Curse

Vilaptca · Jan 10, 2006, 06:09 PM // 18:09

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...2491&subj=news

Funny new law. Check it out. I think most anyone who spends all day on the forums like I do would find this hilarious.

TheEPIC · Jan 10, 2006, 06:27 PM // 18:27

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I make my life off of anonymously annoying people on the internet. I wonder if that means its illegal to pwn noobs in internet games because it might annoy them.

Raptox · Jan 10, 2006, 06:31 PM // 18:31

As this topic has been beaten to death at two other forums I visit, let me summarize what's going on before this gets out of control.

The article is misleading in two ways:

1. It's quoting a section of the law that DOES NOT apply to the internet. There is an entire part of the section the author is describing that defines an "interactive computer service" and proceeds to clearly state "this section does not apply to an interactive computer service." This piece is conveniently left out. Here is the missing part of the section that the author is dealing with:

Quote:

(h) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—

(B) does not include an interactive computer service.
(2) The term “interactive computer service” has the meaning provided in section 230 (f)(2) of this title.

section 230 (f)(2):

(2) Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

2. Strike two against the article's author is that there's a second part of the law that reads like this, which he makes no mention of:

Quote:

(d) Sending or displaying offensive material to persons under 18
Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications knowingly—
(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or
(B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the communication; or
(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person’s control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,

Thus, if you make "offensive" material available to persons under 18 years of age, you are breaking the law. Thus, the author not only misreads the law and misleads his audience, he misses the part in the law where he might have actually been able to make his point. ROLLEYES.

But gets even better. Here's a snip from section (e), Defenses:

Quote:

(e) Defenses
In addition to any other defenses available by law:
(1) No person shall be held to have violated subsection (a) or (d) of this section solely for providing access or connection to or from a facility, system, or network not under that person’s control, including transmission, downloading, intermediate storage, access software, or other related capabilities that are incidental to providing such access or connection that does not include the creation of the content of the communication.

Thus, an ISP, a library, your Grandma, whatver, are not liable if you start porn surfing on their computers or networks. THEY did not give you the material. YOU used their network to find it without them forcing it on you. HOWEVER, I do believe this means that if a network allows adult advertising, and it gets served to a minor, there's going to be a major smackdown.

So, in short:
- The author misleads his audience based on information he twists
- The author misses the actual possibly frightening part of the revised law
- If you're solely providing access to the internet, you're not liable

And here's a link to the revised law, so you can read all this for yourself: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...3----000-.html

Some have commented that the danger in laws like this is that once you have one obscure, incidental, nearly-unenforceable law, you're well on your way to having dozens of them. Then you end up with a spider web of tricky little laws that you can be caught on at any time someone needs you to shut up. At one point in my life I would have said "this is America, that kind of crap doesn't happen here." I don't think I can honestly say that today.

In any event, should this piece of legislation ever get invoked in a case, you can bet it'll get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court by the ACLU et al. And, IMHO, just like all these recent video games cases, the law will be be pwned.

Vilaptca · Jan 10, 2006, 07:06 PM // 19:06

Nice post Raptox. A friend found this article, so I didn't know so much about it. I'll have to share what you've pointed out, hope you don't mind if I just copy+paste and maybe say here is what Raptox has to say about your article.

Raptox · Jan 10, 2006, 07:09 PM // 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vilaptca

Nice post Raptox. A friend found this article, so I didn't know so much about it. I'll have to share what you've pointed out, hope you don't mind if I just copy+paste and maybe say here is what Raptox has to say about your article.

Go for it. This article has caused some major idiocy over the past two days, so if you wanna help stop the insanity I'm all for it.

Edit: If I find anything else about this revised law, I'll just edit my post. I'm still waiting to see if someone can shoot a hole in my interpretation of section (e).

coldslammer · Jan 10, 2006, 08:48 PM // 20:48

sigh.........there goes my day job

its not april fools day by any chance?

Ultimate_Gaara · Jan 11, 2006, 12:53 AM // 00:53

Go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200

Too bad for you guys... lucky for me im not under that bad dude's control. Up here in Canada we believe in freedom... eh?

Gee have you guys every... I don't know, thought about overthrowing that moron?... Well if you will excuse me im going to go legaly download some music while I bugg people online.

EchoSex · Jan 11, 2006, 01:25 AM // 01:25

Yeehaw! Step one to ending spam has started. Now, if only they could make all digital storage personal property to the participant who purchased the device. That way, spybots are invading personal property.

Guardian of the Light · Jan 11, 2006, 01:53 AM // 01:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by EchoSex

Yeehaw! Step one to ending spam has started. Now, if only they could make all digital storage personal property to the participant who purchased the device. That way, spybots are invading personal property.

I thought step one was spam filters

However I'm in Canada so this doesn't affect me.

*annoys random ppl*

conker · Jan 11, 2006, 02:08 AM // 02:08

i dont know if this is what i saw (but im pretty sure it is) but i think i saw it last year on the news, i know its something on the internet, tho

I pwnd U · Jan 11, 2006, 03:02 AM // 03:02

as the basketball crowd at my school would say

"BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!!"

as quoted by the Junior Orange Crush! (WCHS)

Xue Yi Liang · Jan 11, 2006, 02:32 PM // 14:32

Wow.
That gives me a great idea - any player caught abusing the chat with offensive behavior (perhaps just shy of banning-worthy behavior) can be sentenced to jail in the game! ooh. I'm going to expand this idea in the Sardelac Sanitarium.

Vilaptca · Jan 11, 2006, 02:38 PM // 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

Wow.
That gives me a great idea - any player caught abusing the chat with offensive behavior (perhaps just shy of banning-worthy behavior) can be sentenced to jail in the game! ooh. I'm going to expand this idea in the Sardelac Sanitarium.

America's Army

TK someone...go to virtual jail...

Shimus DarkRaven · Jan 11, 2006, 02:40 PM // 14:40

hah. This..is..low. Even the thought of punishing someone with a fake name online for flaming something or someone just keeps showing the intelligence of this GREAT administration that runs this country /sarcasm.

I laughed when I read it. Yeah. My real name is Dale Saunders. Maybe Bob roberts? Hmm..identity thieves, avast ye! Lol

--The Shim

Fear The Destroyer · Jan 11, 2006, 02:45 PM // 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimus DarkRaven

hah. This..is..low. Even the thought of punishing someone with a fake name online for flaming something or someone just keeps showing the intelligence of this GREAT administration that runs this country /sarcasm.

I laughed when I read it. Yeah. My real name is Dale Saunders. Maybe Bob roberts? Hmm..identity thieves, avast ye! Lol

--The Shim

LOL!

I pwnd U · Jan 11, 2006, 03:22 PM // 15:22

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I HAVE FLAMED YOU ALL!!!!
and if u dont want to take time to find out who i am ill tell u. I am George W. Bush I live in the White House! NOW WATCHA GONNA DO!!!

(im not really him just figured it would be funny PLZ DONT ARREST ME FOR FLAMING!!)

Alura Pyro · Jan 11, 2006, 05:02 PM // 17:02

*pulls out pink fuzzy hand cuffs and smiles*
opps wrong pair

Knido · Jan 11, 2006, 06:01 PM // 18:01

ill arrest you for having pikachu in your avatar!

no offense to chris

TheEPIC · Jan 11, 2006, 06:07 PM // 18:07

Wait, wait, wait. This could be a good thing. We could get all those people who spam the trade channel in LA dist 1 put in jail. I'm pretty sure they annoy us all.

Shimus DarkRaven · Jan 11, 2006, 06:23 PM // 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEPIC

Wait, wait, wait. This could be a good thing. We could get all those people who spam the trade channel in LA dist 1 put in jail. I'm pretty sure they annoy us all.

One can only hope.

--The Shim