January 11, 2006 4:00 AM PST

FAQ: The new 'annoy' law explained

(continued from previous page)

Q: Wait a moment. I'm told this law merely updated an existing prohibition on "annoying" or harassing someone through the telephone.
That's what Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican, claims in a press release, and it's sort of true.

The old law criminalized making an anonymous telephone call that's designed to annoy someone, which sounds pretty reasonable. But the new law applies broadly to any form of Internet communication, and it is not limited to individual-to-individual communications such as e-mail or instant messaging.

It's hardly clear that the federal government needs to criminalize this sort of thing, anyway. State governments are more than capable of doing so.

Q: I read a post by Dan Solove that says the law is just antiharassment, so we shouldn't be worried. Is he right?
Solove, who's a law professor at George Washington University, says: "'Annoy' is part of the intent element of the statute--it requires the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass. Far from an antianonymity provision that applies whenever a person annoys another, it is merely a prohibition on harassment."

If all the law did was target harassment, nobody would care. Instead, it also restricts certain behaviors that "annoy."

Most people realize there's a difference between annoying someone and harassing them. If I stalk someone, impersonate them in chat rooms, and repeatedly call them at 3 a.m. and hang up, that's harassment. Nobody's arguing that should be legal.

But annoyance? If I set up an incendiary Web site that has a single purpose--say, to annoy some politician I dislike--that should be permissible. That's why the law is far more than an "antiharassment" law.

Q: It's not enough for someone to find the site annoying. I have to intend for it to be annoying, right?
Correct. The relevant section of the law uses the phrase "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." A thin-skinned reader becoming irrationally annoyed shouldn't be sufficient to trigger criminal liability.

Q: The law criminalizes certain Internet actions done to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person." That means someone has to do all four things, right?
Nope. It's an or connector, not an and connector. Violating any one of the four prohibitions would be unlawful.

Q: I've read a post by Ann Bartow, a professor at USC Law School, saying that e-mail and blogs may not be covered by the law.
This is a little complicated, but let's walk through it. Bartow writes: "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)."

In general, for the relevant section of the U.S. Code, that's right.

But it seems that Congress intended a broader interpretation for the "annoy" prohibition. The new law sweeps in "other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet"--and the most straightforward reading of that would cover Web logs and e-mail.

If politicians wanted to limit the "annoy" prohibition to VoIP, they could easily have done so. But they didn't.

Q: What does the word "annoy" mean, anyway?
Vagueness is one of the law's problems. The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers two definitions of annoy. One is merely to "disturb or irritate," and the other is "to harass."

Q: Is this going to be challenged in court?
Maybe. Clinton Fein, who runs Annoy.com, has said he might. Fein has challenged a related law in the past.

But lawsuits are expensive, and there's no guarantee of success.

Q: If the "intent to annoy" law already was on the books for phone calls and hasn't been a problem, why should I be concerned?
There are two reasons. First, criminalizing anonymous annoying phone calls is a lot different from criminalizing anonymous annoyances on the Internet. Phone calls are a one-to-one communication to a specific person; blog posts generally are not.

Second, it's worrisome that the U.S. Congress chose to expand the scope of the existing law to the Internet. Instead, they should have limited it to comply with the First Amendment.

Previous page
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
law, First Amendment, VoIP, Communications Decency Act, communication

66 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
There goes Slashdot
I think this is good for Windows. We get rid of the Slashdotters, and 90% of the Linux/Open Source fanatics (90% of a little isn't much but its a start)-:)
Posted by robertcampbell2 (103 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You're in trouble
I believe that your comments naming Slashdot in particular and Linux/OSS *enthusiasts* in general - especially including the "smiley" emoticon - could be construed as an intended annoyance to the above groups of people. Expect legal action soon.

Now, the only question is, will you be charged once for posting one thing, or will you be charged multiple times, once for each person you have annoyed?

I hope you fry for your flagrant flouting of the laws of our great land. Oh yeah - which country do you live in? No matter, even though you may live outside the United States, many of your innocent victims live inside it. I'm sure there's some anti-terrorism law (or presidential whim) that would allow us to come get you and throw you in a secret prison somewhere.
Posted by MrNougat (78 comments )
Link Flag
I think this is good for Windows too.
I might be able to finally prosecute Microsoft
for making claims about WIndows on it's
website and in the media that annoy me!!! We
get rid of the 'dozers and therefore 90-100% of
the lusers out there. Would make life much
easier not having to deal with those idiots.
Posted by M-RES (28 comments )
Link Flag
Web sites and blogs do not "originate" communications
If the text of the law does indeed refer to devices that _originate_ communications, then Web sites and blogs are excluded, because servers do not originate communications, they only respond to them. You must visit a Web site or blog in order to see it; it does not magically find its way to your computer and display itself without any action on your part. Therefore it does not _originate_ anything.
Posted by Agatel (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Very astute!
Excellent observation. I'm hoping that c|net will respond to this point as they have responded to other questions in this FAQ article.
Posted by MrNougat (78 comments )
Link Flag
Annoyed at 3rd party Conversations?
Excellent point. I suppose this would be akin to me calling you on a telephone and gossiping about person X, then person X gets annoyed about what I am saying to you and files harrassment. Harrassment claims would not be valid as the communication was between you and a voluntary participant in the conversation; merely getting annoyed at a 3rd party conversation would not fall under this legislation (IMO).
Posted by jmaestro26 (7 comments )
Link Flag
RSS feeds?
What about stuff like that? Things that are pushed onto your client from the server?
Posted by WDS2 (183 comments )
Link Flag
Blogs
I agree with you. I have a blog and yes it isn't too nice. It is there and if the people I blog go to it, that is their own doing. It doesn't go directly to them.
Do you think I should just continue to blog or should I just disclose all my information? I like my privacy and my right to free speech.
Posted by RoseZone (2 comments )
Link Flag
The end of SPAM?
Excellent.

What if someone's email account is hacked and then spam is sent? Is the person at fault?
Posted by the liquid man (44 comments )
Reply Link Flag
"With intent to"
Everybody is ignoring the words "with intent to" and the legal principle that criminal law is interpreted narrowly. I don't think this law criminalizes anything that a civilized person would want to do, even when conducting debates or delivering incisive criticism. The word "annoy" is vague, soits interpretation is going to have to be narrow.

But as someone else pointed out, this is probably another weapon against some types of spam.
Posted by mcugaedu (75 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Ridiculous!
As a citizen, I am protected by the First Amendment if I
communicate something that annoys you, whether I intended to
annoy you or not. I might write something in my blog (if I did
that sort of thing) that is specifically meant to annoy people with
certain political or social leanings. For example, I could choose
to state my belief that God wanted those miners in WVA to die,
since he didn't listen to all the prayers. I would be making a
point that the "faithful" can't expect divine intervention to only
work in their favor. This sort of statement would definitely know
a lot of fundamentalists, and that is my intent. Because it's on
"the Internet" it's now illegal.

However, it's not unconstitutional. This is why I am perfectly
comfortable speaking my mind online or otherwise. It's also why
I send monthly donations to the local ACLU chapter and the EFF,
among others.
Posted by chassoto--2008 (71 comments )
Link Flag
not against spam
This law is intended to be use by politicians as a veil to limit political speech by blogs. There are no corporate or organizational backers of this bill, it is solely a product of twisted political minds. The FEC could not stop political speech on blogs so this is their next logical step in the intent to stiffle free speech.
Posted by R Me (196 comments )
Link Flag
We've been through this before
This whole debate reminds me of the way some people rose up in fury ten years ago when, as a university administrator, I had to tell them that the existing laws against harassment, etc., applied to their Internet communications. Some people just couldn't believe it.

Guess what, folks? Harassment and threats are already illegal. This new law adds very, very little to the responsibilities that you already had. (See my other comment for a more technical explanation.)

But if you believe the Internet is a fantasyland where anything goes, then I suppose you can also pretend that this law is President Bush's way of personally oppressing you.

I think CNET has misunderstood the law and is spreading needless panic.
Posted by mcugaedu (75 comments )
Reply Link Flag
IANAL, Are you?
Unless you are prepared to provide a defensible definition of the word "annoy" as it applies here, and unless you can cite relavent legal education and experience to provide us all with some reason to grant you credibility as regards making sweeping commentary of whether or not this will be apllies narrowly, I am going to take the position that the rights and freedoms of Americans today are less than they were before the era of Bush the Younger, this is yet another step in that direction.

On a positive note, the statute appears, on its face (remember that IANAL), to be a clear violation of the First Ammendment.
Posted by Mister L (18 comments )
Link Flag
Enough already......
We're not judges here, and can philosophize all we want, but that's where the intent of the law will be decided. I don't see anyone pointing out that the law specifically targets those that engage in the prohibited behavior "...without disclosing their identity...". Flame, spam, blog all you want as long as your identity is disclosed. Other criminal action may be claimed if it is libel, that's been against the law for decades. How does one figure that violates the First Amendment? Doesn't say you can't express yourself, just you can't do it anonomously, which is as it should be. Can be a tool against spam, and what about DOS attacks? As far as I know, no individual computer user has been the target of a DOS, but is it not possible. That would annoy the devil out of me. Grow up folks, the Constitution and Amendments were not meant to protect barbaric actions.
Posted by kenny-J (53 comments )
Reply Link Flag
anonomous speech is essential
Consder thomas paine's "common sense" book was under a pen name as was much of the federalist papers and anti-federlist papers. book and papers critical of the crown were done under pen names because of very real retribution. This isn't about Cyber stalking or VoIP. It is about control government control over our lives. Think for a moment about the regualtions to enforce this law. OS makers and Hardware providers will be required perhaps to have bio metric readers to verify identity. any one can always lie when filling out the registration. Given the courts rulling with Kelo, mcain fiengold and other laws, I don't think they will strike this law down either. In case you haven't noticed America is a full blown police state. Bush him self called the constitution just a G** D*** piece of paper. Apperently the rest of congress thinks even less of it. GEt people asking the wrong questions and the answers really don't matter much at all
Posted by (3 comments )
Link Flag
Enough of the Neo-Con aplologists already...
Neville Jantz said: "How does one figure that violates the First Amendment? Doesn't say you can't express yourself, just you can't do it anonomously, which is as it should be."

Wrong! A Supreme court ruling specifically protects anonymous free speech. Existing laws regarding libel and slander still apply. It is the burden of the person aubjected to the libel/slander to acertain the indentity the perpetrator, and THAT is as it should be.

You want to talk about "Enough already...?" How about enough already with the insane attitude of "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." This attitude invites abuse of authority. It is already happening. We are losing our personal freedoms.

I agree with a previous post that said the sole purpose of this law is to stifle political speech. God forbid you dis Emperor Dubya.
Posted by dnotarnicola (6 comments )
Link Flag
Excuse me,
Can I have my country back? You know, the land of the free and the hone of the brave?
It appears that it is getting less and less every day.
Posted by Sboston (498 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Excuse you?
Exactly how much of precious freedom was taken away here? We've had libel laws for over 200 years.
Posted by mcugaedu (75 comments )
Link Flag
ROFL
Quite frankly, if you weren't prone to being a complete a** and stalking people, you wouldn't even need to bother 'clarifying' what the law does, or does not say.
Posted by garyn1 (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Gary, here's a thought...
(Note that the below is for illustrative purposes only, without intent to personalize this debate in any way or to annoy...also please note the use of my name, and not a nom de plume)

Let us say that I had read your post on a bulletin board where handles are used routinely instead of names...and I chose to respond to it by saying:

(Example)
"Listen here you pompous ass, it is clear to me that you come from the same school of thought that openly welcomes the invasion of our homes by law enforcement officials under the "If you have nothing to hide, why can't they come in whenever they please?" arguement. This makes it obvious to me that you don't give a rat's a@@ about anyone's liberties but your own, and you are blind as a bat if you can't see the erosion of constitutional liberties happening right before your eyes. Take your facist trash elsewhere!"
(END example)

NOW, under this law, and assuming the fictitious "you" is mightily annoyed by my characterization of said fictitious "you"'s of a narrow minded neocon with no regard to the essential liberties that encourage free thought, and that I posted the above example under a screen name/handle, I am now guilty of breaking the law...

Yeah...when hell freezes over. Thank the framers for the first ammendment.
Posted by Mister L (18 comments )
Link Flag
Precedent?
47 U.S.C. 223 has been on the books for some time, isn't this the Communications Act of 1934 original language? I'm having trouble finding a Fed. case where "intent to annoy" came under interpretation. I would assume in over 70 years the question would have come up. Anybody have a source for me?
Posted by logic_ration (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
My point
That's what I've been saying this whole time.

The issue is with the language of the amendment, not the original text. What we need is a clearer definition of what a 'received communication' is when pertaining to the internet. If you were to say it's only e-mail, then this whole issue is moot.
Posted by MU_Riboflavin (7 comments )
Link Flag
maybe a deeper degree
I myself am deeply concerned that for all intents and purposes this annoyance law is purposely vague to give a broader sense of the use of the law than what is there.

The "arresting" of US currency is done because the money is suspect of being illgotten gains. But by arresting the money there is no bail or constitutional issues because the monies are non-intities.
In an act...could a broader sense of this law be taken to the same terms....in as much as "xxxbloggerxx' is not an individual as he has no birth record...no social security number...no drivers license..etc.etc. In this scenario then this "name" annoyed a law enforcement agent and violated the law and thus could be arrested and have search warrants issued and property confiscated all under this pretense of not being a legal entity.

Would it not then be the responsibility of the real person to now have to step forward and admit to what ever and all to get his/her personal property back....in the mean time the government would have access to all that was on that computer as it was confiscated...

This seems to me to be some more instances of the Homeland Security act than an annoyance law.

Why else would they not correct the wording to not be in such a conflict with Constitutional Issues.

they are knocking at my door as I write this...I hope it gets posted long enough to be read...
LMAO
lurkswithin
Posted by lurkswithin (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
The first time this law is misused
provided the defendant has the tenacity and financial resources to defend themselves, probably through several levels of the court system and over the course of several years, then this law will eventually be found unconstitutional as it's presently written.

The basis that we should trust prosecutors "because they wouldn't do that" is one of the most inane arguments a politician could give.

Clearly there is a political motivation behind this law, possibly a concealed attempt to restrict free speech, and there have been too many instances in the recent past where promises "that we would never do that" have been massively broken.

The bottom line is that "freedom of speech" means the government is not allowed to control what we say, as long as we don't incite illegal behaviour such as violence or do the "shout fire in a theater" thing.

This law is clearly in violation of that, and a determined defendant ought to be able to use the freedom of speech argument as a successful defense.
Posted by ajbright (447 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Annoyances Anonymous
I seem to remember there were a bunch of guys in New York a few years back that all signed their posts "Publius", making a lot of inflammatory statements in favor of confirmation of the Constitution -- 1780's, wasn't it?
Posted by ProudPrimate (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What about annoying someone in person anonymously?
I suppose this is the next phase: you must introduce yourself before annoying someone in person. Would this requirement be a violation of the constitution? Definitely, therefore applying these requirements to a telecommunication device would be unconstitutional.

I'm not concerned what people may think of me by revealing my identity as much as I am of identity theft, and my personal information being abused.
Posted by jmaestro26 (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Too ambigous to hold up
If you were to apply what the law says, it not only would apply to blogs, but to online news, and possibly television (if you have a satelite dish, you are receiving it in a digital format). Do you really think news sources would allow this violation of their free speech. The law should have been more specific on how a person is receiving the information that is considered an annoyance. Communications that are directed to objects that are the sole receiving point for an entity such as an email box should receive consideration under this law, but those entities that require the receiver to "actively aquire" annoying content not directly targeted to them (i.e. blogs, news sites, websites, chat groups that are open to the public and outside of a person or group's personal designated receiving point) should not. In this case, the user or group would have to go beyond their private sources into the public domain to aquire such annoyances. Once in the public domain, we already have laws in place to cover slander and defamation of character as well as the right of free speech. I doubt the likes of our major new sources will stand idlely by as they print thousands of articles to the public about individuals in society and they do have the right to protect their sources of information (meaning they would be anonymous to the recipent). Comedians such as Jay Leno also have the right to break the truth, make outrageous claims, and broadcast it to millions all in the name of comedy. I'd like to see the recipient of these jokes try to to apply this law. Also, given the government's lack of enforcement to even go after hackers sending their zombie PC's on DDOS attacks, do you really think you have much to worry about because you've "flamed" someone in a chat room? I'm not going to lose any sleep over this law.
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What is anonymous
If I am in a chat room and I flame another chatter, I am truely unknown to that person... but so is the recipient to me. I can claim I did not intentionally intend to annoy, harass, etc any specific person since I do not know their true identity. In an environment such as this, the conditions of identity have long been established: Your identity is the handle you use. To use this handle, I would have to register it under an account with the host provider of the chat room, so under these conditions, I could argue that I am not truely anonymous. I am identified by an acceptable manner considered normal for the medium I am communicating in: My handle. My true identity is unknown, but I am not anonymous. This arguement could apply to all forems where handles are accepted.
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Message has been deleted.
Posted by Darkada (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
what is the difference?
i am still going to go with my comment to the original story that this law is a total waste of time, money, and energy......
Posted by val31 (37 comments )
Link Flag
The Annoyance Law
This is great, this is just great. This is the greatest law ever invented. I have a few friends who annoy me on my instant messenger. I'm going to have them incarcerated and fined. That'll teach 'em. I know who they are, so it's not a problem.

It doesn't matter that the law is unconstitutional, after all, the First Ammendment seems to have been... ammended. It probably now reads: "You can exercise freedom of speech as long as you don't violate any of the laws below..."

Exactly what is anonymous? Nobody is really anomymous on the Internet. Even if you don't use your real name, you can still be tracked by your IP address and your identity can be found by means of you ISP. Basically this means that everyone can say whatever they want on the Internet, and, because they are not really anonymous, they can't be sued. Does the law explain what "anonymous" means?

By the way, I find Yahoo's ads quite annoying. Sometimes they even cover my "Inbox" Link. I think I'm going to sue them too. That'll be a good waste of taxpayer dollars and court resources. After all, courts no longer seem to have real cases, with real criminals, to deal with.
Posted by Sentinel (199 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Message has been deleted.
Posted by Johnny Kneegrow (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
It LOOKS like the analysis is wrong!
Okay, I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I get a headache whenever I try to read stuff like this. But...

You state in the answer to the first question:

"""Before the new law took effect last Thursday, 47 U.S.C. 223 explicitly said it "does not include an interactive computer service." The changes override that for the "to annoy" section and now say it applies to the "Internet.""""

After reading the law and the changes, it seems to my "non-lawyer" mind, that this NOT what it says.


The new legislation says in Sec. 113:
----------------------------
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.
=============================


Now, Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) as it read BEFORE it was changed by this new legislation, said:
----------------------------
(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.
=============================


After the new legislation's changes are applied, the section reads:
----------------------------
(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;
(B) does not include an interactive computer service; **_and_**
(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)).
[[http://Bracketing the word 'and' with **_ _** was done by me for emphasis.]|http://Bracketing the word 'and' with **_ _** was done by me for emphasis.]]
=============================


The "does not include an interactive computer service" does NOT appear to be overridden by the changes, but specifically INCLUDED through the use of the word **_and_**. If the legislation had used the word **_or_** or **_except_**, then saying that the "does not include an interactive computer service" is excluded might make sense.

Additionally, in the new legislation, note that it says:
----------------------------
(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.
=============================
That also seems to reinforce the inclusion of "does not include an interactive computer service". If this is true, the law can now be read as:
"""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, and is not an interactive computer service... 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."""

I don't know. Maybe in the legal world, the word **_and_** really means **_or_** or **_except_**.

So, can you (or someone) explain WHY the word **_and_** in the context of this legislation doesn't really mean AND, but really means **_or_** or **_except_**?

If that cannot be adequately explained, then the entire analysis is flawed, because it is based upon a flawed premise.

Nursevic

(P.S. If anyone would like to see the original law with the new changes applied and color-coded to see what was changed, here is a page that shows it:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://people.delphiforums.com/Nursevic/eannoy/eannoy2.html" target="_newWindow">http://people.delphiforums.com/Nursevic/eannoy/eannoy2.html</a> )
Posted by Nursevic (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Without disclosing his identity
Without disclosing his identity...

This takes care of the spoofing problem.

Nuff said!!!

Walt
Posted by wbenton (522 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Annoy Law
We need more severe laws against annonymous posters and ISP's who fail to cooperate. MainStay Communications in Nebraska refused to honor out of state subpoenas to discover the identity of their customer who opened internet access account with porn site using my personal identity information and photos. This was a direct violation of their conditions of use policy and violation of their terms of use. But the offending party still has an account with them and I can't get the identity of the user who opened the account and sent men to my home for perverted sexual experiences.
If you don't know the name of the user or poster, you can't file a police report or sue them. Your belief that a certain person committed the offense is not enough to file charges. You have to prove it - - and the police will not prove it for you (this is real life - not NYPD or CSI)
Posted by Rita V (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Annoy Law
What this "victim" fails to admit is that she broke into and trashed my home (in excess of $10,000), lived in my home without my knowledge or permission, used my Social Security number to transfer money from my savings to my checking accout, forged my name to my checks to remove funds from my checking, and used my ATM card without my knowledge or permission to steal more than $3,400 from me.

What this "victim" also fails to disclose is that she stalked and harassmed me so much that I had four heart attacks, emergency open heart surgery, and was forced to sell my home and move to another state trying to escape her malicious activities.

What this "victim" also did not admit is that she found me a month after I moved and resumed her harassment of me -- even after the police and sheriff's departments in both states told her to leave me alone, and that the FBI proved she is incapable of telling the truth.
Posted by dottieg (4 comments )
Link Flag
Message has been deleted.
Posted by dottieg (4 comments )
Link Flag
Message has been deleted.
Posted by dottieg (4 comments )
Link Flag
Message has been deleted.
Posted by dottieg (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Message has been deleted.
Posted by Rita V (4 comments )
Link Flag
ripoffreport.com
Im interrested in how/if the laws are going to affect sites like ripoffreport.com. Any ideas?
Posted by L80bug (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Ripoffreport and thoughts
I hope it would shut it down .It is not likely a place that should be on since half the time no one knows who the accuser is and nothing is checked out before beig put on .
But places like that are more libel in nature and have to be sued most likely .
Free speech is different than half /truths and libel ,free speech means you can agree or disagree and say it ,it does not mean you can lie and hide behind the free speech amendment .
And if someone owns a site like ripoffreport and claim to be what they claim to be ,an accuser would have to PROVE it before they accused .
Annoying someone is totally different and although I understand most if not all of the law passed ,it does not deal with the fundamental issues of libel online ,nor does it condone it .
I think the annoying law is for those that send people off the wall emails and foloow them online and make fools out of themselves ...well...maybe it is places like ripoffreport ..would be nice to see that place reined in and redone .
Take the trash out so to speak .
Posted by kaiserbob (1 comment )
Link Flag
Ripoff Report Files Against Complaintremover.com http://www.ComplaintRemove
Ripoff Report Files Against Complaintremover.com <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ComplaintRemover.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.ComplaintRemover.com</a>

Read more at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/" target="_newWindow">http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/</a> and <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.DefamationAction.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.DefamationAction.com</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/Xcentric-Complaint.pdf" target="_newWindow">http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/Xcentric-Complaint.pdf</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/Xcentric_-_Complaint.pdf" target="_newWindow">http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/Xcentric_-_Complaint.pdf</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/Xcentric_-_Exhibit_A_to_Complaint.pdf" target="_newWindow">http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/Xcentric_-_Exhibit_A_to_Complaint.pdf</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/Xcentric_TRO_and_Order_Setting_Preli.pdf" target="_newWindow">http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/Xcentric_TRO_and_Order_Setting_Preli.pdf</a> This is the TRO asked for.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/StanleyTRO.pdf" target="_newWindow">http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/StanleyTRO.pdf</a> This is the revised TRO allowing for free speech.



One only has to Google "ED Magedson" to see the hundreds of extortion complaints against him and the Ripoffreport. Most of what is in this complaint is complete fantacy by Ed Magedson in an effort to sway the Judge on how persucuted he is. This TRO is a victory for free speech as it looks like the Judge did some Research on the history of Speth and Magedson and allowed the websites to stay up. It is not like DefamationAction is the only ones who claims Ed Magedson and Speth are Extorting folks. This ruling is a victory for free speech and for all victims of the RipoffReport.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DefamationAction Denies making death threats to Ed Magedson. In all likelihood the Death Threat letters were made by Ed Magedson himself.
DefamationAction stands by it's allagation that Maria Speth is a partner in the Ripoffreport Extortion Scam.
DefamationAction regrets that Robert Russo was named in this suit as Robert Russo has nothing to do with DefamationAction in anyway whatsoever. Speth only named Robert as a pawn to get to me. William Stanley.
visit <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.DefamationAction.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.DefamationAction.com</a> for more Information
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ComplaintRemover.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.ComplaintRemover.com</a>





<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.mariaspeth.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.mariaspeth.com/</a>



<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-02-01/news/the-real-rip-off-report/" target="_newWindow">http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-02-01/news/the-real-rip-off-report/</a> Story on ED

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.goodbusinessbureau.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.goodbusinessbureau.com/</a>



<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.bad-business-rip-off.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.bad-business-rip-off.com/</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ezripofflawsuit.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.ezripofflawsuit.com/</a>



This is a protest site by the



<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.jaburgwilksucks.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.jaburgwilksucks.com/</a>



<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.mariacrimispeth.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.mariacrimispeth.com/</a>
Posted by extortion_news (1 comment )
Link Flag
Ripoffreport .com is really down.
Ripoffreport .com is really down.
Internet Defamation league is kicking thier ass. hehehe
On February 2 2007 the Defamation League Initiated a take down of all of ED Magedson Websites
We accomplished this by bringing down the two security hosting layers he had in front of his site. At this point we know his actual host and True IP adress.

Letters have been sent to the hosting company responsible and we will see what direction they take. It is the members of Defamation League that make this possible. Keep up the effort and good work. We Will Force ED to Remove Defaming Info on our members.

For more detailed info visit the Defamation Action League.

Thank You
William Stanley
DefamationAction.com
action@defamationaction.com

Yahoo defamationaction
MSN defamationaction@hotmail.com
AIM defamationaction
ICQ 238768427
Posted by karlkesser (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Ripoffreport .com is really down.
Ripoffreport .com is really down.
Internet Defamation league is kicking thier ass. hehehe
On February 2 2007 the Defamation League Initiated a take down of all of ED Magedson Websites
We accomplished this by bringing down the two security hosting layers he had in front of his site. At this point we know his actual host and True IP adress.

Letters have been sent to the hosting company responsible and we will see what direction they take. It is the members of Defamation League that make this possible. Keep up the effort and good work. We Will Force ED to Remove Defaming Info on our members.

For more detailed info visit the Defamation Action League.

Thank You
William Stanley
DefamationAction.com
action@defamationaction.com

Yahoo defamationaction
MSN defamationaction@hotmail.com
AIM defamationaction
ICQ 238768427
Posted by karlkesser (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.