Anonymous Emailer Annoyed By Anti-Annoy Law

from the start-the-lawsuits dept

While there's still some level of disagreement over what an updated law really says concerning the legality of anonymous annoying communications, the operator of an anonymous emailing service is concerned enough that it's decided to sue for an injunction against enforcing the law. The government's defense may simply be that lots of people are misreading the law -- but, perhaps that's a good reason that the language ought to be clarified.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    CB Pascal, 9 Feb 2006 @ 3:40pm

    That's the problem with the majority of

    laws. They're not clearly written enough for a layman to read. Obfuscating the point with double talk just makes it so that more people break laws unknowingly since they didn't understand what they just read.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2006 @ 4:43pm

      Re: That's the problem with the majority of

      Hah. You said Obfuscating.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        The Doorman, 9 Feb 2006 @ 5:51pm

        Re: That's the problem with the majority of

        Ha. So did you. And you seem to have a proclivity for being pedantic and abstrusively tenebrous.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Christopher, 9 Feb 2006 @ 5:53pm

    Not so unclear really...

    "any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person"

    also/or
    "which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age"

    and/or
    "repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication;"


    Not altogether unclear... it is only criminal if the intent is to annoy (abuse threaten or harass)...

    The part that amuses me with getting up at arms is that it ALREADY included text messaging, paging, email, newsgroups... etc...

    Doing any of the above (and MORE) over a "telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device" is a violation.

    I would have considered an internet connected PC to be a "telecommunications device" all along... and so would you...

    This law was ALREADY there, they just clarified it...

    Spammers are just about the only people SAFE from this, because their intent is (cough) pure... They ONLY want to advertise, possibly cheat you, possibly offer you fake rolex's... They are never actively trying to annoy you... the rest of us... eh... we tend to have other things in mind.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Seth Finkelstein, 9 Feb 2006 @ 6:36pm

    Crying Wolf, again

    The "interpretation" is a fiction concocted by the same guy who fabricated the Al Gore / Internet story (and for a time, was proud of that).

    For the debunking, read: http://volokh .com/posts/1136873535.shtml

    [Orin Kerr, January 10, 2006 at 1:12am]
    A Skeptical Look at "Create an E-annoyance, Go to Jail":

    Declan McCullagh has penned a column that is custom-designed to race around the blogosphere. It begins:

    "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. ... [ed: snip]"

    This is just the perfect blogosphere story, isn't it? It combines threats to bloggers with government incompetence and Big Brother, all wrapped up and tied togther with a little bow. Unsurprisingly, a lot of bloggers are taking the bait.

    Skeptical readers will be shocked, shocked to know that the truth is quite different. ...

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    susan, 26 Aug 2010 @ 3:08am

    i need mailer

    i need mailer

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.