Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Better be careful...

0 helpful
133 replies

by maecuff

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

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..

133 replies

by faradhi

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."

by dmambo

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. ;)

by maecuff

That's a nifty little business idea you have..and you're just the man for it..

by faradhi

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. :)

by dr dij

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!

by maecuff

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

by bfilmfan

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!

by tonythetiger

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.

by jdclyde

"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?

by tonythetiger

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?

by jdclyde

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. :D

by kaceyr

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."

by psifiscout

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.

by dr dij

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.

by gprinsloo

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.

by kairee

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.

by m_a_r_k

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. :D

by maecuff

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.

by m_a_r_k

:D

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....

by maecuff

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..

by Former member

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?

by dmambo

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.

by maecuff

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.

by gprinsloo

In your defense maecuff.

My
Antagonism
Towards
Humans
Enhanced by
Male
Antics
Towards woman
In general
Considering men
Superior

And thats from a male Chauvinist. Hehehehe.

by dmambo

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.

by pokeman

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.

by jaqui

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. ]:)

by m_a_r_k

And I'm a "little" less annoyed now. So you can unpack your bags. You won't be spending any time in San Quentin. :D

by old guy

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.

by old guy

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

by maecuff

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...

by m_a_r_k

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.

by old guy

:-( 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, :) :)

by old guy

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.

by jck

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!!! :D

by gprinsloo

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.

by jdclyde

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! :D

by jck

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.

by too old for it

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

by whistl3r

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.

by waltb2b

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.....

Thanks,
Walt

by firstaborean

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.

by pokeman

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

by aaron a baker

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 :)

by kairee

...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.

by mwatch

The law of unintended consequences.

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

by aaron a baker

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.

Regards
Aaron

by gprinsloo

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.

by wa

Where is the complete text of this "law"? Who passed it and when?
thanks,
Waring Abbott

by techtacular

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

by maecuff

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..

by cannadayco

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.

by milfordwillie

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.

by maecuff

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.

by nacromancer

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.

by al

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.

by jaredh

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!

by daralynx

"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.

by raintree

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.

by rbhall9

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.

by asimmons13

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.

by kairee

...I find highly annoying!

**********

Just kidding. :D

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

Does the law address that?

by mwatch

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.

by attackcomputerwhiz

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

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2876:

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

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109zy44Fj:e52544:

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. :)

by wpee

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.

by realme

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).

by Member 19753669

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.

by ron burgundy

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.

by jackintheback

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

by mickster269

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?

by pwor

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.