Anonymous Trolls Beware?
According to Declan McCullagh, annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. I don't entirely agree with his analysis, but he's probably correct that the referenced section of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, which Bush just signed, raises significant First Amendment concerns if it in fact says what he says it does.
Update: Here is the text of Section 113 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act:
SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.
(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 (C) 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)).'.
(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section. [emphasis added].
It amends Section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, which says in pertinent part:
(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.
2) The term “interactive computer service” has the meaning provided in section 230 (f)(2) of this title. [emphasis added].
Section 230(f)(2) in turn provides:
(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.
It sounds to me like the amendment was intended to apply to Internet telephony. The "annoyed" language Declan objects to is found earlier in this Act as follows:
(a) Prohibited acts generally
Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications—
....
(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; ....
Further note that section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act says: "The terms ``telecommunications carrier'' and ``telecommunications service'' have the meanings given such terms in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934." That Act states: "The term ''telecommunications'' means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received." [emphasis added].
I may be missing something, but I don't think either e-mail or web logs would be considered "telecommunications devices" that would be subject to the stated prohibitions (which, in fairness, are awfully vague).