Griefing is now A Federal Crime !!!

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on "annoying" someone through the internet without disclosing your true identity.

This prohibition is buried in the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

Buried in the new law is Sec. 113, called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

.

Thanks Hok! That's music to my ears!

So.... next they will need to implement more protocol allowing those being "stalked", "harrassed", or otherwise "griefed" to obtain the contact information of said griefers, harrassers and stalkers to allow the victim to take legal action.

I don't see how LL will be able to follow suit while no payment info on file acounts are running around.

It will be impossible to disclose their identity.
Should have a HARASSMENT form to fill out like DMCA...something along those lines. I imagine someting will happen one day regarding this, maybe later than sooner.

The overwhelming amount of griefers are not what LL wants to monitor. If they could pass their info along to the victims I am sure they would be happy to do so. Less work for them.

I'm def keeping my eyes on this one.
Thanks again Hok.

thats pretty vague "annoying"

More than half of my online exes are annoying

Hmm for that matter a lot of people who ask me on cyber dates are annoying.

Some people I just walk up to for any reason are annoying.

This will be fun. *rolls eyes*

Ok... so how's that gonna work? Say I, in the UK, "annoy" someone in the States. Where does the crime take place?

Ok, what is annoy?

These people on the forums that whine none stop about how bad SL is annoy me. Does that mean that I can get them all thrown in jail? I am sure I have annoyed a few people do, so I guess I should just wait for the FBI to come take me away.

bui bye Dnate - dont forget to write!

Bring a lot of reading material I hear Jail is pretty boring.

Unless your going to Fox River, of course.

you have to intend to annoy. appearelty though, its ok to be annoying using your real name.

of course it is - otherwise 99% of all these pop up ad makers would be criminals.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."


http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

In the USA

I don't think it would be geared toward ppl who walk up to you and annoy you LOL. Think of the griefers who execute elaborate plans to bring a private island down, or who consistently appear as a new alt account to annoy you after you have banned the last alt they created. Or those who use scripts to consistently cage people on a private sim or do other nasty things that effectivley interfere with the SL user experience.

Those types of griefers seem like a more likely target LOL.
It will be very interesting to see where the government and LL goes with this though.

wanna have a a cyber date? *grins*

*smirks* I find the Lindens annoying when there is no customer service

but I also find people wearing green, yellow, pink or orange annoying to
*dusts off his lawyer he keeps in he basement*

If you tell someone that what they are doing annoys you, and they continue to do it, they are aware that they are annoying you at that point. Especially if it is something that they do not HAVE to do...like breathing?

The method is to file what is referref to as a John Doe suit against Linden Labs. Then you send a subpoena to LL requesting the IP address of the griefer. (Assuming the griefer is dumb enough to not have used a proxy.)


.

.

Filing a suit against Linden Labs? Yikes. Not sure I want to join that club...even if it is a John Doe Suit

But if the account is verified, couldn't you just request the actual contact information for that person? Not saying that anyone with Payment Info on File or Used would be blind enough to grief anyone to that point.

Yes but it's not clear that under the Law that such a person would be considered to not have disclosed his/her true identity

First Amendment rights.

Game over. Try again.

This is unconstitutional and would never hold up in court.

Don't you just LOVE it when our government passes all these unenforceable laws?

What a waste of taxpayers' money!

I'm not saying they don't need to do something about cyberstalking, but writing a regulation or whatever that is THIS vague should be a crime in itself.

Wait, is this law posted on the internet? I would consider that "annoying". Can I bring suit against the President for it?

It's not unconstitutional. You still can annoy someone and say whatever you want to him/her. But you would have to pay the price. There are lawful limits on what you can say without being liable in a civil law suit or a criminal charge. Ever hear of slander , extortion, or the proverbial "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre."

There is ,however, a good chance that the law would be struck down by the courts on the grounds of it's being vague.

.


.

The avatar typing sound annoys me. I demand anyone typing around me to be thrown in prison without parole. Linden Labs does not have a volume slider for this sound so all Lindens must be arrested also. Since I can hear my own typing sound I will turn myself into the authorities without a televised police chase or further incident.

P.S. This law would be a lot easier to enforce if the word "annoy" was replaced with "harass".
Of course proof would be required.

First amendment: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Limits as stated by the Supreme Court:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Miller v. California
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
And many more.

Speech that is intended to harm is not protected under the constitution.

Then I invite you to read the following:

That means one's should privilege social duties over his/her own rights when it comes to well-being of all...Plain and simple.