OT: Whatever Next?

[douglas]

Let's see, the specific language, quoted from the article you linked, is "Whoever...utilizes 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... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

It seems to me that any online multiplayer game not played over a local network could be interpreted to qualify, and merely trying to play competitively could be enough - your opponent could find it annoying to actually have to work for a win. As written, this law could conceivably be used as the basis for suing someone just for winning a game of SEIV . Noob bashing through the chat feature of a game like WoW would definitely qualify.

AgentZero said:I on the other hand must behave myself.

Assuming your profile isn't lying, Tim McElwain, you don't have anything to worry about even if Ireland joins the US later today.

[Fyron]

That article doesn't cover the issue very well, I think... Try this one.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Hey, P? I think maybe you should start worrying.

[AgentZero]

Well, seeing as Fyron's article makes the point that the definition of 'Annoy' is different to the everyday definition of annoy (don't you love legalease), and that everything covered by this Act is already covered by other laws, I don't think anyone need really worry.

I just wonder if one could use the law outside US juristiction if the 'method of communication' is registered in the States. ie: If I want to b****-slap someone with this Act on the WoW EU servers, could I use the fact that Blizzard is a US company to my advantage. Not that I'd really need to... The few people in WoW who've managed to annoy me have been sent crying back to mommy in fairly short order, but it'd be nice to know for curiosity's sake.

[Puke]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
Hey, P? I think maybe you should start worrying.

There are plenty of better reasons than this, for them to have my back against the wall.

[Grandpa Kim]

Ah, but how do you prove intent? Even my wife would have trouble determining my intent on the web...

(reminder to self: delete porn sites!)

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Well, if someone says something annoying, and gets told to stop and says something annoying and gets told to stop and says something annoying and gets told to stop and says something annoying and gets told to stop...

I think you see the point. Especially if it's the same thing over and over again.

[Raging Deadstar]

Puke said:
There are plenty of better reasons than this, for them to have my back against the wall.

Next Week on the Intel Forums Most Wanted...

[TurinTurambar]

Considering the way this whole thing flies in the face of the First Ammendment, it'll never survive "as-is" beyond the current Administration. Someone like Fein will take it to court if he gets in trouble and that'll be the end of it.

TT