holy fucking e-idiocy, batman

[rivendellrose]

Guess what the United States' fine president has masterminded this time!

A new law making "posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity" illegal and punishable by fines and up to 2 years imprisonment.

No, I'm not joking. And no, it's not just against spammers (or, for that matter, trolls): "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."

So. As of this very minute - this very LJ entry - I'm risking imprisonment. Because, you know, somebody might be annoyed with my tone in regards to our president. And my real name, for reasons of my own personal privacy, is not attached to this journal.

But just remember, folks - this is America. Land of the free. Where no one could ever possibly regulate free speech or imprison people for speaking their minds.

Comments

[theladyfeylene.livejournal.com]

See, this is actually a law I can get behind, with all the net harrassment and stalking and threats out there that do pose a serious threat. And the fact that they can't be dealt with because, well, the victim doesn't know who to press the charges against. There's a big difference between something that can be considered annoying/threatening/abusive/whatever and something sent with the intent to be one of those things. And I, personally, do think it's time something - even something as little as this - is done to prevent that kind of thing.

[theladyfeylene.livejournal.com]

Adding because I failed to mention it originally: I do think the law could be worded better, but I do agree with the principle and idea of it. And really, even with the wording, most judges are pretty shrewd and can determine what's sent with actual intent of harm and what's just someone being an ass.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

*Nods* In principal it's good, I'll totally agree with that. It's just this administration, it's got me paranoid. I see anything that broadens their sphere of influence, and I panic. Not an intelligent reaction, but hard to avoid, these days.

[theladyfeylene.livejournal.com]

But you do have to remember that it's not like these cases are going to go to the Supreme Court. They're going to be going to small claims court for the most part, with one judge and no jury. So it's not like Bush's hand picked Supreme Court will be the ones calling the shots.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Hehehehe - very good point. And I admit that, although my little experience during the summer didn't exactly instill me with the most awesome trust in our legal system (me and eleven other people deciding the near future of a guy's life? now that's scary...), it did instill a respect for the balance of it all, at the local level. It's weird and inconvenient and slower than snail-snot, but it's kind of nice to have a real-world knowledge of how it works, nonetheless.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I see where you're coming from, but the issue is that, from what I get from the literal reading of the language, any blog/newsletter post/community entry, etc. wherein the post-er doesn't actually attach their legal name and which offends/annoys/upsets someone is now illegal. Do you have any idea the lengths the government - specifically this insane administration - could take this to, if they so choose? I realize it's a bit alarmist of me, but I look at this and I think "Homeland Security has free reign over the internet, now."

This thing is just way too broad and way too open to interpretation and abuse. And intent is a damned hard thing to prove in a court of law. For instance - penis-enlargement spam emails. Their 'intention' is to inform us about a product, from the point of view of the senders. Now, you and I consider them annoying (or amusing, as the case may be).

I know a lot of annoying shit comes across the internet, and I know the kind of crazy-ass harassment you've gotten from time to time. But I, personally, would rather the government not start a precedent of sticking its nose where, in my opinion, it most definitely does not belong. This thing has implications that very seriously frighten me.

[narsilion.livejournal.com]

I can see where you would be nervous, given who is in the White House right now. If it weren't for that particular, it wouldn't bother me, but I must admit, it does. W just gets away with too Damn much. And thinks it's his God given right to do so since he is " King" of the USA, and all that he can see.

[theladyfeylene.livejournal.com]

Well, like I said in my edit, sure someone could try to abuse it but they have to get a judge to side with them. That's the big thing. And intent is a lot easier to prove in court than you'd think, especially in cases of harrassment - whether it be online or off. It's not the people who made the law that's going to be handling these cases, it's the every day judges that will be dealing with it.

You can make that argument for pretty much every law. It isn't like the government is going to be trolling the internet looking for inflammatory posts and attempting to persecute people. And if someone is being harrassed or threatened, they now have actual cause to make a report and have an IP address checked and police are required to check it out, rather than just brushing it off as they tend to do. Case and point - a college student wrote a bunch of 'stories' wherein he raped and murdered a female student at his college and emailed them to her without his name or anything. She reported it to the police and the police brushed her off. Guy kept sending her these emails, and eventually started stalking her IRL. It was only then that the police actually did anything. Now with this law in place, if the same thing happened again, the situation would be looked into ASAP.

And as for the idiots who abuse it - people abuse the legal system all the time, no matter what the law. The internet is so huge and massive and the anonymity is dangerous. I have enough trust in the majority of our court systems to be able to throw out the cases that are pointless and stupid, the same way they do every other pointless accusation that comes before them.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

You're right - the court system really is the key. For the most part, they're still trustworthy. (Watch me worry about the aging liberals, now, and fuss everytime one of them gets so much as a sniffle... but I digress.)

It is good that they'll have the legal imperative to look into this kind of stuff, now, and to actually act on it rather than waiting for someone to do something in the real world before they can even consider doing anything. I'm very happy about that. As I said in my last comment, it's really just my paranoia about anything that grants this current administration more power kicking in, and fueling a neurotic fear of what they might be able to twist through with this sort of thing. It's insane. Gut reactions, however, are usually what make it onto my LJ. One of these days I'll learn to breathe before posting... hopefully. ;)

[theladyfeylene.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's the courts that it comes down to now. And they're pretty good about this sort of thing.

I can understand a gut reaction. On first instinct, there is that 'oh crap, Big Brother is watching' sort of thing. Our Commander in Chief isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the box, but luckily Bush doesn't have control over every aspect of the country, and won't be in power long enough to do so. ;)

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

That's the best thing our founding fathers ever came up with, honestly - the four-year electoral stint. You can fuck things up, sure, but you can't do nearly as much lasting damage as a person could in a system of monarchy or whatever other system.

Interestingly, I read a reference not long ago to the fact that Iceland's early republic that ended in the 13th century actually has so far outlived all known modern republics. Which is weird, since on the historical scale 900-something to 12-something really seems like a short period of time, whereas we think of 1776 to today as being a long time. Just kind of makes you consider how telescoped history has become in the last few centuries, I guess. Things change much more quickly, now, than they ever seem to have done in the past - but I wonder if that's just because we aren't living through every bit of it, from back then, just reading about it?

[theladyfeylene.livejournal.com]

Yeah, pretty much. I may not like Bush, but he'll gone soon enough and he can't do anything that can't be undone.

Yeah, it definitely puts things into perspective. Things do change quickly, and will continue to do so. Which is both scary and awesome, I think. It may be because a) we live through it and b) with the communications and other technology we have now, things can change more quickly.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Not really, I suppose, no. Except making a mess of our foreign relations and environmental policies, which he's already done.

It really does. I think the speed of technological advancement over the last two hundred years really has a lot to do with it - it's been growing pretty much exponentially since the mid-1800s or so, which makes everything else change apace with it, I guess. I sometimes feel like we're speeding toward a crash, but then I remind myself that people have been predicting an imminent end to The World As We Know It for something on the order of two millenia. That's a lot of prior experience saying "nope, not this time, either."

[theladyfeylene.livejournal.com]

Which a good president (hopefully) can repair. It's not the first time a president has fucked up foriegn relations.

The technology race has been insane. And I don't see that stopping anytime soon. Another one of those scary-but-awesome things. I figure we've got a ways to go before an actual crash. But it is a kind of careening-crazy sensation sometimes.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And gods know it probably won't be the last...

It's crazy. I mean, when you think about the technological advances just over the course of the last twenty years, it just boggles the mind. When we were born, VCRs were a new thing, and the internet was pretty much just a pipe dream. Totally mind-boggling.

The only potential I'm really worried about is December... hmm, I think it's 23, 2012. Supposed to be a gigantic paradigm shift/end of the world as we know it, by the Mayan calendar. That's a bit freaky, to my mind. But I figure I'll just throw a great big "End of the World" party, complete with music from the whole last two millenia, and a themed "dress from your favorite period of history" costume thing. It'll be fun, and if the world explodes or something totally wacky, at least we'll have enjoyed our last hours in style. ;)

[theladyfeylene.livejournal.com]

God yes.

I know, it's amazing the advancements that have been made just the past twenty years.

Eh, I can't find myself worried about any prediction by any calender, really. So many of them have predicted the Ed of the World so many times now, and it hasn't happened yet. But I'm such a fatalist, anyway....

[theladyfeylene.livejournal.com]

Er, End of the world. Not Ed of the world. (This comment edit would be so much better if I had an appropriate Ed icon. Just pretend I do.)

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

What I should have said is that I'm more scared of that than I ever could be of some kind of Y2K or whatever else they eventually come up with. The Mayans have a bit more backing to them, I think, than a bunch of wackos working backward through Genesis.

I was kind of worried about it when I was in highschool, but by now I'm just kind of amused. And think it'd be a terribly cool excuse for a party.

And dude, the Ed of the world would definitely be scary. I'm not sure what that would entail, but it'd probably be very very angsty.

[theladyfeylene.livejournal.com]

Ah, yeah. Y2K didn't bother me much. It was the only New Year's I actually went out for, went into Boston for First Night with my friend and stayed out all night. It was pretty cool.

The Ed of the world gets categorized under Scary-But-Awesome as well. Because angsty as Ed is, he rocks totally. :D

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I'm trying really hard to remember what I did for Y2K, but not much is coming to mind. Typical of my highschool experiences, really. I'm pretty sure that was the year we spent a large part of the time playing a sort of murder mystery game at a friend of mine's house? That sounds right...

Yeha, no kidding. Ah, Ed. XD

[zinjadu.livejournal.com]

Well... not really. If you look at the important words "with the intent." Those words make a huge difference. While someone might be annoyed at your post, it was no way your intent to piss someone off. You were merely venting your own dissatisfaction, and any self-respecting judge would throw out the person who tried to prosecute you. It's gotta pass the "laugh test" essentially.

Its like the difference between the degrees of murder. There's Murder 1, with the intent to kill and Manslaughter, or accidental death. The laws there, and in this case differentiate between a person's intent and what has actually happened. And like Fey said, this could be a good way to stop internet harassment, which would be nice as it's just a new form of stalking and possibly just as or more dangerous.

And further, speech that is abusive, threatening or harassing are not always protected by a person's right to free speech. There's precedent establishing that some forms of speech are not to be tolerated in a society we all have to live in together.

Granted, like any law it could get twisted around, but I have faith in the legal system in general to do the right thing at the end of the day.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

*Nods* Intent is important, yeah. But how are they going to prove that in a case like this? I'm just boggled. I can understand the desire to crack down on harassing emails, posts, whatever - although I can't figure out how they'd actually enforce this law in those cases - but this seems to set a precedent that sits ill with me.

Paranoia is a fabulous thing, I know. I just don't trust anything this government does, right now, particularly when it edges near the "you're saying bad things so we have the right to imprison you" kind of territory.

[zinjadu.livejournal.com]

Well, its kind of easy. When someone gets the internet equivalent of magazine-cut out letters (you know, like those old time ransom notes?), I'd say that's intent to harass. But when you post something in a public forum and are bringing up an issue for public debate, that's not harassment, though someone might get angry with you. The American legal system has a wonderful thing that goes something like: "At some point, you just have to shut up and deal, bitch," though in prettier legalese.

As for the precedent that makes you oogy, what exactly is it? There are lots of them? The one that deals with intent or the restirction on free speech concerning harmful/harassing speech?

You are paranoid, dude. The government is so not out to get you. Frankly, its got bigger fish to fry than a kid getting a BA at the UW. This is intended for stalker-type behavior, I'd say. And to use an old example, you can get fined/imprisoned for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, because it endangers the lives of the people in the theater because of the false panic that would ensue. The trick with free speech is to realize that it isn't completely free, just mostly free. And ones who get punished for forms of speech that aren't protected are generally right bastards and more than deserve a fine or something.

The point of this law, like most laws, is not to harm or penalize the people who are just trying to go about their lives peacefully; its meant to deter and punish those who would breech a code of conduct that we already undertand to be a given, like don't kill or don't stalk someone via the internet.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Oh, hell no - I don't mean me. I'm quiet and relatively inoffensive. It's just a climate thing. Much as I know the intentions are good, I also know that (from my perspective) Bush and his ilk have intentions that definitely fall on the side of bad, and I dislike anything that gives them another potential stick to wave around.

It's the same way I got nervous when I read the note in Charlie's luggage - I don't like the idea of the government having the right to do that sort of thing, because there's always the potential for abuse... and in this case I worry that the people with that potential are sitting awfully high up in the power structure.

As I said, I've got absolutely nothing against that. Same as I've got nothing against keeping people from carrying weapons on planes. I just get iffy about the means to the end. It sets a bad feeling in my stomach, but, like anything, it's just something you have to swallow and deal with.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

...by "you" in that last sentence, I mean "me," of course.

[zinjadu.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know, but this too shall pass, right? This country has weathered a lot of crazy shit, and it'd be almost silly to give up on it now.

Really the TSA thing doesn't bother me, mainly cause whatever I pack isn't anything I'm afraid of other people seeing. And its actually less a security measure and more a peace of mind measure. A lot of people feel safer for it. *shrugs*

*looks down at your other comment* I figured. ^_^

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

It must be because I haven't traveled since 9/11, I guess - I just get all oogy about somebody going through my luggage. And the lock thing really kind of pissed me off - my suitcase has a combination on it. So now I have to leave it unlocked so someone can go through my stuff, when I travel. Thrilling. *Sighs*

Yes, yes - that's what I meant when I said that it's just one of those "swallow it and cope" kind of situations. It's just weird.

[zinjadu.livejournal.com]

<---- loves this stuff.

Dude, this a huge part of philosophy of law. How far is the law allowed to go in terms of safety/peace of mind? Honestly, I don't have a clue where to start. There are so many caveats (and I win for using that word in actual conversation) that it almost turns into a case-by-case basis when we want solid rules. *happy wiggle* =D I love the uncertainty of it all. Means there's room for debate! /off topic

Anyway, I can understand why you don't like it. It doesn't sit perfectly square with me, either. *patpat* Just don't travel by plane. Road trip!

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I can tell. ;)

Hey, all the better if you enjoy it - it gives me a headache, sometimes, just trying to piece together all the bits and wherefores, getting twisted around in opposite directions as I try to work things out. I have my initial reactions, and then get tied up in shades of grey from there on out.

Which is a pity, really, since I quite enjoy planes. Good thing I also enjoy trains, boats, and road trips (so long as other people are driving). Pretty much any mode of travel is okay by me! *g*

[ellid.livejournal.com]

Good news: trolls are now outlawed.

Bad news: the Internet is just about to be outlawed.

Conclusion: Bush looks very, very tired right now.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I'm not the only one whose immediate reaction was something on the order of "so... practically the whole premise of the internet is now on shaky ground?" It does definitely make one think...

[lokapala.livejournal.com]

Ah, what a familiar sentiment. A very mild form of a familiar sentiment. Usually, when we hear about new 'ideas' hatched by our government, the swearing is followed by the age-old question 'Okay, and who is stealing what under protection of That thingy?'
And, by the way, Russia is also the Land of the free. Or so they tell. Free from laws, for one thing, because no one respects them - and because with these laws it would have been impossible to survive while respecting them around here.
See? You're lucky =) The social system is not That relative in the US. You don't need to know quantum mechanics (and the right people) to understand it.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Governments do all like to think themselves the holiest and best, don't they? Silly things.

Regardless of bitching, I know it's comparatively pretty good here - it's just the patriotic notion that we've got it all figured out perfectly that makes me twitch. I can't stand all the self-aggrandizing patting ourselves on the back that many of my countryfolk seem to do. Ah well. We all do it, I suppose, one way or another.

And good thing about the quantum mechanics. I love layman's science, but beyond that..... ;)

[lokapala.livejournal.com]

They would be silly if they weren't so dangerous, alas.

Oh, well, I'm pretty sure there must be one or two countries in this world where no one has anything to bitch about when it comes to governments and overly patriotic countryfolk. Andorra, perhaps?

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Pretty much, yup. Bush would be hilarious if only he weren't in charge of our country, for instance.

Probably so, probably so - sadly (and typical of an American...) I don't think my knowledge of geography and world governments is good enough to pinpoint any. I'd guess something small and generally uninvolved in world politics, in any case.