New Law: Send Annoying E-Mail. Go to Jail

[CyberGuy]

New Law: Send Annoying E-Mail. Go to Jail

You may not have noticed, but last Thursday President Bush signed a bill into law that makes sending an annoying, anonymous e-mail a federal crime. If you're found guilty, you could go to prison for as much as two years and be forced to pay a heavy fine. As is common with Congress, the item was slipped into an unrelated bill authorizing funding for the Department of Justice.

CNET reports that the new regulation is buried in a bill titled "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act." Here is the language of this particular part of the bill in Sec. 113, "Preventing Cyberstalking":

"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's legal to send an annoying e-mail as long as it's clear who sent it.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, told CNET reporter Declan McCullagh. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else." Who decides what is annoying is the big question that still has to be answered. Writes a steamed McCullagh, "Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else. It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets."

[CyberGuy]

I doubt the annoying Email part of the law will pass Supreme court law or the constitition freedom of speech test. And this law is regarding Email not forums like Clubadventist. Otherwise I dare say half of is would be in jail in a year.

[Nan]

A little facetious - but if you acknowledge you are the sender of the annoying email, would you still be liable for prosecution? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Ceth]

It seems to me that there are two practical applications: (1) spamming propaganda (hate mail, lies, etc.), (2) to add weight to an existing case (non-computer related) by showing that in addition to stalking, threatening, or whatever, there were electronic transactions recorded that were similar to the non-electronic harassment.

I don't see where in practice this would be used outside of (1) going after spammers sending questionable content, (2) to back up an existing criminal case. Since it's attached to this bill, I expect the stated intent was to support #2.

Its not practical or cost effective to chase after individuals for single posts or e-mails, on the weight of one e-mail, unless it was clear that a crime was committed.

By the letter of the law, if you said you were the sender, then you would not be liable for prosecution under this law; however, I believe other existing laws would apply to harassment, threats, etc. It wouldn't matter if they were electronic or written.

[CyberGuy]

You would be liable if you sent a threatening or harrassing Email on a regular basis. But not just being an annoying person if you identified yourself.

As stated in the article the word Annoying Email is very vague. What is an annoying Email to one person is not to others. Congress did not specify what this meant. Yes Spam is annoying but Spam laws cover this already.

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

---

(2) to add weight to an existing case (non-computer related) by showing that in addition to stalking, threatening, or whatever, there were electronic transactions recorded that were similar to the non-electronic harassment.

I don't see where in practice this would be used outside of (1) going after spammers sending questionable content, (2) to back up an existing criminal case. Since it's attached to this bill, I expect the stated intent was to support #2.

---

I agree. This is most likely the intent of Congress. To cover Emails in the Cyberstalking area. Already there is laws forbidding calling on the phone someone repeatedly and hanging up even if nothing is said. That is harrassment and is punishiable by prison or a stiff fine in some states.

[Ceth]

More input from a third party on the recent revisions:

http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=nl.e776

[CyberGuy]

It is obvious there is a lot of confusion on what the annoy part of this law meant. By the context some would say to Harrass. If I say something in a sarcastic manner on this forum to someone and they get angry it can be argued I meant to annoy them. Am I in Violation of this law then if I did so under a handle like mine? Many have handles that hide their identities. Does this law mean we cannot say something that may "Annoy" someone else. There is to much confusion on this law.

It is pointed out that prosecutors are busy people with a lot of cases on their plate and will not prosecute someone simply because he may have offended someone on the internet.