This is just dumb:
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
When reading that I thought of all the lame-asses that threaten people with it on online games and forums...
What's next? My god people *cough*george bush*cough* are total idiot(s) sometimes. Geesh....
Why the hell would they waste their time on such a crappy, useless, unenforcable law?
Why?
Finally I have something to take Squinky to court with!
That is so screwed up.
Annoying people over the internet is a crime now?
Well, that's goodbye internet for me!
Wait, I'm in Australia. US Federal law doesn't apply to me.
U ALL SUX DICKS LOL FARGOTS!!!1!
<--- I'm using my real name anyway, same as when I was manufactured.
But hey I'm not in US either, so I don't care!
Do you realise what this means?
Americans may have to shut up while the rest of us carry on, being as annoying and offensive as we like O_O
It truly is a rediculous thing to make into law. But in a way we all should already respect one another by being curtious, cordial, and well mannered. Writting hateful things to one another never solves anything.
Even though I disagree with the law, I do not disagree with the concept.
I would say something about that, but there are these weird guys in black suits at my door....
Kinda reminds me of that episode of family guy when the FCC follows them around and censors them....
And Eric, My lawyers can so kick your Lawyers ass, for he knows, the Eagle Craw!*
*Disclaimer: In no way is this meant to be annoying, please do not report me.
I find your disclaimer annoying. I'm going to have to report you.
*disclaimer: I'm not really annoyed about it. It's just a joke! Hey, where did Squinky go? SQUINKY! SQUINKY!!!
I would back a law similar to this if it guaranteed me a 100% reduction in spam...Which would currently deflate my daily influx by 450 emails ;( Unfortunately, it just seems like another half-assed attempt to solve the 'wrong' problems in the worst way.
If I stop getting spam because of this, I'll sue the US government for annoying me with their on-line meddling, and I don't know who in particular created this law.
Because spam makes me feel popular, as I never get any other mail :(
Anybody read this comment? I thought it was helpful, though incomplete.
http://news.com.com/5208-1028-0.html?forumID=1hreadID=12943&messageID=101551&start=-1
I don't see how this law is a problem, unless you make a living out of pestering people over the Internet. On the other hand, I don't hope too much recources is wasted on this.
I'm pretty sure Squinky annoyed me intentionally.
;)
Hmmm...
On Purpose : "Shut up, you dickweed"
Not On Purpose: "Buy our enlargement weeds! They enlarge you! They're weeds!"
In other words, this law completely absolves Spammers who can always claim they didn't intend to annoy only to sell products, but makes the entire SomethingAwful site a criminal case, because they definitely intend to annoy (at least I hope so--having read the content).
Pranks would not be allowed, but selling drugs to kids would be (as long as they claimed they didn't know that the victims were actually kids).
That's only reading that one dude's comment however. If that dude is wrong or merely incorrectly stating the facts, then I retract everything I've said.
And I do mean everything.
I strongly suggest all Americans to flee the coutry. Your president is a dick.
Either that, or he's being unbelievably stupid about trying to help people...
BTW: If someone gets busted for selling drugs to kids over the internet, this one craphead law isn't going to be the first thing to worry about.
President Bush annoyed me by posting false propoganda on his website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/), therefore I shall now see to it that he is sent to prison for 2 years.
QuoteUnfortunately, it just seems like another half-assed attempt to solve the 'wrong' problems in the worst way.
Hah! No!
It's the oldest trick in the book of politics.
A way to create right to say:
"Stop whining about the spam! Did we help? Yes. We made a law. But you suckers (people) don't follow it, so if you don't like it, stop whining and handle your problems by yourself. We *did* try to make things better."
Hah! How are they planning on enforcing that law? :P
Quote from: Ishmael on Tue 10/01/2006 17:38:28
I strongly suggest all Americans to flee the coutry. Your president is a dick.
I agree that Bush is a dick, but i seriously doubt that he had anything to do with this law :P
I'm not american by the way...
Quote from: vict0r on Tue 10/01/2006 20:10:58I agree that Bush is a dick, but i seriously doubt that he had anything to do with this law :P
He signed it. But granted, I don't think Bush has any idea what half the papers put in front of him are about.
Quote from: ildu on Tue 10/01/2006 20:57:56
But granted, I don't think Bush has any idea what half the papers put in front of him are about.
Well as a good president he should have some advisor of some sort explain the contents of the papers to him... but apparently no.
The Internet sucks. Technology sucks.
We should revert to a simpler method of communication.
I don't remember carrier pigeons delivering penis enlargement propaganda. >:(
I don't see how this is an example of Bush idiocy. The article says that the annoyance part of the bill was tacked on because they knew it would pass anyway. It would have been idiocy on Bush's part not to sign an otherwise good and beneficial bill just because of a stupid tacked on section of it that made no sense. It's not like Bush was sitting there thinking, "At last! Those people flaming me at the AGS forums will have to shut their annoying little mouths! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHGHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!111111111"
Well, I don't know much about US politics, but surely it wouldn't have been too hard for him to un-tack on that bit from the bill...
Quote"With intent" is important. It's not illegal to "create an annoyance," it's illegal to *try* to pester people. The law does not leave annoyance in the eye of the beholder.
Does not follow. I agree that you might inintentionally annoy someone, and under this bill you would not be tried, but what is annoying and what is not is still very much in the eye of the beholder! Harassment is very clearly defined legally, annoyance not.
QuoteAlso consider the phrase "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass." Criminal law is interpreted narrowly. "Annoy" lacks a clear legal defintion, but not "abuse" or "threaten" or "harass."
Exactly.
QuoteAccordingly, the four words will be interpreted as specifying a single type of action.
If they're a single type of action, and since the law uses terms narrowly and carefully, 'annoy' should not be on that list.
I agree with Helm.
Quote from: Pumaman on Tue 10/01/2006 22:03:20
Well, I don't know much about US politics, but surely it wouldn't have been too hard for him to un-tack on that bit from the bill...
I'm not really up on my governmental policies and processes and such, but as far as I understand it, it's not the President's job to handle that sort of thing. That's what Congress does. If a hundred senators and 435 house representatives failed to do it, one can hardly blame the President for not picking up their slack. He gets a lot of heat for things that really aren't entirely (or even primarily) his fault.
Anyway, this isn't much of a problem. My guess is that this is one of those things that'll go away almost as quickly as it came.
But let's not get away from the real point too much. This isn't about Bush, right? This is about dumb laws and making fun of them.
Quotedumb laws and making fun of them.
Let's throw things at it!
On another, but slightly related, topic: Here some irony. (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/946519361.html?MAC=2924635c68d9206e478a635d84d33e4f&did=946519361&FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&date=Dec+22%2C+2005&author=ADAM+C.+SMITH&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&printformat=&desc=Crist+stirs+%27spam%27+pot+with+campaign+e-mails) A gubernatorial candidate in Florida is "annoying" people with spam e-mail. He's against spam BUT (and this is the kicker) he believes his e-mails are "politcal speech" and not spam.
EDIT: I had a think about the new law and since it was created to stop cyber-stalking, does anyone see any problems with replacing the word "annoy" with "stalk"? For example:
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 stalk, 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.
Bush is just a puppet :P
Family Guy nods in agreement...
Oh, but adventure games can be soooo annoying! I think I'm just going to sue all of you.
;)
Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 11/01/2006 00:11:44
I had a think about the new law and since it was created to stop cyber-stalking, does anyone see any problems with replacing the word "annoy" with "stalk"?
I'd be happier if they cut out "harass" as well. Harassment is bad, harmful and unproductive, but internet harassment should not be an issue of law unless it reaches the level of abuse or threats. I reserve the right to harass the leader of Halliburton, for example, assuming I bothered to spell it right. If it gets to the point of threats...
Of course, all such laws are disproportionately used against the poor and less powerful. I read some stats on hate laws lately, and it seems that hate laws are more often persecuted against people of colour or various non-white ethnicities by a large factor, while the majority of violence and propaganda is perpetuated by white people like most of us here. In fact, in BC, the province I live in, something like one or two cases of hate crimes had actually been procecuted (before the agency was disbanded by the current crazy neo-liberal government), and at least half were against underprivileged minorities.
So the law is likely to be used to bolster power for those who already have it, rather than the other way around as progressive people would hope.
More state or corporate control over speech is *almost* always a bad thing, IMHO, but that opinion tends to change from situation to situation.
This law just strikes me as consolidation that will probably be poory executed anyway and hopefully be ignored due to hazy definitions.
Quote from: Radiant on Wed 11/01/2006 01:18:05
Oh, but adventure games can be soooo annoying! I think I'm just going to sue all of you.
You would probably have to move to the US before doing anything like that!
At least I'm safe in many many ways: I use my real name. I don't live in the US so I can annoy anyone I want.
I really can't believe that there can be so idiotic laws...
But I guess it happens everywhere in the world. America is not the only one with stupid laws. Or with stupid presidents.
On as sidenote, I was sooo annoyed by the previous Helms avatar, but fortunately for him he changed it...
Quote from: bspeers on Wed 11/01/2006 06:16:41
I'd be happier if they cut out "harass" as well. Harassment is bad, harmful and unproductive, but internet harassment should not be an issue of law unless it reaches the level of abuse or threats. I reserve the right to harass the leader of Halliburton, for example, assuming I bothered to spell it right. If it gets to the point of threats...
Of course, all such laws are disproportionately used against the poor and less powerful. I read some stats on hate laws lately, and it seems that hate laws are more often persecuted against people of colour or various non-white ethnicities by a large factor, while the majority of violence and propaganda is perpetuated by white people like most of us here. In fact, in BC, the province I live in, something like one or two cases of hate crimes had actually been procecuted (before the agency was disbanded by the current crazy neo-liberal government), and at least half were against underprivileged minorities.
So the law is likely to be used to bolster power for those who already have it, rather than the other way around as progressive people would hope.
More state or corporate control over speech is *almost* always a bad thing, IMHO, but that opinion tends to change from situation to situation.
This law just strikes me as consolidation that will probably be poory executed anyway and hopefully be ignored due to hazy definitions.
Yeah, "harass" is open to interpretation too. The legislation (I assume) is criminal law. Okay, that's fine but how does the law interpret terms like "annoy" or "harass"? There are many different definitions and contexts one could consider to be "annoying" or "harassment". What about very minor "annoyances", like someone casually writing to someone else "u suck"? Is that simple comment worth the time of the Intarn3t P01ice to come raid your home? Or is there a level of "annoyance" or "harassment" where if one exceeds one can be prosecuted? If so, what device can I use to measure it? (I plan to build my own and call it something generic like "The Annoy-O-Meter". It will use the measurement "annoyics" to measure bothersome content and runs on two AA batteries.)
That's why I suggested "stalk". It seems pretty obvious what stalking is and seems more specific than "annoy" or "harass". Although, could there be any fault with using the term "stalk"? It's still a subjective term, even though a more specific one.
The biggest fluke behind this law is the assumption that the world has to be made a nice place, with no harm, conflict and pain whatsoever. And attempts to make it match this ideal are turning it into prison.
Wait, wait. Does this mean... no more Maddox? :o
Think of the reverse: consider the amount of anonymous hatemail HE gets.
Quote from: Guybrush Peepwood on Wed 11/01/2006 12:39:48
Wait, wait. Does this mean... no more Maddox? :o
I guess he can appeal to the First Amendment like Annoy.com if he's ever sued. Or he can move to Canada.
All you really need to do is say, "My real name is ______", and the law can't hurt you. It's a stupid and should be ignored.
QuoteThe biggest fluke behind this law is the assumption that the world has to be made a nice place, with no harm, conflict and pain whatsoever. And attempts to make it match this ideal are turning it into prison.
The biggist fluke behind this law is that there's not a damn thing the government's going to be able to do about it, regardless of how they feel about harm conflict pain ect. But it's not like they're making the world into a communism, or adding drugs to our water supply. It's just a stupid law, one the president (weather or not you think he's an assclown) saw and thought "Meh, why not?" and signed it.
But really, what are the people going to do? Print out an AIM conversation, or check internet databases? It's just plain old fashioned bullplop.
EDIT: Please, for the love of god, no pictures of an actual bush-ass-clown. Really.
Quote from: Lord Nipper on Wed 11/01/2006 14:54:13
EDIT:Ã, Please, for the love of god, no pictures of an actual bush-ass-clown.Ã, Really.
"Liberals annoy me, my precious!"
(http://www.americangirlscouts.org/agsuploads/files/Bush_Gollum.jpg)
Ã, Ã, Heheh, sorry, couldn't resist!Ã, ;D
Better than what could have been expected. ;)
oh sh#t.....i'm going to jail :'(
I haven't read the law myself but the commentary in the link below has cited a couple relevant sections that appear to specifically exempt intgeractive computerservices or software such as message boards and online interactive games.
http://news.com.com/5208-1028-0.html?forumID=1hreadID=12943&messageID=101619&start=132
It appears that the law was intended for one on one communications such as phone calls, instant messaging, and e-mail. I don't have a problem outlawing the anomuity of the originator in such cases. If this would have been in affect since the beginning of the internet spam would have never ever become the huge problem it is.
QuoteMike Marlowe fully admits that he sometimes gave George Gillespie a hard time in that AOL chatroom.
But never in his wildest imagination did he expect to be sued in court for what he characterized as "razzing."
"We gave him crap," said Marlowe, a 33-year-old welder in Fayette, Ala. "I'm not going to deny it. I teased him and he teased me back. He gave it back better than he ever got it."
A generation ago, such petty personal beefs might have been settled with fists outside the corner bar, but now it's the Internet age â€" and Ohio resident George Gillespie instead filed a $25,000 lawsuit against two erstwhile cyber chums he met in the sprawling 900-room, mostly anonymous society that makes up AOL's chat universe.
Gillespie, 53, claims that Marlowe and Bob Charpentier, a 52-year-old Oregon resident, insulted him and harassed him in the AOL chatroom called "Romance â€" Older Men" to the point where it inflicted "severe emotional distress and physical injury that is of a nature no reasonable man could be expected to endure it."
The complaint, expected in court on Jan. 31 for a pretrial conference, also names AOL as a defendant for allowing the alleged harassment to take place.
Gillespie alleges that the duo intruded into his "private affairs." The complaint states that Marlowe actually drove from Alabama to Ohio to photograph the plaintiff's home, which he then posted on the Web. He also allegedly went to the courthouse in Medina to dig up personal dirt on Gillespie, which he then also disseminated over the Internet.
The case is not simply "someone conversing in a chatroom" but also involves "harassing someone in Ohio," which gives Ohio courts jurisdiction, according to Gillespie's lawyers.
"Had the defendants stayed in the chatrooms, there would be no jurisdiction here, case closed" Gillespie's attorney Theodore Lesiak stated in the complaint. "Defendant did not."
But Marlowe said he works 60 hours a week at an autobody shop and laughed at the notion that he would drive from Alabama to Ohio to take pictures of Gillespie's house.
"I have never been to Ohio and I have absolutely no desire to go to Ohio," Marlowe said. "There is nothing there â€" the Cincinnati Bengals are there, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame maybe, and that's about it."
Even if Marlowe did take a trip to Ohio, posting a picture of someone's house on the Internet does not violate privacy laws, according to Chris Hoofnagle, attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
"Those norms require the aggressor to engage in behavior that is highly offensive to a reasonable person," he said. "Taking a picture of somebody's house and putting it up on the Web is not that."
Hoofnagle said Gillespie's emotional distress claim will also be tough to prove.
"We live in a rough society, as compared to Europe, where offending someone or directly cursing or attacking their dignity can give you a cause of action," he said.
Power Struggle in 'Romance â€" Older Men'
Charpentier said he first encountered Gillespie more than five years ago and at first, the two chatters were friendly. But Charpentier says he quickly became disenchanted by what he saw as Gillespie's mean streak.
Things really turned ugly four years ago when Charpentier traveled to Kentucky to meet another chatroom regular, a woman who was also a friend of Gillespie's. The blind date did not go particularly well, and when Charpentier returned to he discovered that Gillespie had gone on the attack.
"He just came in slamming on me, saying all kinds of derogatory crap: that I was a fat, bald, broke old man who sits around in a rusted wheelchair," said Charpentier, who has a chronic back injury. "I don't even own a wheelchair."
Charpentier, who has filed a response seeking to reserve the right to file a $125,000 countersuit against Gillespie, said Gillespie threatened to kill him and "made sick and disgusting remarks about the passing of my grandmother."
"He is an AOL computer thug, that is all he is," Charpentier said.
Marlowe characterized the dispute as a petty power struggle. He said Gillespie was the de facto leader of the "Romance â€" Older Men" chatroom, and didn't like it when he and Charpentier challenged his authority.
But Marlowe said he never took the chatroom antics personally â€" until he was served with a lawsuit.
"I don't know how four years of bantering back and forth led to this insane nonsense," he said. "It's just the Internet, for God's sake. It's nothing important."
Michael Gordon, an attorney for AOL, declined to comment, saying, "This is just the beginning stages of this thing."
Megan Gray, a Washington D.C.-based intellectual property attorney who specializes in cyber issues, called it "a loser of a case." She said the Communications Decency Act gives AOL immunity from chatroom misconduct.
"AOL cannot be held liable for the actions of people on the site," she said.
She also suggested the case against Marlowe and Charpentier was doomed.
"The Internet is such a vibrant, young medium, these types of cases are not taken seriously," she said.
Just found this ... ;)
Horrible. I'd probably get capital punishment for all the 'derogatory crap' I've said during my years. This raises a concern, though. People in America! Stop making photoshop caricatures of pictures found online, at least unanonymously. There may be a lawsuit just around the corner :D. This must be the next step in the struggle against online misdemeanor.
QuotePeople in America! Stop making photoshop caricatures of pictures found online, at least unanonymously.
Or just put your signature on the bottom of the image...
but DGMacphee, how do you define stalk on the internet? harrass has a relitivly usefull definition, annoy is completly useless. but how do you stalk someone on the 'net? just had to ask
Tell me your e-mail address and I'll show you.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 25/01/2006 07:34:30
Tell me your e-mail address and I'll show you.
HUH?! what zat mean? is it a) a joke. ment to be creepy but funny. or b) you really want my e-mail address. or z)just darn creepy.
All of the above.
Quote"With intent" is important. It's not illegal to "create an annoyance," it's illegal to *try* to pester people.
And now...a word from our sponsors...
Quote"Look at you...you're sitting in that chair--belly flopping over your pants. You know that you've got to go to a gym but just haven't gotten around to it. If this is you, then you need Belly-X. Belly-X has a special chemical formula that ZAPS ugly belly bulge--leaving you with a well-toned tummy. (Pretty 3D demonstration of how Belly-X works) Call 1-888-bellyx. That's 1-888-bellyx. Once again, 1-888-bellyx.
QuoteWe all will die someday--most from car crashes, others from senselessly hanging themselves, or others from a broken heart. Fortunately, that's where life insurance comes in handy; you won't have to senselessly hang yourself because you'll know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're safe and secure from all alarms with a good and solid insurance policy. You won't die from a car wreck because not only would you have worn your seatbelt, you'd be confident that YOUR firm and secure investment in a secure life insurance policy won't fail in the case of an automobile accident. And FINALLY...you won't die from a broken heart, because, even though your girlfriend dumps you, you'll be certain that when you have kids, that they'll benefit from YOUR secure investment in a SOLID insurance investment.
...And that is where we come in--we give you assurance and piece of mind, knowing that we know what we're doing and that you can depend on us 100%! How can we be so sure? Because...The Firm and Secure Life Insurance Company has been doing business for over fifty or more years. Not only that, we offer a wide range of special deals and offers for those of you who join us in our succesful fight for giving not only piece of mind, but a firm investment; for your family, friends, or anyone else you meet.
So give us a call at 1-800-FIRMÃ, That's 1-800-FIRMÃ, 1-800-FIRM
ROFL!
(I just about had myself convinced on the last one--how about you?)Ã, :D
--JJ
I am going to sue every person on EVERY forum ever because they have all enoyed me at one time or another.
Btw: dont they realize that all the spammers are from Nigeria so it doesnt effect them?
Sorry to enoy you. It won't happen again.
Quote
Mike Marlowe fully admits that he sometimes gave George Gillespie a hard time in that AOL chatroom.
But never in his wildest imagination did he expect to be sued in court for what he characterized as "razzing." ...
IMHO, this lawsuit will not survive for very long. My prediction is that eventually the new law will be interpreted to apply to one on one communications initiated by one person and sent specifically to another person. A chat room is more like the public square than a one on one communication (as in phone call).
It's been said that the freedom of speech does not include the right to be heard. In the case of the public square one need not listen and just walk away from the crazy guy standing on a crate with a tin foil hat. Repeatedly calling someone on the phone or sending e-mails is akin to the crazy guy following you around where ever you go and continously ranting about whatever.
I think the court system will be able to sort this thing out fairly easily.