Trolling is now OFFICIALLY illegal

[Guest]

For a legal analysis by some law professors and lawyers: http://volokh.com/posts/1136873535.shtmlTheir verdict: essentially nothing is changing except the same rules that apply for phone stalking and harassment now apply for internet telephony as well.

[Guest SoarPics]

"Their verdict: essentially nothing is changing except the same rules that apply for phone stalking and harassment now apply for internet telephony as well."US Code title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter 2, Part1, 223(a)© states: makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications; shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.The new law is slip-streamed into the original with one very serious flaw. Anyone who intitiates a telephone call with the purpose of annoying/harrassing another does so without their victim's knowledge. While the new law would seem to be pointed at the cybestalkers/e-mail spammers, the fact that anyone who "annoys" another in cyberspace (including forums such as this) without revealing their true identity also falls under the law.And therein lies the problem. Any overzealous prosecutor can now use that law to legally "harrass or annoy" any citizen for any "real" reason they deem valid. That citizen could be subjected to arrest and/or indictment, public trial (in which they would probably have to pay for their own defence in such a idiotic action), and perhaps even conviction (although I wouldn't put a dime on the prosecutions chances of winning). Evenso, that citizen would suffer harm due to the actions of a government not held in check (and void of any real liabilties for the harm it caused the citizen).You see, Jeroen, the concerns of folks in this discussion aren't so much about another stupid and poorly thought-out law. Our concern lies in a government that creates laws to enpower itself over a majority of it's citizens. Such laws are woefully bad for any country and it's people.It's yet another law enacted by a government that is proving itself to be as ignorant and shortsighted as the monkey cage at a zoo.But on the upside, George Orwell would have loved the object lesson of it all.Greg

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

Now we can start getting into politicians getting elected on the platform they are going make more laws.We have way too many laws. I never understood why we weren't more dynamic as a society. As time changes get rid of the usless stuff and/or modify. Instead we just like to keep adding and totaly forget about the past. That's why our system is starting to fade out into nothing.Check out the latest confimration hearings for more stupidity. We can't even get officials into office anymore...LOL I'm surprised anyone wants to serve anymore let alone even get elected or hired to office. We just keep adding fuel to the fire, it's getting stupid.enough ranting now....LOL. I needed a good laugh I guess.

[Guest]

Of course there are way too many laws, politicians have nothing else to do but create them so that's what they do...That's why modifying an existing law to adept to new conditions is a good thing compared with creating a new law ;)That's also the reason why democracies are so brittle. Over time they petrify as ever more things become impossible to achieve due to the ever increasing number of often contradictory laws.Did you know it's now impossible to run a business without breaking the law?Did you know you can't drive your car without breaking the law?Feudal societies OTOH are flexible and can easily adapt to new and changing conditions, a simple royal decree is all it takes (if the ruler is a reasonably sane person and not a complete nutcase of course).

[mgh 89]

As I understand it, the section you quoted is from the US Communications Act 1934 - so it's been applicable for more than 70 years. I believe the new law extends the definition of telecommunications device to cover the internet.How many over-zealous prosecutions have there been since 1934?

[Guest]

correct. The only thing that's changed is the definition of what constitutes communications, not the definition of what's illegal.Is that definition broad? maybe.But we've all seen what can happen when a definition is so narrow that future developments make is a laugh (as was the case with defining "telecommunications device" as a telephone explicitly).

[Guest SoarPics]

It's clear that the discussion has taken two divergent paths. Let's simply agree that some believe there is no problem with this new law, while others see such a law as the perfect example of what the future holds between citizens and their governments.Regards to all,Greg

[Guest Charlie]

>At last we now have the law behind us when acting against all>those anonymous trolls and spoilers on forums we moderate ;)>>You see, everything has 2 sides :)>>Yes, this law is open to abuse. But so is any other law. Speed>limits can be used to extort money from unsuspecting drivers,>yet everyone would agree there's a place for them.>Violent crime laws can be used to place people you don't like>in "protective custody" just when you want them out of town>for a while (think of what the DNC did to opponents in Boston>in 2004), yet when it comes to locking up murderers and other>serious offenders they're very useful.>>It was high time the law was enhanced to make stalking online>a crime just as stalking over the phone or fax is. Of course>any such law has unintended consequences (or can have) but you>try to write the text so that such is impossible without>leaving the law essentially useless (which so many laws are of>course).Whew!! I guess many of us thought we had a real problem here. But if you say it's OK, that's good enough for me. I mean....it would be different if there examples in world history of abuse by those in positions of power.But we should all feel assured that we'll be safe from prosecution if we just follow the outstanding example you set daily. Never post ANYTHING with the intent to annoy. :)

[ejoiner 21]

Fortunately, I use my real Name. Im free to SLOG away.

[mgh 89]

In the UK we get calls from a number of disreputable tele-marketing firms - often based overseas. They use computers to generate telephone calls but have more lines than staff. The result is often silence when you pick up the phone. Of course they withhold their numbers and also ignore the telephone preference service which allows you to register as not wanting any marketing calls.These firms annoy me yet they are not, as far as I am aware, breaking UK law.It is the behaviour of firms like that which lead to legislation,

[Guest tg272]

I think everyone makes very good points here.My take was remembering how it "used" to be. Does anyone theses days actually remember when you were responsible for what you said? Is there no difference at all between a child's mentality and an adult's in terms of the equality with which they are both accorded on the internet? Am I the only one who believes in respecting one's elders, not stalking or otherwise annoying others with constant banter unchecked or tempered in any way by a responsible authority, and treating others as I'd like to have them treat me?I feel sorry for those who have no memory of days gone by when responsibility was taken seriously and conscience of a strong community overrode a "me first" mentality so pervasive in today's world.There's not one thing that I need to know from anyone, communicated via internet, when that need-to-know hasn't been personally and proactively requested by me. Where do others get the idea that they can simply pervade my space unless I've given them permission? To be clear, implicit permission follows membership in forums, mailing lists, etc., when you have personally authorized same--and not from the sale of third-party mailing lists, data miners, and the like.Bart BartholomayDeacontg272

[Guest B1900 Mech]

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely An observation that a person

[Guest tg272]

Which simply means that the checks and balances system of governing ourselves has proven to be the best to come along yet. Not perfect, by any stretch, but worth fighting to keep.Bart BartholomayDeacontg272

[Staffan 12]

>Fortunately, I use my real Name. Im free to SLOG away. Me to !And I thought that it was a rule here at AVSIM, to only use your real name in any post. :-rollhttp://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gif"Real men fly with round gauges"[/color]

[Guest]

it is, yet a lot of people don't and no action is taken to rectify that.