the current definition of pornography could be used to outlaw Democratic press in Republican places, Republican press in Democratic places, and most other press in most places.

-

People are people, and they will always be people, I hope, so some odd things will happen. In 1990 a nationwide poll said that almost all Americans supported free speech no matter what. Of those same Americans, in that same poll, about 50% did not believe that communists should be allowed to speak their minds in public.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 2:01 PM

GIXXER


My Steven Seagal's* looking quite peaky.

G


*Cockney rhyming slang for "eagle."

Londoners have only spoken like this for 42 years. Dick Van Dyke taught us all we know. Guv.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 2:11 PM

STDOUBT


Horsepie.
Trolling is not "attacking". Yeah, it can be
annoying, but it's easy to ignore as well.
On NNTP for example, we have kill filters. On
boards like this one, we have moderators and
banning not to mention IP logging. On IRC there're moderators on most boards worth visiting. I didn't
read the article, but if it's legit, this is
indeed another nail in Libertys coffin. We already
have libel laws making it a crime to write
defamatory claims against a private party!

If anyone here truly thinks anonymity on the net
is a threat to peace and order, I call *you* an
enemy of Liberty. Stick and stones, brother -names
can never hurt me. Hell, even Lieutenant Uhura
said (paraphrasing) "We've learned not to fear
words". Too bad we may have to wait until the 25th
century before "The People" grow a nutsack.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 2:28 PM

THANATUS


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Nah. You are still free to say whatever you want. You just have to have the nerve to put your real name behind what you say.

Freedom of speech is still intact. It's the freedom to attack people annonymously that's under fire. And I'm just fine with that.



Not entirely fair, mate. So, lack of anonymity may be fine with you, but not everyone is in the same boat. I'm in the consulting business, and work for a great company that allows a lot of leeway. A friend of mine, in the same business, is prohibited and threatened with termination from blogging, or engaging in "controversial discussion" on web boards. He created a pseudonym to keep from losing his job and exercise his rights. I am a bit schizo on this one, I guess...I feel a company has the right to prohibit activities by its employees, but I do NOT think the government has any business prosecuting my friend. How weak has this nation and its denizens become when we need to make annoying or insulting behavior illegal. Arlen Spectre should hang his head in emasculated shame...not trying to be annoying or offensive, though.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 2:38 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
I'm pretty sure you meant "punctuation". With a "c". Yes?



Right, right. With the "C".

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 3:02 PM

JAYTEE


Yeah, Democracy was nice while it lasted. Thanks to the damn Republicans we can now look forward to the future where Browncoats are an endangered species but Brownshirts (fascists) are everywhere. Vote these bastards out of office in the 2006 and 2008 elections or we might as well just shred the Constitution after they have another 8 years to screw us out of our rights.

Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 3:16 PM

CHINDI


Fellow travelers.. I made a jest of sorts above to keep the mood light... but I do not take these things lightly nor do I think anyone should...

We all have a duty to defend the constitution, even when our so called elected officials do not...

governments serve at the authority and wishes of the people. When they cease to do so, they get changed out.

We have our voices so long as we use them to debate and discuss and disagree when it is merited.

Write your representatvies and decry this, if in fact it is an actual law, and not some mis information.. who can ever know these days?

We are only powerless when we let them have the power.. and there are far more of US than them...

I do not wish to be on the wrong side, nor in this case, the losing side.

SPEAK OUT! BECOME A PAIN IN THE ARSE! EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS!

Chindi (getting off soap box now...) NEXT?!?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 3:43 PM

STDOUBT


@ JayTee,
The problem with that is there's really almost
no difference between the Dems and the Repubs
anymore. Both camps are mostly made up of Globalists (think NAFTA, WTO, etc.).
When Howard Dean was shoved aside by Kerry, I
became convinced Kerry's working for the status quo.
You think Hillary is any different? People don't call her Hillary W. Bush for no reason. Over the past 60 or so years, Liberty has been eroding steadily regardless of which "side" was in power.
I consider it a travesty there are only 2 parties
in this nation who are percieved as "having a chance" at leadership. By now, it should come as no surprise they're in cahoots. Said it before, say it again:
--
Democrat / Republican
Divided / Conquered
Don't waste your vote!
Vote 3rd party -- *any* 3rd party.
The choice between 2 evils is no choice at all!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 4:25 PM

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG


That is the stupidest thing I have ever read...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 4:37 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by chronicthehedgehog:
That is the stupidest thing I have ever read...


I envy you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 4:45 PM

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG


Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:

Originally posted by chronicthehedgehog:
That is the stupidest thing I have ever read...


I envy you.



Okay, now it's the second!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 6:03 PM

ZOID


From News.com:
Quote:

I believe you are misreading the law.
Reader post by: Dave Madden
Posted on: January 9, 2006, 3:43 PM PST
Story: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

H.R.3402 Sec. 113 (a)(3)(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) 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)).

Therefore the new wording applies only to instances arising under subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1).

The subsection referred to by the amended text is:
"(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;"

The presence of the phrase "Called number" pretty conclusively removed all internet communications such as blogs and message boards. This seems to be measure to close a loophole that existed for internet based phone call services like vonage, etc because there is clearly no called number with regard to blogs.


O, ye of little faith. I promise you no one will ever go to jail for something they write on the Internet, short of hate mongering or outright sedition. ...Okay, so some of y'all might be in trouble. The ACLU would have a field day, and it's unconstitutional from the get-go.

Here, I'll prove it: You're all a bunch of Chicken Little, "the sky is falling!", knee-jerk reactionaries...

See? Nothing happened!

Hang on a sec, someone's at the door...



Dis-Respectfully,

Prisoner # 5187265
Lompoc, CA

P.S.
Please send cigarettes...
_________________________________________________

"I aim to be really well behaved and never upset anyone, especially a lawyer." -Capt. Mal Reynolds (paraphrased), Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 8:38 PM

RUNA27


Quote:

We alreadyhave libel laws making it a crime to write defamatory claims against a private party!


So you're saying, people have a right to call me a plagiarist for allegedly stealing a work that is, in fact, mine? And to spread this rumor maliciously EVERYWHERE in print, to the point where people believe it even though it's not true? Making it so that no matter how hard I try, I simply cannot get a job in writing, my chosen profession, because I've been portrayed as a literary theif?

Because that's what anti-libel law protects against, friend. It doesn't protect you against somebody revealing ugly TRUTHS. It doesn't mean that you can sue over a silly flamewar (or at least, it's not meant to act like that). What it's meant for is instances like I mentioned above, where a person's entire professional reputation and credibility, and potentially livlihood, are to at least some extent threatened. Those are the cases it's meant for, and those are the ones it's needed for. *wishes there were a "stern-but-not-pissed look" smiley*

However, libel actually has pretty much NOTHING to do with this.

What worries me about this - as it does to many others - is the overly-vague language. See, if it were "harass", fine. But ANNOY?

As noted, people can be "annoyed" at simply things. Indeed, to connotation of "annoy" is fairly mild in comparision to "harass", even though harassment itself can take the form of "repeatedly annoying the person, even after being asked to stop".

Also, most communities worth belonging to DO have some sort of control to deal with trolls - I won't list them here, because people have already listed them, but mods and admins do help.

And since there's no law against REAL LIFE annoyances (as well there shouldn't be! Then how the hell would we protest? Or in some cases, convince a person out of doing something stupid?), I fail to see how this is any better.

In response to the "I wasn't aware the internet was American" comment... actually, technically, it is. The main servers that process data transfer over the internet are in the United States. Which is somewhat disturbing, in some ways, at least lately.

We're still allowed to write anonymous letters "annoying" Senators about important issues they're being too chicken to address (granted, this will be screened to make sure it ain't got anthrax or something, but after that...). Apparently, we can only do this by hand nowadays. *eyeroll* Oh noes!!11 Not over the intarweb! Heaven forbid a method of mass communication could be used for mass communication! Not if it's something not entirely pleasant! Even if it's harmless!

*siiiigh* I HAAAATE pork. I HAAAATE it.

There should be a law against attaching laws to other laws. I've yet to see this power NOT be abused by Congressmen.

-Runa27


Can't Stop The Signal

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2006 10:59 PM

CITIZEN


Most of the best most disruptive Trolls don't work like that. They push other people into throwing about the insults and sit back and watch.

Quote:

In response to the "I wasn't aware the internet was American" comment... actually, technically, it is. The main servers that process data transfer over the internet are in the United States. Which is somewhat disturbing, in some ways, at least lately.

Not even technically. Even if that was entirely true, American laws can't police the Internet, nor non-Americans, no matter how much Bush and the rest of the country thinks they should.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:12 AM

ANDRE83


To the guy 2 post above me. Are you on crack? The internet aint american no matter where the central hyper big time servers are located. They have to be located somewhere. There are servers all around the globe. Some in the us, most elsewhere.

Typical american to say something like that

Jayne: All those years of preacher training, getting knocked out by one bounty hunter
Book: Oh, dont get me wrong. I gave him a hell of a fight
Jayne: Epic i'm guessing

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:30 AM

JERRYT


Quote:

Originally posted by Andre83:
To the guy 2 post above me. Are you on crack? The internet aint american no matter where the central hyper big time servers are located. They have to be located somewhere. There are servers all around the globe. Some in the us, most elsewhere.

Typical american to say something like that

Jayne: All those years of preacher training, getting knocked out by one bounty hunter
Book: Oh, dont get me wrong. I gave him a hell of a fight
Jayne: Epic i'm guessing



It has to be American. Al Gore invented it after all.

JerryT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I'll be in my bunk"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:25 AM

CANAAN13


Like my Mother always said, "Never take responsibility for someone elses supidity". Trolls are idiots and should be ignored. Let them say stupid things, it just proves they are idiots.
What's really got me freaked out is that Thanatus you "feel a company has the right to prohibit activities by its employees". It frightens me that you actually think that. While employees are at work, sure, no blogging, email checking, porn surfing, beating kittens with bricks ( I love kittens, so no smarmy remarks about that one people.) ,etc. But off the clock, people should be able to do as they please. As long as they aren't giving up proprietory company secrets, who cares what's in their blog. Company's do not own their employees and they shouldn't be allowed free reign over our speech and actions. That's too Orwellian for me. Better yet, it's very WE (Yevgeny Zamyatin c.1924) where everyone lives, breathes and functions for the benefit of the Great One State. Ok, now that I've ranted WAY OFF topic... Trolls should be ignored... :)

There is no beauty without some strangeness to the proportion. - Unknown

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:35 AM

SPINLAND


This is so impossible to enforce. It's like the ridiculous case in Polk county, Florida, where the sherrif claims that if anyone posts "obscenity" (as he defines it) on the Internet where Polk county people can access it, he has jurisdiction. The Internet is a global environment and no nation can ever hope to claim jurisdiction over it. It's especially ludicrous this comes from an American source, when America's supposed commitment to free speech--even offensive speech--would seem to make it the last source for this kind of silliness.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:31 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
no matter how much Bush and the rest of the country thinks they should.


Hey! Who says the rest of us agree with that idea?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:31 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Ok, something is wrong here, but it's on my end so no one else needs to be concerned.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL