It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: "Annoying" Someone is Now A Federal Crime

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 12:45 PM
President Bush signed legistlation last week that would make it a federal crime to "annoy" someone via the internet without revealing your true identity.
Got a snarky email the other day, complaining about my Kickback Mountain post. It was your basic "this is your job? " jab.

So I wrote back to her, stupid me, only the email bounced. She'd made up the address. And there was no way to get even.

I wasn't paying attention.

It's quite possible she broke the law, a brand new law.

On Thursday, President Bush signed into the books a prohibition on sending annoying Web messages or emails without disclosing your identity.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I imagine you're wondering what this has to do with ATS.

Well, it's simple. This law does apply to the average layman, but it also applies to the government. Any government for that matter.

So, if you "annoy" the government, they can charge you with a federal crime, and we all know that what is annoying to one person may not be annoying to another. So, the definition of "annoy" would be left up to the judge and/or jury involved in the case.

Oh, and I guess by posting this and not revealing my true identity I am breaking the law.

Hopefully I haven't "annoyed" anyone.

Related News Links:

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:06 PM
i'm voting yes on this one....good find!

this law potentially emperils every single member of ats. in our current society of frivolous lawsuits, this legislation assures that if one person gets their panties in a wad over the comments of another, there is a legal basis for a lawsuit, and further action afterwards by the federal authorities. now, of course, federal officials are going to tell you that it would never be used in this manner, but do you really trust our current judicial system to make the distinction between genuinely dangerous acts of stalking on the net, and someone's personal opinions about how the government is run? i certainly dont.

as much as i vehemtly disagree with the bush-bashers, bible-bashers, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists on this site, they have every right to voice their opinions. this bill is saying that they dont, unless they add their real world name to the post. this is unconstitutional to the extreme. forget the fact that the US government is attempting to regulate how people of other nations use the net.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by snafu7700]

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:07 PM
Oh, man, I'm in big trouble, because I am one annoying person! And I wasn't named "Benevolent Heretic"... at birth.

Would this include those annoying email messages I get from people every day hoping to help me add inches and firmness to a sexual organ that I don't even have?

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:18 PM
Perhaps the only thing left for us is to have our names changed. I would love to be known as 'masqua', as indicated on my drivers licence, passport, etc.

Let us go down to those government offices involved and demand these changes as quickly as possible. No more middle or last names...just a 'net name' which no-one else is allowed to use.

I can see it already...billions of individual nics ranging from AarthinVadEr to Xcav8tor.

NWO with a nic-twist!!!

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:19 PM
This legislation is a backdoor designed to silence critics on the Net. And one of the many conspiracies so much in our face we just don't see them any more.

Check out this Support Thread

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:32 PM
Does this trump the 5th ammendment?

The right to avoid self-incrimination would seem to cover aliases.

I don't know who's writing these crappy laws, I don't know who's passing them, I just know I'm not about to obey them. It's been fun guys and gals, but it appears I better be getting ready for an unconstitutional 2 year hitch in the pen.

First titor! I can see it now, the coming civil war will be haxxxors vs. jack-boot saurus. On the one side, keyboards and half-empty cans of mountain dew. On the other, tanks that shoot fire into private residences to ostensibly save the children.

This is going to be so much fun...

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:30 PM
Ahh soficrow, my old nemesis, if that's really your name...

You remember that one thread where we had a SERIOUS disagreement? Well, it was really annoying, and I have you now, my pet.

You are going to JAIL!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I think the implications for ATS are obvious.

I guess the Prez. just read Spinger's "Effective Immediately" thread. Way to go Springer. Now you ruined the internet for all of us...

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 03:02 PM
Well I definately will have to stop being so mischevous and change my name to AnnoyingElf, catch me if you can cybersquad

No seriously this is just closing th net on free expression and the dissemination of the truth only further.


posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 03:09 PM
My feelings are if you feel you have to hide behind an alias to express yourself truthfully, then "they" have already won.

But, I think you all can relax and stop said in the other thread, this law doesn't appear to apply here.

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 03:11 PM
How long do you get for a federal offense? And all because of annoying someone??? That's for want of a better word retarded. I agree we should get rid of the cyberstalking and all of that malarky, but if it's a joke, and it annoys someone? Get real.
Is this applied to everyone, or is it spam merchents who'll feel it?

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:14 PM
Here's the basic jist of the law:

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, it applies to everyone.

They haven't posted the full text of the law yet.


posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:16 PM
Perhaps W signed this bill to try to stop all the websites in the world from verbally bashing him... Just a thought?

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:17 PM
Actually it can't apply to everyone, only American citizens, he's not my president, not my law. It's a federal American law, correct ?


posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:26 PM
Yeah .. its true it's an American federal law. and I agree with you.. Although I live in the USA, I'm Australian born and he's not my president either.. As for it not applying.. Well we've all seen how that has gone in the past.. Especially with the CIA "rendering" people at their will and doing what knows with them.. This country and it's current government seems to feel that it doesnt have to abide by the laws of other countries and is in the position of world dominator..

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 05:45 PM
Guess what I am very annoyed by all of you and because you people are not showing your true names I am going to call the authorities.

How dare you specially the political basher like me to hide behind an alias.

I can way to see the first case in court.

I guess Bush wants to know the names of anybody that bashes him in the internet.

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 05:47 PM
We're ALL going to jail!!!, someone says that my post annoys them, they arrest me....well, I posted what I did in response to something they posted, which annoyed me....they arrest them.....what the heck is this??? I click a link that looks interesting and all of a sudden 50 million popups are about giving my puter a nervous breakdown, and well, the site has no name as to who it belongs to......that's annoying as all heck....can I have them arrested???? what about those sites that have so much animamation and graphics that it causes my puter to lock up and say goodnight??

man......why do they spend time writing such stupid laws!!! have they figured out how to get our deficit shrinking instead of growing into a mammouth? how about border security, have they solved that one yet? have they hired their *&%%^&**%& lawyers yet to keep them out of jail after abernoff squeels like the little piggy that he is? god!!! they should be taking care some of this stuff, instead or writing laws that will tie up the court for a decade or so just trying to figure out what they heck their laws mean!

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 05:52 PM
What do you expect when our politicians in power are doing everything they can to re-write the constitution.

No surprise.

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 05:53 PM

Originally posted by elderban

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.

They'll have to prove intent. If you post something that annoys someone but the message was not sent to that person directly and the post was not intended to annoy the recipient then you're fine.

[edit on 2006/1/9 by McGrude]

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 05:57 PM
I have annoyment terrets...
I can't help it... I just open my mouth and truth about the government comes out...

Iran contra thinking that maybe ATS needs to be careful
I meant "I am kinda" and see how it comes out...

Oh boy... better pay up for my prepaid legal...

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:01 PM
ahh. what the heck, I'll just plead problem...

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in