Yanking cranks.
Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I, §223, “Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications,” used to read as follows:
- a) Prohibited acts generally
- 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;
- (B) 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 or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
- (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
- (D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or
- (E) makes repeated telephone calls 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; or
- (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
- (2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,
- (1) in interstate or foreign communications—
- shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Of course, you’ll want to know what a “telecommunications device” is.
- (h) Definitions
- For purposes of this section—
- (1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—
- (A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
- (B) does not include an interactive computer service.
- (1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—
Clear enough?
Ah, but now, thanks to H.R.3402, the (otherwise estimable and indeed highly necessary) Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, we get to take up our red pens and amend the above. Turn with me to Sec. 113 for the changes:
- (a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended—
- (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘and’ at the end;
- (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; and’; and
- (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
- ‘(C) in the case of subparagraph© of subsection (a)(1), includes 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).’.
Now are we clear?
—No: it’s not illegal now to post anonymously to the internet, on the grounds that someone somewhere might be annoyed. Then, Declan McCullagh never said it was. He was if somewhat alarmist nontheless pretty clear up front that the intent to annoy (or abuse, or threaten, or harass) was key. Those who pooh-pooh the idea this law would ever be used against the colorfully pseudonymous commenters at Eschaton or Daily Kos or TBogg (or Little Green Footballs, or the Free Republic, or the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler) underestimate, I think, what a target-rich environment comment threads have become for abuse and threats and harrassment, and sheer downright intentional annoyance; miss, in fact, the very raison d’etre of the internet troll. —The most recently celebrated eruptions of accusations of abuse (and annoyance) depended, it’s true, on mendacity, or at least a criminal inability to parse satire and provide context—but while that might get you acquitted, it won’t pay your legal bills.
Atrios—I mean, Duncan Black—has it pretty much right, I think. Unless His Imperial Presidency signed one of Strip-Search Sammy’s backsie specials, this law will either be interpreted in basic good faith, following the spirit of its context and intent (“Preventing Cyberstalking,” says the subsection’s title)—or it will be adjusted drastically, following a nasty and otherwise unnecessary legal battle. Or both. It (as ever) remains to be seen. —Meanwhile, here’s grounds for one of those perennial conversations we all ought to keep having, about moderation andd politesse and community, and speech, and the illusory freedoms thereof. Annoying, I know, we’ve been over it all before and will again, but chop the wood and carry the water, okay?
(Oh, who are we kidding. We’re all going to have to keep identity affidavits and political permits on file whenever we want to blog about anything more inflammatory than knitting. We’ll be like porn stars with those USC 2257 statements at the bottom of every page. Bots will ping us in IM: “Papers, please.” What a brave new world! If only those dam’ libertarians hadn’t made libertarianism so selfishly stupid…)
Commenting is closed for this article.
whenever we want to blog about anything more inflammatory than knitting.
Oh right, like knitters never have flame wars! :)