This Changes Everything
A while ago, I posted this rather arrogant post about Section 113 and asked anyone who thought I was wrong to say so. Well, as fate would have it, I’m correcting myself. Declan McCullagh may not be a genius, but he’s not an idiot either. I just wish I’d seen this before. Apparently, he’s got an FAQ about that very post. So let’s take a look at it and see what went wrong:
Q: Your CNET News.com column on Monday--"Create an e-annoyance, go to jail"--referenced the text of a bill that President Bush signed last week, but I can't find the word "annoy" in it. What gives?
Figuring out exactly what Congress did takes a few minutes. But it's not too difficult.
First, go to the text of the legislation and search for Sec. 113. Note how Sec. 113. amends existing law by changing the definitions in 47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1). Before the new law took effect last Thursday, 47 U.S.C. 223 explicitly said it "does not include an interactive computer service." The changes override that for the "to annoy" section and now say it applies to the "Internet."
Here, Declan links us to a more specific link where we can find Section 113. It would have been more helpful in the first place if he’d linked us right to Section 113 in the first place, but I digress. Here, he clearly explains that the law has been amended. Check the links in his article yourself to see. Basically, it’s illegal to harass people via the internet, BUT, there’s more. If you recall from reading his last article, he it was illegal to ANNOY people on the internet. If you read this part, however, you’ll see just what kind of “annoyances” are illegal. Sending offensive pornographic material to minors and nasty stuff like that for the purpose of getting on people’s bad sides. Perhaps “harass” would have been a better use of words, eh Declan? So what else does he have to say?
Q: So what does the rewritten law now say?
The section as amended reads like this: "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."
It appears to be a case of “right intentions, wrong actions.” See, I don’t see a harasser going to jail for 2 years over this sort of thing. A few months might be good. The rest of Declan’s argument is just solidifying, but the fact that remains is this: Harass people online, pay for the consequences. Sounds pretty good if you ask me.
Q: Your CNET News.com column on Monday--"Create an e-annoyance, go to jail"--referenced the text of a bill that President Bush signed last week, but I can't find the word "annoy" in it. What gives?
Figuring out exactly what Congress did takes a few minutes. But it's not too difficult.
First, go to the text of the legislation and search for Sec. 113. Note how Sec. 113. amends existing law by changing the definitions in 47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1). Before the new law took effect last Thursday, 47 U.S.C. 223 explicitly said it "does not include an interactive computer service." The changes override that for the "to annoy" section and now say it applies to the "Internet."
Here, Declan links us to a more specific link where we can find Section 113. It would have been more helpful in the first place if he’d linked us right to Section 113 in the first place, but I digress. Here, he clearly explains that the law has been amended. Check the links in his article yourself to see. Basically, it’s illegal to harass people via the internet, BUT, there’s more. If you recall from reading his last article, he it was illegal to ANNOY people on the internet. If you read this part, however, you’ll see just what kind of “annoyances” are illegal. Sending offensive pornographic material to minors and nasty stuff like that for the purpose of getting on people’s bad sides. Perhaps “harass” would have been a better use of words, eh Declan? So what else does he have to say?
Q: So what does the rewritten law now say?
The section as amended reads like this: "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."
It appears to be a case of “right intentions, wrong actions.” See, I don’t see a harasser going to jail for 2 years over this sort of thing. A few months might be good. The rest of Declan’s argument is just solidifying, but the fact that remains is this: Harass people online, pay for the consequences. Sounds pretty good if you ask me.
posted by Jaimetud at 9:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home