Perspectives in La-La Land
After being referred to this one by a friend who thought it was Oh-so-hysterical-I-wet-my-pants-a-dozen-times-over, I had to give it a look see. I don’t know who this Declan McCullagh is or who gave him a perspectives column, but I will say that he doesn’t strike a good first impression:
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
That’s what the title says. Explanation: basically, this guy is going to try and tell us that if we annoy someone over the Internet without providing out name, we can go to jail. How is this possible? Well, let’s see if his argument passes my test:
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
Well, Dec, I’ll humor you here for a minute. Let’s say that your argument is true right off the bat. Isn’t harassment already illegal? I’ve been harassed before to the extent where I could have gotten the police involved, but never did. Probably my mistake, but my point here is that this probably won’t make much of a difference.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
Sound pretty harsh right? Well, I looked at so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act that this so-called columnist linked to and I spent a so-called better part of half an hour searching it for what he’s talking about. I used the so-called search function to find all kinds of so-called words that would so-called fit into his argument. But when I typed in the so-called word “Internet” I found this so-called part.
Title V: Enhancing Judicial and Law Enforcement Tools to Combat Violence - (Sec. 501) - Amends the Safe Streets Act to: (1) authorize appropriations for FY2006-FY2010 for grants to combat violent crimes against women (STOP grants); (2) revise provisions specifying purposes for which grants may be used, including for underserved populations; (3) increase set aside amounts for grants to Indian tribal governments and U.S. territories and possessions; (4) prohibit grant recipients from posting information relating to protection or restraining orders or injunctions on the Internet; (5) prohibit law enforcement officers, prosecutors, or other government officials from requiring sex offense victims to submit to a polygraph examination as a condition for proceeding with an investigation or prosecution of a sex offense; and (6) eliminate the grant matching fund requirement for law enforcement agencies with fewer than 20 officers and victim services providers with an annual operating budget of less than $5 million.
Hmm, “prohibit grant recipients from posting information relating to protection or restraining orders or injunctions on the Internet.” So in so-called Laymen’s terms, this so-called Title V stops people from talking about restraining orders if they are “grant recipients,” whatever that means. Not quite a “create and e-annoyance, go to jail” kind of deal that this guy it talking about. Let’s see what else he has to say:
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
Ah, so Declan has quoted that wondrous moral authority known as the ACLU for this matter. Well, Marv Johnson, I’d say “annoy” is a bit of a weak term to be using. How about we use something more proper like “harass.” Then we can get places. Now, just as a hypothetical situation, say I’d sent you a series of e-mails saying “THE ACLU SUXORS OMG YoU COMmIE LeFT-wINg TURdBUCkETs DON’T CArE AbOUt ReaL LIBeRTY AnD YOU HAtE CHrISTIaNS AnD YoU’rE AlL GOiNG tO HEll!!!” or something of that nature. Not only would I sounds like a complete idiot for doing so, but wouldn’t you get pretty angry after a while and block my e-mail? And then if I’d come to you under a different e-mail and did the same thing, wouldn’t you really want me to stop? That’s harassment right there.
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
It’s all the Republican’s fault that the Democrats still haven’t regained enough of the house and Senate, I’m sure. Whether or not the Democrats are competent enough has no say in the matter. At least to this guy. Let’s skip around a bit and see what else he has to say down the line.
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.
In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Which is why they won’t be arrested because this guy’s bill that he’s commenting on that doesn’t even seem to exist targets harrassers, NOT just plain annoyers. And you know what else? I’m actually done blogging on this subject because not only has it taken me days to get around to it thanks to my busy schedule, but because the rest of the article is just ramming this BS into the reader’s head by repeating itself. Not exactly effective, in my opinion. As of this moment, this Section 113 that makes it illegal does not seem to exist, but if anyone who reads this seems to think otherwise, I’ll be perfectly willing to accept a counter point in the comments section. Thank you very much.
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
That’s what the title says. Explanation: basically, this guy is going to try and tell us that if we annoy someone over the Internet without providing out name, we can go to jail. How is this possible? Well, let’s see if his argument passes my test:
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
Well, Dec, I’ll humor you here for a minute. Let’s say that your argument is true right off the bat. Isn’t harassment already illegal? I’ve been harassed before to the extent where I could have gotten the police involved, but never did. Probably my mistake, but my point here is that this probably won’t make much of a difference.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
Sound pretty harsh right? Well, I looked at so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act that this so-called columnist linked to and I spent a so-called better part of half an hour searching it for what he’s talking about. I used the so-called search function to find all kinds of so-called words that would so-called fit into his argument. But when I typed in the so-called word “Internet” I found this so-called part.
Title V: Enhancing Judicial and Law Enforcement Tools to Combat Violence - (Sec. 501) - Amends the Safe Streets Act to: (1) authorize appropriations for FY2006-FY2010 for grants to combat violent crimes against women (STOP grants); (2) revise provisions specifying purposes for which grants may be used, including for underserved populations; (3) increase set aside amounts for grants to Indian tribal governments and U.S. territories and possessions; (4) prohibit grant recipients from posting information relating to protection or restraining orders or injunctions on the Internet; (5) prohibit law enforcement officers, prosecutors, or other government officials from requiring sex offense victims to submit to a polygraph examination as a condition for proceeding with an investigation or prosecution of a sex offense; and (6) eliminate the grant matching fund requirement for law enforcement agencies with fewer than 20 officers and victim services providers with an annual operating budget of less than $5 million.
Hmm, “prohibit grant recipients from posting information relating to protection or restraining orders or injunctions on the Internet.” So in so-called Laymen’s terms, this so-called Title V stops people from talking about restraining orders if they are “grant recipients,” whatever that means. Not quite a “create and e-annoyance, go to jail” kind of deal that this guy it talking about. Let’s see what else he has to say:
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
Ah, so Declan has quoted that wondrous moral authority known as the ACLU for this matter. Well, Marv Johnson, I’d say “annoy” is a bit of a weak term to be using. How about we use something more proper like “harass.” Then we can get places. Now, just as a hypothetical situation, say I’d sent you a series of e-mails saying “THE ACLU SUXORS OMG YoU COMmIE LeFT-wINg TURdBUCkETs DON’T CArE AbOUt ReaL LIBeRTY AnD YOU HAtE CHrISTIaNS AnD YoU’rE AlL GOiNG tO HEll!!!” or something of that nature. Not only would I sounds like a complete idiot for doing so, but wouldn’t you get pretty angry after a while and block my e-mail? And then if I’d come to you under a different e-mail and did the same thing, wouldn’t you really want me to stop? That’s harassment right there.
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
It’s all the Republican’s fault that the Democrats still haven’t regained enough of the house and Senate, I’m sure. Whether or not the Democrats are competent enough has no say in the matter. At least to this guy. Let’s skip around a bit and see what else he has to say down the line.
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.
In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Which is why they won’t be arrested because this guy’s bill that he’s commenting on that doesn’t even seem to exist targets harrassers, NOT just plain annoyers. And you know what else? I’m actually done blogging on this subject because not only has it taken me days to get around to it thanks to my busy schedule, but because the rest of the article is just ramming this BS into the reader’s head by repeating itself. Not exactly effective, in my opinion. As of this moment, this Section 113 that makes it illegal does not seem to exist, but if anyone who reads this seems to think otherwise, I’ll be perfectly willing to accept a counter point in the comments section. Thank you very much.
posted by Jaimetud at 6:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home