Diceman

SEC. 223. [47 U.S.C. 223] OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE
CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) Whoever--
(1) in interstate or foreign communications--
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly--
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or
other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or
indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another
person;

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

Apophis

intent to annoy.. It's also not in H.R. 3402, but in another law that has been in place for 70 years.
H.R. 3402 just seems to be amending the Communications Act of 1934 to include the Internet in it's definition.

I would also question if things like forums would be included in this. It would take the willing participation on the behalf of the individual being annoyed to go read the forums that would contain any offensive messages. The law seems to state that the communication needs to be initiated from the person bearing the intent to the individual they are trying to annoy.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Diceman

Yes, it does stipulate an intent to annoy, but that intent was required wasn't in question.

As for whether or not forums would be covered under it is an interesting question as well. For instance, I hear what you're saying about requiring complicity on behalf of the recipient to receive the offending communication. On the other hand, I think it could also be argued that it requires complicity on behalf of the recipient to answer the phone - yet this second case clearly would not be accepted as abrogating the sender's responsibility for the intent and content of the message. The same logic should then stand for forum communication.

A way to differentiate the two cases is to say that forums have a general decorum, written or unwritten, by which the participants abide. Then a receiver must accept as non-criminal a communication that is made within the limits of the generally accepted group decorum. A sender who deviates from that decorum in too severe a manner could be seen to meet the conditions of the bill, but otherwise would be shielded from prosecution under its auspicies.

The decorum argument could be countered by saying that phone conversations have themselves a general decorum, albeit one far more ingrained than simple forum rules; namely the general rules of being a member of polite society. With a decorum established, then the two cases become similar again and senders could not be prosecuted for sending out anything that fell within the limits of polite society, but was taking a risk to send anything beyond this.

All in all, probably the most informative way to see how this law will be applied is to look at how its predecessor was applied to the older technologies. As Apophis mentioned (and based on what Apophis posted), the bill is itself effectively just a modification of existing legislation to include new technologies. If the old legislation was used in an excessive manner, then I think there would be good reason to suspect the same of the new legislation. The reverse of this is true also.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

leejo

This thread is annoying me. You have been warned.

Diceman

heh heh. As Apophis pointed out, you need to show intent to annoy.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

CingularDuality

Ah, but if someone notifies you that posting in a thread is annoying to that person, and you do it anyway, isn't that intentional?

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Diceman

Not if you reply with what is a thoughtful and constructive remark, designed solely to extend the conversation for the pleasure of all involved.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

KeithMann

If you read it with the knowledge that it's going to annoy you, are you guilty?

__________________
|TG-1stMIP|Manner
1st Mechanized Infantry Platoon (C-Team)

Please donate your spare CPU cycles to help fight diseases like cancer.

Diceman

Heh heh; Put him in the slammer boys, he's been annoying himself.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

ScratchMonkey

The RTBA may be threatened by introduction of a watered-down version. (Warning: This blog entry is also a begging letter for donations to fund popularizing the RTBA.)

__________________

leejo

We have neglected in this discussion the tried-and-true "sue people who hurt your feelings" remedy:

http://www.courttv.com/news/2006/011..._suit_ctv.html

Again, you have been warned. My bottom lip is already quivering. Don't make me poke it out!

Phrag

HANDS UP! You're all under arrest!

((oh god, I hope that didn't annoy them. here's my name and home address just in case...))

__________________
Chris: Dad, I tried to go to school but this guy won't let me.
Peter: Oh yeah? Him and what army?
Chris: The U.S. Army.
Peter: Oh, that's a good army.

Family Guy

Buck Fush

By means of this document, you have all been served my Intent to file suit. Those of you who make fun of me will have your day in court.

Buck Fush

Aww man, I scared everyone off. I was just joking. I'm only planning on suing root.

Apophis

Well.. No.. It was a pretty on-topic discussion about the law and then got derailed by a bunch of non-contributive posts.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.