Irish Legislator Proposes Law That Would Make Annoying People Online A Criminal Act
from the because-snail-mail,-telephones-and-the-internet-are-all-the-same,-right? dept
Is Ireland looking to pass a law that would "outlaw ebooks and jail people for annoying others?" Well, no, not really, but that's the sort of unintended consequences that follow when laws are updated for the 21st century using little more than a word swap. (h/t Brian Sheehan)
Ireland has had long-standing laws against harassment via snail mail, telephones and (as of 2007) SMS messages. A 2014 report by the government's somewhat troublingly-named "Internet Content Governance Advisory Group" recommended updating this section of the law to cover email, social media and other internet-related transmissions. UPDATE APPLIED:
1. The Post Office (Amendment) Act 1951 is amended in section 13, as substituted by section 4 of and Schedule 1 to the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007, by the substitution of the following section:Violators are looking at sentences ranging from 1-5 years and fines of up to €75,000 -- all for doing something as minor as "causing annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety." In addition, the proposed amendment would provide for the seizure of devices used to send the annoying messages, including computers, cell phones -- even the internet connection itself.
“Offences in connection with public electronic communications networks
13. (1) A person who—
(a) sends or causes to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or is indecent, obscene or menacing, or
(b) for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another—
(i) sends or causes to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that the sender knows to be false, or
(ii) persistently and without reasonable cause makes use of a public electronic communications network, is guilty of an offence.
Provisions for device seizures first showed up in the 2007 update, as cell phones finally gave law enforcers something they could confiscate with minimal public outrage, at least at that point. Even in 2015, it's still pretty difficult to justify cutting off someone's phone service and almost impossible to find anyone who agrees that banning someone from using the postal service isn't a pretty clear violation of basic rights. But when it comes to computers and internet connections, many legislators still feel these essential tools of communication are just "luxuries" -- a status they haven't held for several years.
But back to the headline. The broad language -- if read literally -- could make emailing an ebook to someone a criminal offense. Works of fiction are, by definition, false. But this isn't a new "feature" of this proposed amendment. The sending of knowingly false messages dates back to the day when people still routed most of their communications through the post office. So, everyone who's ever sent anyone a fictional book through the mail -- including Amazon -- is a potential violator of this law.
It's the vestigial language from previous iterations of the law -- words meant to target scam artists and aggressive telemarketers -- that is problematic. Simply appending the words "electronic communications" to an old law doesn't address the perceived problem (cyberbullying is cited in the governance group's report). It just creates new problems.
Written in this manner, the proposed law allows the pursuit of criminal charges for annoyance and inconvenience -- and the internet has plenty of both. The saving grace is that this pursuit is left to law enforcement, rather than routed through a civil process. It's a criminal offense, which is an adversarial process every step of the way -- in stark contrast to other, far more terrible "cyberbullying" laws that shift the burden of proof to the accused --- if they're even allowed to defend themselves.
Yes, the law is badly written, but it's a not a legislative land grab. It's just a lazy update to an existing law -- one that may have worked out fairly well given the narrow confines under which it operated. But this proposal -- a lazy "on the internet" patch job -- has the potential to criminalize lots of previously protected speech.
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
Filed Under: annoying people, criminal law, free speech, harassment, ireland, online
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Companies that will ship someone a bowl of dicks...totally illegal.
Birthday cards that will not stop playing music...totally illegal.
Hey wait! Do the politicians there ever send anyone campaign cards? I'm pretty sure some of their promises can be categorized as clearly false.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Well, no, not really"????
More clickbait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One really great unintended consequence of this, every politician in Ireland getting arrested.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Falsehood by mail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What will this do to customer service departments?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
how the hell do these people get jobs like this? it's like trying to put sense into a friggin' idiot! no chance in hell!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A name so good, it can only have been chosen deliberately
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Well, no, not really"????
More clickbait.
Okay, I waited half an hour, didn't come out of "moderation". If get that, they rarely get through, though sometimes ALL do. So blame Masnick for double posts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"matter that is grossly offensive or is indecent, obscene "
They just outlawed porn in Ireland.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Well, no, not really"????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yesterday I made a post that could "cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety" to an American politician. Since Techdirt is accessible in Ireland, could he take legal action against me there?
Even with a conviction for such a comment being highly unlikely, even without legal costs to defend yourself, just being told of a police investigation could still have a chilling effect on free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A challenge!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If this law were in place a few decades ago, America would never have triumphed in its war against "Ring Around The Collar."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If they applied said law to the email spammers and telemarketer scammers the politicians would be collateral damage. Though I doubt anybody would even care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Well, no, not really"????
Also, you can read a substantial part of the article withough clicking through. So calling click bait is a really weak argument.
Are you going to actually contribute something to the discussion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Well, no, not really"????
If you had anything other than screaming "click bait" to add to the conversation, maybe you wouldn't be held in moderation.
I blame you for your double posts.
Blame me for feeding the troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because some people need anxiety?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "Well, no, not really"????
Yes, that was funny. I've had posts stay in moderation for most of a day before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Well, no, not really"????
So do you still think this law is a good idea?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Go have yourself arrested.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Well, no, not really"????
You haven't been keeping up with the US gov't's actions lately, I see. If it were the US enacting this today, I'd already be renditioned to some concentration camp just on what I did this morning (and that was just complaining about Canada extending copyright terms).
If Ireland wants to enforce this as written, and Ireland gets to act the way the US does nowadays (world cop), I'm getting a free ride to the Emerald Isle courtesy of Irish taxpayers. Cool! I'll get to hang out and learn from real honest to gawd IRA "terrists" [sic]. I've always wanted to know how to make C4 in my kitchen (purely as a scientific pursuit of knowledge, you understand).
Is online trolling really so depraved that we need to sink to this to protect our precious bodily fluids? Whatever happened to that old saw, "Consider the source"?
Me, I blame Catholicism (or religion generically), but I'm fairly prejudiced in that regard (which I'll readily admit). They're so bludgeoned by priests into towing the party line that any thought of thinking independently is considered a crime against gawd.
Gahd! Humans can be so pathetic when they refuse to think. We have brains, and we've invented marvelous tools which our brains can use (logic), yet laziness is far more often the victor.
No, you have not been censored.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm convinced it's a combination of nepotism and "our sort of people" crap. Nothing else seems to explain how these boneheads continue to land positions where they can exercise power over others. Cf. Bernie Madoff, and HRC, and James Comey, ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Well, no, not really"????
Moron. TD doesn't do it the way you expect web forums to work. Your post is there, and we can see it if we choose to, but no, you are not waiting for a moderator to approve your post.
Boor. Twit. Imbecile. Ultramaroon! Physician, heal thyself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Bring it!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]