General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2178009

    Better be careful…


    by maecuff ·

    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.”

    I’d say that a few of us better start considering if orange jumpsuits are flattering..

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3080412

      Good thing I look bad in every color….

      by faradhi ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      orange may be an improvement.

      Some of us are naturally annoying. I wonder if that could be a defense. “But your honor, I can’t help it. My dad was annoying. The Annoying gene is dominate. Therefore, I am annoying at a fundamental level.”

      • #3080394

        I guess

        by maecuff ·

        In reply to Good thing I look bad in every color….

        if you fully disclose who you are, you can continue to be annoying.

        • #3078219

          and if you pay the tax

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to I guess

          for marijuana stamps, you can continue to smoke

        • #3078189


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to and if you pay the tax

          Are they anything like Easter seals?

        • #3097446

          Italy has it since a lot of time

          by fbartolom ·

          In reply to Okay

          Just a note to report in Italy you will be sued if you contact a person, within or without the internet, lacking to show you identity thus giving no option to the recipient to refuse the communication. Of course you cannot either do everything even after saying who you are: for istance more than three phone calls in a day are said to be an abuse and so do calls during the night. No legislation exists as yet about email or IM messages.

          I made some extensive search on the subject whan a past gf (who else?) challanged me to sue me for stalking if I did not stop trying to contact her… 🙂

        • #3079053

          What?s next??? Typing while intoxicated???

          by jakcap ·

          In reply to I guess

          …..or operating a computer under the influence??

          These kind of liberal puke laws are why our forefathers thought we may need the right to keep and bear arms!!!

          Wake up America!!

        • #3097584

          It wasn’t the

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to What?s next??? Typing while intoxicated???

          ‘liberals’ who signed off on this law.

    • #3080392

      Totally Inadequate

      by dmambo ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Only 2 years imprisonment?!? I hope that’s for each count.

      Let’s suppose that Mae annoys all 23 TR users with each of her, say, 4 posts per day, then I would hope that she’d be sentenced to 92 years in the slammer. That would keep her locked up until she was around 118 years old.

      Sound fair. 😉

      • #3080390


        by maecuff ·

        In reply to Totally Inadequate

        THAT was certainly annoying.. 🙂

        • #3080358

          But notice

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Well

          I didn’t see you arguing about the math? 😀

        • #3080354

          I’m a girl

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to But notice

          Everyone knows we’re better at cooking and cleaning and having babies than we are at math.

        • #3080331

          Oh Lawd

          by bfilmfan ·

          In reply to I’m a girl

          Stay out of Alabama. They will be fighting over you at the trailer park to be Queen of the Doublewide after that statement.

          Plus, them fureign chicks is pretty hot!

        • #3078303

          oh my

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I’m a girl

          you forgot “bare foot” :^O

        • #3078103

          The math

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to But notice

          showed that Mae was, like, 26 years old. I thought she’d be grateful. Plus I know that she knows that I was just joking. I’ve never actually seen an annoying post from that young lass.

        • #3078089

          the word is “maths”!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to The math

          That is *so* annoying!

        • #3078426


          by braty ·

          In reply to the word is “maths”!

          Math or maths – aren’t both an abbreviation of mathematics?

        • #3078423

          Constitution of the Abbreviation

          by gprinsloo ·

          In reply to Abbreviated?

          If the average person is not a professor in MATHEMATICS he/she is only able to do MATHS. However of those selected few the majority are only capable of performing calculator based short calculations AND only as a last resort. WE DO MATH.

          But back to topic.

          That I hope applies to spammers, email FORWARDERS of jokes, chain letters and the like. The average user does not realise that more than 30% of internet bandwidth is consumed by their own junk mail antics.

          DO THE MATHEMATICS to establish with simple MATHS how many persons do not do the basic MATH to determine their wasted time in reading and sending junk to their mailing list buddies.

        • #3078401

          Not in the U.S.

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to the word is “maths”!

          If you say “maths” in the U.S. you sound like an imbecile.

        • #3078326

          Now *that* is an annoying comment

          by al ·

          In reply to Not in the U.S.

          If you say math’s in the U.S. you sound like either an Ivy League mathematics professor or a native non-English speaker – and thus more intriguing … but certainly NOT an imbecile.

        • #3078324

          If you say “math” in the UK

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Not in the U.S.

          you [b]are[/b] an imbecile.

        • #3079850

          I find your reactions annoying

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to Not in the U.S.

          “maths” isn’t common usage anywhere in the U.S. I know plenty of Ivy Leaguers and have never once heard them utter it.

          I stand by my annoying comment.

        • #3079762

          Heck… the sky is falling.

          by whistl3r ·

          In reply to Not in the U.S.

          Heck… why not say the sky is falling.

          “maths” is VERY common language within United States, in fact Germany and Russia use the termonology almost on a daily basis.

          It’s not only a fact, but I, personally, have grown up around the termonology “maths”, being that my grandfather / father were phycisits.

          If any individual, whom used such termonology, were considered an imbecile, you best review your colleagues.

        • #3078086


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to The math

          you have MUCH to learn about women. Suggesting that I am younger than my age is one thing..suggesting that I would be GRATEFUL for such a comment is another..sheesh.

        • #3078424

          Ouch!!! Touche!!

          by beltwaytech ·

          In reply to mambo

          Game! Set and Match, Maecuff!!!

        • #3078422

          Do the MATHEMATICS correctly

          by gprinsloo ·

          In reply to mambo

          In your defense maecuff.

          Enhanced by
          Towards woman
          In general
          Considering men

          And thats from a male Chauvinist. Hehehehe.

    • #3080383

      Any of you who would like annoyance by proxy

      by neilb@uk ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      I’m your man for a small fee.

      I think that our “nanny state” is rapidly being overtaken by yours!

      Neil 😀

    • #3080360


      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Most annoying people do it unintentionally.

      • #3080341

        Good point!!

        by faradhi ·

        In reply to loophole

        I could fill a court room with people that will swear under oath that I am annoying even when I am not trying to be. 🙂

        • #3080339

          Ignorance is no excuse

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Good point!!

          never has been…

        • #3078302

          of course

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Ignorance is no excuse

          that rule was made up by the ‘non-ignorant’ as a way for them to be able to take advantage of the ignorant and still sleep at night.

        • #3078299

          Yes it is

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Ignorance is no excuse

          “with [b]intent[/b] to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person..”

          It is all in the details. Providing that is in the final text, that is.

          Now here is the big question. If you DON’T reveal who you are, who is going to pay to track you down of the offense of being offensive?

          And what happens to you if you DO reveal youself? Is that a liscense to thrill from that point on?

        • #3078081

          Reminds me of a logical question

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Yes it is

          I had years ago.

          A user had sent another user a slightly off-color joke in email. The recipient printed it out and showed it to many of her friends. One of these friends mentioned it to management, and the original sender got reprimanded.

          My question: Who was it who actually “offended” the complainant?

        • #3078041


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Reminds me of a logical question

          that is why I NEVER pass anything off-color to a co-worker. You never know what will come back to haunt you.

          If it is your mail, YOU are responsible for it forever.

          side note, the “worst” at sending inner office off-color are the women here, not the men. I think they just don’t have as much to fear, more than just being more perverted. 😀

        • #3077350


          by abobble2 ·

          In reply to Ignorance is no excuse

          that is an old an obsolete cliche…. Was great in clearence darrows days. but now days before a judge makes decisions, they always take it under advisement. and research it. So if that can be applied to a layman then why would a learned schollar of the law have to research.

        • #3078216

          Why stop at the internet?

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Good point!!

          we could arrest people for driving their car somewhere to be annoying, or being annoying over the phone, fax or in person.

          (or by simply driving annoyingly, you know the type, leaving their headlamps off as it gets darker and darker at dusk, not signalling while turning, tailgating, etc.)

          Or an annoying bumper sticker! (there’s some incredibly idiotic ones that annoy me). And if they have an internet connection via cellphone to update their traffic gizmo then the law might apply!

          sure would make people nicer. we might become like the japanese who bow and are polite to each other!

        • #3078341

          And you should NOT forget

          by nacromancer ·

          In reply to Why stop at the internet?

          Do not forget those who annoy you just with their smell. Go into some offices these days and it smells like a perfume and or a deoderant factory. I think some people bath in in or do not bath in it as a means to hide their true stench. Then there is also those who annoy you because they are way more popular than you and get all the attention.
          Or are we heading in the direction of who is at fault those who annoy us? OR, is the problem with who we are as the supposed victums?
          Someone said, “well things only happen to those who create the enviroment for the occurance…”
          I guess that means we should stay home, lock our doors and windows, turn out the lights, and hide in the dark in order not to offend someone or better yet find ourselves offended.
          If enough babies are crying in the nursery will not the nurses come and do something about it? Such is those who make the rules, they tire of hearing the children cry and eventually give into the children’s wishes just to shut them up. Beccause the grown up children are the true annoyances of the world.

        • #3258049

          Just another victum

          by ·

          In reply to And you should NOT forget

          Smell or the lack thereof, bathing or not, popular vs unpopular, add to that list the annoyance of those who slaughter spelling. Can’t there be a prison term for that? I’m being victumized here!

        • #3258323


          by nacromancer ·

          In reply to Just another victum

          How is it you feel you are being victumized here? No one can point fingers but at themselves. And mis-spelling is a misdemeanor not warranted for a prison term, unless you can concider an adult education night course a prison or a jail sentence? Being that would be your responce to a someone with a typo I am glad you are not a State Legislator. We have enough people doing prison terms for what ever reason. No one was attacking you as a person, until you gave them something to attack you with, which you did.
          My assessment of the situation is I would not want to be Drew and find myself having to work near someone who had more color on their face and clothes than the wall decor in a 1960’s hippies crash den. Halloween is only one day a year!!! Annouyances are as Paul would say, your own inner shortcomings surfacing to reveal themselves to show you what you need to change about yourself. It’s all about attitude, nothing more.

        • #3078318

          I agree

          by jaredh ·

          In reply to Why stop at the internet?

          If we are going to arrest people for being anoying on the web, then we should do it in real life. If that were the case, then every human being would be in jail!! We are all annoying at some point in time to someone else because we are all different.

          Give me a break! If some one is annoying on the web, then disconnect. Gees!

        • #3080303

          Don’t forget the part of the law that states…

          by daralynx ·

          In reply to I agree

          “without disclosing his identity”…

          People use the internet as a way of stalking or spamming others anonymously to avoid prosecution and as a way to avoid being held accountable for their actions. The law may not be worded as well as it could be but it is needed in some form or other.

        • #3080204


          by raintree ·

          In reply to Don’t forget the part of the law that states…

          This anonymous spammer is going to fully disclose his/her name, address, phone number and email address because the law says so. Whoever wrote this law should be the first one arrested for being annoying.

    • #3078234


      by kaceyr ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      This is, yet another, feeble attempt at legislation against various forms of domestic violence. The idea being that you add another way of putting the assailant behind bars.

      Of course, the politicians never bother to consider if it’s enforceable, much less trackable, but they can always go back to the voters to say “I did my best, now you should vote for me again.”

      • #3078420

        Just another joke of politics

        by psifiscout ·

        In reply to Politicians!

        I have to laugh at this entire subject.

        A while back I decided that I had received enough junk mail, so I decided to retaliate. I simply began to reply to every piece of junk e-mail I got. I am retired so it was not an issue of time, just an issue of will.

        It wasn’t long before I started getting e-mails from the people I replied to telling me all about the legal implications of SPAM. I have to wonder about the mental capacities of a group that will send out unsolicited e-mail then follow that with threatening the recipient for sending unsolicited e-mail?!?!?!?!

        BTW I am still out of jail and my bank account is still intact.

        • #3080224

          Because YOU created spam in replying

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Just another joke of politics

          the reply to address in spam is very often NOT who actually sent it. I have a short domain address so idiotic spammers like to use it to send out spam from. My mail server is locked down tight, it is NOT ME. It is the easiest thing in the world to fake return address.

          In fact in any email program, such as Eudora or outlook, you simply type in what your return email address is. I do this to point my return mail to a yahoo address of mine, even tho an ISP sent the email. From programs, I call ‘commail.exe’ which sends email with any return address in the world. We use this for notifications of jobs finished in our production environment, but spammers can use similar programs.

          I can tell when the spammers are busy at work, from their trailer parks in Florida: I get a bunch of ‘returned email undeliverable’ either due to address they tried or virus in it. I consider this return notification spam, as I did NOT sent the original email, and sites should be smart enuf to know that people are faking return email addresses.

          plus sending out reply simply lets them know you exist and they will send even more spam to you.

      • #3078378

        Does this law apply to politicians as well.

        by gprinsloo ·

        In reply to Politicians!

        I find it annoying that they lie through their teeth, place banners all over, appear on tv, hoards of advertisments etc.etc. to get the vote and then never deliver on their promises.

        Could we perhaps apply this law to those annoyances as well.

        • #3080296

          In theory, you know who they are.

          by kairee ·

          In reply to Does this law apply to politicians as well.

          So, the “law” as written wouldn’t apply.

          But I wish it did… especially in regards to campaign literature. I can’t begin to tell you how annoyed I get when I receive the “Family Letter” pitch. If you are not familiar with it, it’s when the politician, usually the wife who is supposed to be concern with all things domestic and family oriented, sends out a letter, to you, her good friend. In it she discusses the candidate?s family and what they’re doing and all the important issues to them which, surprisingly enough are the same issues that her candidate husband has some campaign opinion and promise about. It’s very much like a Christmas or Holiday letter one gets from certain members of the family from year to year. I haven’t seen one of these from a female candidate but I can’t imagine they don’t do something similar.

          I have been tempted to write back and explain that “I don’t know who you are and I don’t want to know about your family and their issues. Please don’t write to me again.”

          But it hasn’t been worth my time and effort.

    • #3078205

      What about spammers?

      by m_a_r_k ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Spam annoys the hell out of me. Surely spam violoates this law. I wanna throw every spammer in the slammer.

      Is this law a result of the Patriot Act? An outgrowth of the NSA’s eavesdropping? Seems like this goes a bit far. If you post ANYTHING anonymously on the Internet that annoys someone, you can get tossed in the big house?

      What law is this? Is this for real? I get annoyed (but not necessarily abused, threatened or harassed) when people don’t provide verifiable references to what they claim is fact. Mae, I’m gonna have you fined under Title 18 and thrown in jail for not providing a link to where you found this information. You and and the spammers. Don’t worry. Jail time will be not more than two years. You’ll be out of jail and causing trouble again by the time you’re 26. 😀

      • #3078190


        by maecuff ·

        In reply to What about spammers?

        Maybe it’s real. Maybe it’s not. Perhaps I made it up, or did I?

        Okay, I’m annoying myself.

        You know, given the chance, I just might accept the two years in jail, as long as I were really 26 when I got out.

        • #3078187

          Was that post meant to harass me?

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Mark


          I’ve heard about the bad things that happen to good little saintly boys like me when they get thrown in jail. I wouldn’t accept two years in jail even if I was given 72 virgins when I got out. No wait a second, that’s the reward for being a suicide bomber, not an Internet harasser….

        • #3080243

          Now you’ve done it

          by mwatch ·

          In reply to Was that post meant to harass me?

          The NAS is going to be probing the entire membership of TR. You must spell it Sooiside Bahmor to stay off the NAS watch list.

      • #3078918

        Never mind, Mae….

        by m_a_r_k ·

        In reply to What about spammers?

        Here’s a link that you annoyingly neglected to provide. 😀

        • #3078899

          That is

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Never mind, Mae….

          the article I read. I just didn’t feel like finding the link. Thanks, Mark. It’s nice to have someone around to take care of these ‘little’ things for me..

        • #3078890

          You’re welcome

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to That is

          And I’m a “little” less annoyed now. So you can unpack your bags. You won’t be spending any time in San Quentin. 😀

        • #3078849

          Hey, Mae

          by old guy ·

          In reply to That is

          I see your “assistant” is getting a little uppity with you.

        • #3078848

          What is one to do?

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Hey, Mae

          You just can’t get good help these days.

        • #3078846

          Your assistant

          by old guy ·

          In reply to Hey, Mae

          Well, he said he was worth 3 cents in one of the other posts so maybe if you gave him another penny he might do a little more.

        • #3078844


          by old guy ·

          In reply to Hey, Mae

          But of course, if you have him at four cents does that mean he’s not worth a nickle. HaHaHaHa That one kills me…….

        • #3078837

          you are just

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to addendum

          cracking yourself up, aren’t you? 🙂

          I fully expect people to do things for me out of the kindness of their hearts. This is probably why I end up doing things for myself…

        • #3078832

          I’m sorry

          by old guy ·

          In reply to you are just

          🙁 I was just ribbing Ole Mark. He kind of deserved it a little today and I don’t get opportunities like this very often.

          I know Mark will do anything (most anything) for you out of the kindness of his heart and I just can’t say no to ladies. (I don’t know how to make the sad, puppy dog, eyes in text) Anyway, 🙂 🙂

        • #3078823

          Old guy

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to you are just

          What are you apologizing for?? Stop it.

        • #3078814


          by old guy ·

          In reply to you are just

          I was just goofing off. When I apologize I use the word apologize. I use sorry primarily when I’m being facetious or just goofing off.

        • #3078836

          It’s a sign of the times

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to addendum

          and, like what happened to other great civilizations such as the Romans and a fire ant colony that I ruthlessly exterminated in my backyard, a sign of the moral decay of society. The younger generation is always expecting more, more, more and giving less, less, less.

      • #3078412

        Intent vs. actual result

        by Anonymous ·

        In reply to What about spammers?

        Unfortunately, when the words “with intent” are part of a statute, its enforceability(is that a real word?) becomes problematic. It is nearly impossible to prove intent in court. A spammer can argue — with a certain amount of justice — that his intent is not to annoy, but to advertise his product. I also think the lawmakers need to define their terms better; what’s the difference between anoyance, harassment and abuse?
        Lastly, since when have laws really stopped criminals from acting criminally?

    • #3078093

      Annoying is like porn

      by dmambo ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Who decides what’s annoying? When I’m sleeping on the couch and the dog walks up and licks my face, I think that’s annoying, my wife thinks it’s cute. What are the appropriate community standards? Is it like porn* – “I know it when I see it”? I want to be the Arbiter of Annoying.

      * Disclaimer – That is if I ever am cursed to have to look at porn. Someone pure like me just doesn’t do those things.

      • #3078811


        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Annoying is like porn

        that was annoying….. 😀

      • #3078464

        Pop Ups and spam

        by pokeman ·

        In reply to Annoying is like porn

        Plaeaaseee,,,,If you want to arrest the annoying then how about starting with these spammers and people that make all these pop up ads, all this BS they say is legal because they have rights too. Give me a break,,Well I have rights to freedom to be annoying is one,, as long as its clean and I don’t hurt or kill someone,,I guess it goes on to the fable sticks and stones. Instead of wasteing good money for bs go after child porn or something that might make a difference. The system is so twisted these days It makes me almost ashamed to be part.

    • #3077991

      no worries..

      by jaqui ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      on my part. I know I’m annoying but I’m not in the US so it’s laws don’t apply to my posts. ]:)

      • #3078801


        by noyoki ·

        In reply to no worries..

        The UN becomes the controller of the ‘Net and it’s illegal everywhere. 😛

      • #3079556

        are you sure?

        by gregski ·

        In reply to no worries..

        Hmm, “rendering” comes to mind…
        Vancouver is kinda close to the border too.

    • #3079551

      let em jail me…

      by jck ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      I don’t care.

      I’d rather have free meals, free workout facilities, full library, time to work on my MS and PhD, etc…

      and it’d all be out of Max and jd’s pockets…woohoo!!! 😀

      • #3078413


        by gprinsloo ·

        In reply to let em jail me…

        1. Dont forget the free clothing
        2. Certainly free abuse (sexual) in exchange for your electronic abuse.
        3. Your own personal bodyguards 24/7
        4. You would be a TV star (Well at least closed circuit television)
        5. No nagging partners to contend with.
        6. HAVE THE PRESIDENT AND HIS MEN WORK TO FEED YOU not the other way round.

        So Spam away and enjoy your stay.

      • #3078313

        Send you to Ohio!

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to let em jail me…

        They were talking about making the cells more of a “time share”, because prisioners only sleep 6 to 9 hours.

        So they will have sleeping on SHIFTS to handle the over crowding so they don’t have to send prisioners out of state.

        A great idea to stretch dollars, and families of prisioners like it because it means they can stay in-state so visitation is much easier on them. Everybody wins, except for the big guy from Florida! 😀

        • #3080091

          oh hell…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Send you to Ohio!

          Trust me…the likelihood of me going to jail…

          is about the same chance as Bush having a work approval rating above 70% without the capture of Osama happening during the remainder of his presidency.

          Ain’t f***ing likely, bud.

          And besides that…one other thing you guys have to remember.

          Computer crimes don’t go to medium and maximum security prisons.

          I’ll end up at Eglin or something. raking leaves. eating m&ms. :^O

          oh well…like I said…let em take me…I don’t care…it’d be free living.

        • #3079739

          Just don’t…

          by noyoki ·

          In reply to oh hell…

          Drop the soap! :p

    • #3079451

      I prefer banker’s grey pinstripes

      by too old for it ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      … and a conservative rep tie myself. I have a soft spot for one that looks like the National Defense Service ribbon.

    • #3078483

      The Government’s juvenile laws…

      by whistl3r ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      You believe this is sad? Look up a few laws in Arizona or Nebraska, to name a few states, where wearing suspenders is classified as a felony.

    • #3078478

      Holly Shnikies!

      by protiusx ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      I think I am public enemy #1!

      • #3078469

        Not at all

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Holly Shnikies!

        You come in at about number three…

        • #3079971


          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Not at all

          I guess that puts me in good company. Yuk! Yuk!

    • #3078475

      Citation of lew law please

      by waltb2b ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      I would like to examine the statute you are referring to. It would be ##U.S.C. ####
      Simply because I am getting fed up with so many misspellings of viagra clogging my mailbox…..


    • #3078471

      Intent is difficult to prove.

      by firstaborean ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      The law is basically silly, but flamers are kept safe by either identifying themselves or by maintaining that, in a particular case, they were merely replying justly and did not intend to annoy. It is difficult under the law to prove intent.

    • #3078468


      by pokeman ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Three hots and a cot, cable tv and internet access all for free. I got the cuffs,,,

    • #3078440

      However on the serious Side

      by aaron a baker ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Should the person be truly difficult to deal with, or the E-Mails so vile and insulting and/or character assassinating then there should definitely be a recourse.
      We tease and joke all the time, and that’s great, but what if some nut decides to get it into his/her head that she will damage this recipient of these E-Mails?
      Then they start coming, at first, just insults, then the name calling and then eventually just about everything else we can think of. Sooner or later this has to be an annoyance and most certainly an injurious disturbance for the person who receives it.
      It can be quite disturbing, knowing that there is somebody out there who has it in for you this badly that they would resort to harrassenment such as this.
      For this reason, there certainly seems to be some sort of law in place. Only problem is, how do you implement it?
      What are the charges and is the person actually arrested in the same manner that they would be if they were harassing someone in another manner.
      I hope this law goes through, although I don’t think it goes far enough, it’s a start.
      Better than nothing.
      Warmest Regards
      Aaron 🙂

      • #3080268

        On the flip side….

        by kairee ·

        In reply to However on the serious Side

        …it’s generally the unreasonable and the truly contentious and annoying who will be the first to claim damage under this law.

        Perhaps you’re just a site admin following the code of conduct on a site. There is a post that violates the communities standards and is removed or merely just moved to the appropriate board.

        But now the poster is incensed and claims you are harassing them. He/she posts messages about how you are trampling on his 1st amendment rights etc. You make posts where in you try to explain the rules/standards of the community. But now the poster is claiming that your mail annoys him and demands to know who you are. You know you are dealing with a nut-job and are afraid of telling him, so you don’t. Now you are in violation of the law because he’s annoyed by your posts and you won’t tell him who you are.

        In my past, many years ago, I ran a forum on AOL for about 7 years. It was a creative forum. There was this individual who continually posted harassing and insulting emails in response to other member?s creative attempts. These posts weren’t constructive criticism, they were insults (i.e. You’re stupid. You’ll never be any good at writing. You suck. And the like) IT was clear violation of AOL’s policies and the forums posting guidelines. His posts were removed and he was sent an email explaining why.
        Next thing I know I am inundated by email calling me all sorts of names and accusing me of violating his rights. He wanted my name, and wanted to meet me so we could “settle this”. He flew down to VA and went to AOL’s HQ with a dossier of documents (all tirades about me) and demanded to meet Steve Case to discuss it with him.

        Needless to say, I am very glad this person never discovered who I am.

        In another case, over dispute of the “rules” of the forum, (one person wanted to radically change the very nature of the forum and he was very much a minority) when blocked in his efforts, after open discussion on the boards, he started calling me a Nazi and the forum staff my black booted thugs. He also started to claim I was harassing him by not letting him have his way.
        One of the people he confided into online was, unbeknownst to him, a good real life friend of mine (who stayed out of the debate.) He told my friend that his marriage broke up because of me and my refusal to let him “improve” things. (Not the year long online affair he was having with someone else)Would he have rights on this new law to claim real damages? I annoyed him so much by not giving into his nutty demands that his marriage was ruined?

        If this law were in effect then you would say that I would have recourse; that this law would’ve protected me from both these lunatics. But I ask you, how annoying would the litigation have been had I tried to go after them? They annoyed me, I annoyed them. She said. He said. It’s all so High School. (Maybe even grade school)

        Anonymity works both ways.

        Cyberstalking is a real threat but this law is so poorly written that it is begging to be abused.

        • #3080218

          You’ve nailed it!

          by mwatch ·

          In reply to On the flip side….

          The law of unintended consequences.

          Very often the consequences are worse than the problem ever was.

      • #3080159

        To Kairee

        by aaron a baker ·

        In reply to However on the serious Side

        There can be no doubt that these incidents must have been nerve wracking and very disturbing indeed.There are a million ways to be annoyed and just as many people willing to get annoyed at the slightest little nonsensical thing.
        However in your case, this could have evolved into something quite dangerous and perhaps as far as deadly. If this Nut went all the way to VA just to cause problems, you have to wonder how far he would go if they knew who you were.
        Your dilemma makes my point.
        Although I haven’t seen the law, in it’s final print and therefore cannot fully interpret it’s intent or wording, I do feel that we need one. You experiences are exactly the reason as to why laws such as this are needed.
        But it should be a Federal Law, enforceable throughout the States and if it has to go that far, then the consequences must by definition be very Stringent and ramifications very harsh.
        For the most part, most people on the net are considerate and usually go to great lengths, not to annoy or irritate.
        Heck we even have a Net {Parlance} so as not to offend. But there are always those out there who are truly dangerous, offensive and very disturbing. Not to mention Disturbed.
        I’m quite sure that those times could not have been very comfortable for you, a person who was only doing her job.It’s almost the equivalent of harassment and stalking combined. This is why we need these laws, but it has to be strong and effective or it’s no good. It will then be up to the Authorities to decided the seriousness of the situation.
        I must admit, you’ve given me pause for thought, I didn’t think it could go that far. I’m glad for your sake that nothing came of it but it would have been nice if you could have reported this to someone and they bring in the law, who then {In this case} proceed to wait for this “person” and then lay charges that will put him away for a very long time.
        If there is gong to be such a law, let us hope that it covers all the areas and treats it as stalking. When you zero in on someone, even in letter form and won’t let up? That’s mail stalking.
        You’re right in the sense that it’s all so High School, but it must be remembered that it can also be very Dangerous.


    • #3078406

      where is this law

      by wa ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Where is the complete text of this “law”? Who passed it and when?
      Waring Abbott

    • #3078367

      Better if clarified

      by techtacular ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      It would have been nice if you would have verified the information for specifics of who it applies to. Does “Whoever” really mean whoever, or does it mean specifically spammers and the like who are trying to hide their identity for such purposes. We could maybe then have avoided these ridiculous postings that followed in this string. This was probably the least educational so called “informative” posting I have seen in a while. Thanks for annoyingly allowing others to annoy again and again.
      Jared H

      • #3080109


        by maecuff ·

        In reply to Better if clarified

        It has never been my intention to ‘educate’ anyone. As far as ‘informative’ goes, well, I really didn’t feel like posting any additional information. You are welcome to find it on your own..

    • #3078364

      Is in the wording ….

      by cannadayco ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Lawyers will [and everyone else should] read this more carefully. The “relevant language” is “with intent to”. Even though an Internet communication may annoy, etc. the Recipient, the law states the SENDER must have the “intent” to annoy,etc.

      Spam annoys me, but the Spammers are sending it with the intent to sell me something, not [yeah right] to annoy me.

      Again, a law with very limited teeth.

    • #3078355

      Show me the money…

      by milfordwillie ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      What is the law, where is this written down and what web site is it posted on? No offense, but if you are placing a quote of law like this on a public forum, you need to back it up with more than an unsubstantiated quote. Show us and we can discuss from there.

      • #3080093

        No offense taken

        by maecuff ·

        In reply to Show me the money…

        But I’m not quite sure why I ‘need’ to do anything.

        As far as discussion goes, there has been plenty, along with two other threads that have been opened on the same subject.

        • #3077552

          Need? No…Should? Yes.

          by milfordwillie ·

          In reply to No offense taken

          I would really like to this law in the book, where it is and who passed it. I have heard reference to it on many occasions but have never seen a text on it. I believe it to be more urban myth than truth.

          Laws that have to do with identifying yourself before you insult someone have always sounded a little “Big Brother” to me. I would really like someone who quotes such a law to be able to provide copy of the thing, or not comment on it at all. Just because someone else brings it up before you doesn’t mean it is true and legitimate and I think that’s what carries it on.

          So, you are right: Do you have to provide proof? No… Should you? Yes.

        • #3077536

          As long as we’re talking about ‘shoulds’

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Need? No…Should? Yes.

          Had you asked me nicely to provide the link, I would have. Instead of a request, you made a demand. The tone of your post seemed to me to suggest that I shouldn’t post anything unless I play by your rules. I don’t respond well to that type of overbearing behavior.

          Find it yourself. Or continue believing it’s an urban legend. Either way makes absolutely no difference to me.

    • #3080322

      Define Annoy

      by rbhall9 ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      How do you define annoy? I not worried about jumpsuits because I am willing to confront someone FACE-TO-FACE. If you want to make something illegal, let’s have a disclosure of the individual who write the rules and regulation for debt in this country.

    • #3080302


      by asimmons13 ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      The key to this legislation lies in the first few lines of the limits. You MUST GIVE YOUR IDENTITY! Then you are free to say what you wish under the First Amendment. This law could most likely be sucessfully challenged, on this basis, even without the identity restriction.

    • #3080279

      [This space intentionally left blank]

      by papawhiskey ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      That’s about all I can say without annoying someone.

      • #3080265

        Your lack of commentary on this topic….

        by kairee ·

        In reply to [This space intentionally left blank]

        …I find highly annoying!


        Just kidding. 😀

        Hey! Do smiley faces in the post mitigate the annoyingness or add to it?

        Does the law address that?

    • #3080231

      Citation and intent

      by attackcomputerwhiz ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      This is the actual bill that tied to the original DOJ resolution:

      This is the specific section in HR 2876 causing all the ruckus…

      The intent was to extend the rules about a DV criminal calling his/her victim out from just using the phone to include using a computer to harass said victim. In other words, if you have a TOR against your ex, he or she was not allowed to call you and harass or threaten you. The law is supposedly only supposed to cover incidents where that same ex uses the computer to threaten you via email, blog postings, forums, etc. (…wish that part was around when my ex was harassing me on another forum).

      Unfortunately, the law is vague and doesn’t spell it out clearly that it only pertains to domestic violence cases. Without that disclaimer, the law is ripe for abuse in all the situations outlined above. It is also incredibly open for abuse by certain government personalities who could use it to squelch criticism of that person’s policies. Just think-post something critical of Bush, Cheney, Rove or whoever and your butt could end up in jail.

      The catch-22 is that, if you post anonymously, you are potentially a criminal. If you give your real name, you are also potentially a criminal because they can go after you for slander and defamation.

      But, as has been pointed out even by the lawmakers themselves, they don’t read what they vote on. Their aides and interns take the full text of bills and condense them down to a few paragraphs’ summary. That is what they rely on to make their decisions. Add to that the nasty practice of tying one bill to another to force approval of both and you end up with junk law like this. (How do you think the NSPS got passed? It was tied to a must-pass veterans’ benefits reform bill.)

      If I ever leave IT, I plan to finish law school. 🙂

    • #3080222

      All LAWS and NO TEETH

      by wpee ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      It is nice to have laws …

      It has been a similar LAW for years that a FAX transmission must have a SENDERS PHONE NUMBER.

      And for years we have received FAX PAGES without any SENDER ID at all.

      EXAMPLE “Call this 800# and you will be removed from this broadcast list”.
      This ONLY confirms to the SENDER that a real person has read the unsolicided JUNK FAX.
      And this usually increases the volumn of junk
      The local PHONE COMPANY wants to charge us $5 for each number we request, and it is still up to us to do anything about the “unlawfully sent FAX”.
      The phone company has become useless.

    • #3080219

      Sa Tagalog

      by daniboi_phil ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Pag ininis ka e di inisin mo din…. In english if someone annoyed you do the same!

    • #3080202

      What if I don’t tell you . . .

      by realme ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      I know there are ways to find this information out, but what if I don’t tell you who I am. I suppose I would have to be REALLY annoying to make it worth your while to find out who I am so you can get me prosecuted. If I could collect from every person that ever annoyed me, I could retire today. And, on the flip side, if every person I annoyed could collect from me, I’d be in the poor house (I’m one of those loud, aggressive types that no one likes most of the time).

    • #3080175


      by mph@ew ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      This entire thread is annoying; reading it is a total waste of time. Unfortunately, I am finding more and more that most topical threads on TR are a waste of time to read, because most of the posters cannot stick to the subject matter. They are more concerned with bashing each other’s spelling and grammar, than actually having an adult discussion.

      I think I will try to find a more professional group to waste my time with.

    • #3080165

      Government Is Going To Get Sued

      by ron burgundy ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      This whole idea of someone having to disclose identity when posting is about as stupid as an olympic event for paint huffing.

      Take for example if I post to a thread that annoys someone unintentionally to the point of rage…they find my address and phone number because now instead of being able to safely post an opinion anonymously, they can find me doing a people search on Yahoo….that person shows up to my door and blows me away because they didn’t like what I posted….

      Don’t say it can’t happen because in this day and age anything is possible.

      A few times of that happening and I bet the government changes its tune.

    • #3080120

      uh oh..

      by it cowgirl ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      I’m annoying whether I am online or not…

    • #3080105

      you can write a wrong but is the wrong right?

      by jackintheback ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      from a left winger in right field. some words huh. I wish my thoughts were things and my things weren’t broken. is a conversation a quest to avoid having to do chores or a quest knowledge . I gave up on laws a long time ago becaus you cant right a wrong, only describe compensation. besides I’d rather be punched in the face than give a dollar to someone avoiding chores.
      p.s. I am a once beautiful person that has become ugly with time

    • #3080101

      jesus was a spammer cried the christian

      by jackintheback ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      nuff said

    • #3080085

      Gaming too?

      by gkeller47 ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Does this include online gameing? lol

      • #3080078

        Good Grief …IF they start passing laws covering online gaming…

        by mickster269 ·

        In reply to Gaming too?

        Will you be charged with Assault and Battery if you beat up another (in-game) charecter?

        What happens if you kill thier on-line charecter?

    • #3080033


      by pwor ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      I can see how this law might be used in the context of domestic violence. Needs to be accurately defined though, and less open to different interpretations to be really meaningful especially if its going to apply to everyone in general.

      “Annoy” is too weak and malleable – convenient for lawyers and also witch hunts.

    • #3080017

      Clearly a violation of freedom of speach.

      by whistl3r ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      As subject states.

      • #3079968

        No it is NOT a “clear violation”

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Clearly a violation of freedom of speach.

        there is NOTHING in your right to free speech that also guarantees you ANY “right” to remain anonymous WHILE you are exersising this free speech.

        The law just says you have to identify yourself, not that you can’t still be your annoying self. 😀

        So much for a “clear violation”.

        Amazing what people THINK their “rights” are.

        • #3079965

          Reply To: Better be careful…

          by whistl3r ·

          In reply to No it is NOT a “clear violation”

          Wrong. Every individual has the “Right” to stay anonymous, no matter what they do or say. It’s their right to privacy.

          Amazing how intelligent some people think they are. Much more of an annoyance to the general public.

        • #3079901

          tell you what

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Reply To: Better be careful…

          go out and find and link to this “right”.

          I will try to do the same.

          Otherwise it is just pissing in the wind with nothing but opinions, and two intelligent individuals would never want to be reduced to that, now would they?

        • #3077574

          Society?s illusions

          by whistl3r ·

          In reply to tell you what

          “Otherwise it is just pissing in the wind with nothing but opinions”

          Do you consider yourself a bureaucratic hot head? Unfortunately, in this case it justifies the accusation.

          EVERY individual, regardless of nationality, color or creed, has the RIGHT to anonymity, privacy and self justification. No law can govern such freedoms… regardless of what bureaucratic official states or what law defines it.

          These attributes are your given right from birth, but society strips that away and enslaves you until your death.

          Moreover, you may want to read the Constitution of the United States. Though it seems in this era, the bureaucratic mind believes they have the right to manipulate and tear down the fabric of which this country was founded on.

          Maybe next time I?ll consider using spell check, but I?d rather be an annoyance and right.

          My favorite quote, “Laws are an illusion of writings, nothing more, unless you place fear in the mind, that same fear enslaves you for life!” -by me (anonymously your’s)

    • #3079962

      does it apply to political spam

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      If so we can get rid of a lot of the politicians with

      Importantly, does this law apply to people who are outside the USA, and how do they (the law writers) justify applying a law to people who 1/. have no need to know or understand USA laws, and 2/. probably have no idea that the recipient is in the USA?

      And does the law apply to USA citizens who are annoying people outside the USA?

      I am in Australia and have no need to know or understand USA laws, nor do I have any idea of where the people I am communicating with are physically located unless they take the trouble to tell me. Thus in a chat room or general Internet communication I do not know where the recipient is, and thus can not be held responsible for violating any local law than I am not aware of.

      • #3077546

        hmm, good point about politicians…

        by erich1010 ·

        In reply to does it apply to political spam

        Does this mean that when a reporter relays something annoying that some polician “leaked”, he now has to come clean to authorship? Carl Rove’s in trouble then.

      • #3097553

        Well, no.

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to does it apply to political spam

        Since politicians are anything but anonymous 🙂

    • #3079809

      Intentionally written to be voided in court

      by bschaettle ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Sometimes wording like this is left in a bill so that it will inevitably be found to be ambiguous, vague, overly broad, or unconstitutional by the courts. The bill’s sponsors are happy because it gets passed; the opponents are happy because it’s unenforceable.

    • #3077586

      What a joke!

      by dmwoodcock ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      And what will we have a “Web Restraining Order” You can’t go with 100 Octet’s of the other person’s IP address…..When is the Federal Gov’t or any Gov’t going to realize that they can’t control the Internet? Let the Feds play with their little toy’s and do their little word searches. It is hilarious when you see a demo and these folk’s get all excited that they can scan a database and extract data….Between Al Gore that created the Internet and Feds that think they need to police it we will be fine.

      • #3077506


        by mark.booker ·

        In reply to What a joke!

        The problem isn’t the lamers in congress its the people at home calling their senators saying “I had my feelings hurt on the internet, and you need to do something about it, or I wont vote for you in 2006.”

        Disclaimer: If you found this post annoying in any way shape or form remember it is merely an opinion from its author and you can feel free to not read it at anytime you like! 😉

    • #3097511

      Re-Elect Nobody!

      by esalkin ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Another fine example of why we need term limits in Congress.

      Things that jump out at me (but I am not a lawyer):
      * I think this might be hard to prove depending on how a court interprets the phrase “with intent.”
      * It could be argued that giving a registered alias is “disclosing his identity.”
      * “his … person” ??? This law only applies to men?
      * Where in the first amendment does it say I must identify myself when I express my opinion?

      NOTICE: This post is NOT intended “to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person.” 🙂

    • #3097051

      Maybe, but…

      by fanjet9 ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Use anonymous servers via a web cafe for that extra-special message.

      “Annoy” is a subjective state. Just getting an email is annoying. That one can never be proven. Abuse, threats and harrassment, on the other hand, are certainly more evident…

    • #3099561

      Interesting, no factual information of law.

      by whistl3r ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      I find this completely interesting, yet still, throughout my search, insufficient?, I have yet to dig up any “Official” documentation regarding this new law.

      The reporter from Cnet, at this point, never provided factual evidence. Besides, taking this so-called “new law” out of context. would also have been on top of this topic.

    • #3258657

      Gee I better stop threatening SPAMMERS

      by alisak20009 ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      LOL!!! Sounds like if I am going to keep sending my e-mail replies to SPAMMERS telling them I am coming to murder them I better sign my name to it! LOL!!!

    • #3258513

      In the right context, I could claim I thought it was mandated!

      by mgp2 ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Looks simple enough, right? If you go to harass, don’t forget to disclose.

      High school deb #1: OMG, have you seen harass lately? It’s getting so big, I heard she gets 2 rides to school each day.

      High school deb #2: You better remember that new law. If you’re gonna harass, you need to dis close.

      Deb #1: That’s so like an easy one. Tell me she did not wear those shoes with that dress?

      #2: OMG, finally…a law ment for people like us. That must be where the word government comes from, huh? 😉


    • #3257447

      I am missing something

      by lori ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      If you don?t know who they are, how do you know who to take legal action against?

    • #3107381


      by wizardb9 ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Since I’m a Canadian once again the US can take it’s anti mp3 down loading no DVD copying anti privicy laws and the DRM and shove this up there with them.The rest of you have an awesome day.
      PS Land of the Free (Yeah Right)

    • #3109895


      by dr_zinj ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      Most people attempt to communicate with their government with the intent to inform or persuade. It’s unfortunate that the only ways that seem to get their attention is to either ‘attack’ them, or wave insane amounts of money at them. Since I don’t have any money, the only other alternative is to be annoying enough that they notice and appease me; but not so annoying that they are emotionally placed in fear of their lives. For that purpose, I want them to know EXACTLY who I am.

      Now if I have a problem with an employer that isn’t amenable to resolution within the workplace; the only alternatives are to leave (which may be severely detrimental) or to be annoying enough on the outside to bring pressure to change. This tactic will not work if the employer knows who you are (since most if not all of use work ‘at will’. You’ll be let go, putting you in the same detrimental situation. Similar situations exist when things you need are provided only by local monopolies that you can’t afford to personally antogonize.

    • #3109013

      Your post is very annoying

      by gardoglee ·

      In reply to Better be careful…

      I really object to your stereotypical assumption that orange is not a flattering color. I wear orange almost every day, and I am sick and tired of people criticizing my taste in clothes.

      For that matter, I also object to how you have objectified me by your comment about ‘flattering’. You may think it is OK to judge people only on their physical appearance, but many people find that sort of elitist (and probably sexist) attitude very annoying.

      And while I’m at it, it just burns me that you think everyone who posts out here is as annoying as you are. As if! You may have to worry about going to jail, but that certainly doesn’t mean the rest of us do.

      Boy, what nerve! I hope the police, or the FBI, or whoever it is who reads all these posts for annoying language gets over to your house right away! That’ll show you to annoy ME!

      • #3108879

        this has to be

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Your post is very annoying

        an attempt at humor?

        Maybe next time funny guy! ;\

        • #3108617

          Humor, like annoyance and porn…

          by gardoglee ·

          In reply to this has to be

          …you can fill in the rest, right?

Viewing 46 reply threads