Hi all -
Is this new US federal law a concern, for the Pit or otherwise? I certainly hope not but these are strange times…
Are we covered by the fact that our usernames are stable and connected to actual identities? Is this a chunk of law too new for anyone to know what to do with it yet?
Saw this story via dailyrotten.com, which seems to keep an eye out for internet censorship stories, for obvious reasons on their end.
It’s not so much a new law as an ammendment to the 1934 Telcom Act, and just adds the internet to the definition of “telecommunications equipment.”
There’s a lot of case law associated with this section of the act, and presumably they still constitute precident. Courts have held over and over again that First Ammendment protections are not superceded, and that arguments and the like are not prohibited.
While the language seems broad and vague it tends to be interpreted very narrowly. I wouldn’t worry about it.
Thanks for the informed opinion; hope you’re right. I’d hate to see a wave of message boards changing their rules to cover their butts “just in case.” Not suggesting that was going to happen here, just wondering if it was on the radar…
We are looking at it – everybody is, all new laws should have some scrutiny — and while I am not a lawyer, this does seem poorly written, badly drafted, and nearly unenforceable.
Time and legal challenges will tell, but we do not expect this to change how we do business. I do note that we have information of some kind on most of you that you have supplied us. including credit card information, so not exactly sure as to how anonymous you are. Or how anonymous any of us are, come to think of it. But that’s another thread for another day.
TubaDiva
Not to raise a problem with this line of thinking but currently in the rules you have this
(Bolding mine)
Now you use this rule as a means to keep people from even mentioning P2P items, because it is the law. Annoying people over the internet is now against the law
So are we deciding that some laws will be over-turned, deemed un-constitutional so therefore we do not have to obey them, and can continue breaking the law, while its currently a law? If you use this standard, I can talk about finding the best place to buy my mary jane right? I mean it does have a chance to become legal in the future? Just sayin’…
It’s been pointed out that the Courts have ruled that Freedom of Speech is not suspended by these types of laws. Therefore, the law doesn’t really apply to calling someone a Big Poopiehead on a messageboard. We can argue, we can debate, we can even fight without falling foul of this law.
I think we’re safe for now-- thank goodness we’re in a bowling alley!
Hey, you’re getting your apples in my oranges! 
We’re going to keep on doing what we’re doing like we’ve been doing it unless and until we get told we need to change. In the meantime, carry on.
TubaDiva
Is it even possible for one anonymous person to harass another anonymous person? There is really no way of knowing who is at the keyboard; the member, spouse, child, fellow ovine enthusiast…
On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog . . . or just acting like one.
TubaDiva
IANAM of course but here’s my two cents…
Is this an important part? Our identity is disclosed on the SDMB, at least to some parties. Many of us voluntarily give all SDMB readers access to our email, chat screennames, etc. through our user profiles.
Regardless, it sounds like this is just an Internet extension of a law that already covers phone conversations and the like. If you can call your friend on the phone and tell him or her that your rage burns with the fire of 10,000 sons and that they deserved to lose their iPod at work, I’m sure this law won’t affect the BBQ Pit unless you happened to use it to tell someone you were going to kill them–which is a violation of Board rules and probably other laws already.
So–would I vote this amendment into law? No, it’s too vague and if an entire government got it into their heads to abuse it, they probably could. However, I would think the reality is that precedent and case law is on our side here. I’m not going to change the way I post, anyway.
TubaDiva, thanks for reponses. I’m curious as to how this is being dealt with (if at all) on messageboards, and I know this is one of the larger moderated ones on the web.
Just speculation on my part, but I think this is less of a deal for us than for other places, say, sites that do allow truly anonymous posting. . . USENET, Live Journal, that sort of thing.
No clue as to how this will sort out, just have to wait and see.
TubaDiva
Like I said, I really wouldn’t worry about it.
Another thing to consider is that we all have to take positive actions (registering and logging in) in order to post here. Even if anything happened here which would be actionable under the Act (which it won’t), the “victim’s” first remedy would be to simply leave the board.
This is just another stick to whack stalkers and other truly dangerous types with; nobody’s going to use it to go after unruly message board members.
Heh.
I just ran into one of our lawyers in the hallway and asked him about any potential impact on things like MBs and LiveJournal.
He laughed at me.
Did it annoy you?
As the OP said, these are strange times.
Man sues chatroom pals: I was humiliated beyond what 'no man could endure’
"Mike Marlowe fully admits that he sometimes gave George Gillespie a hard time in that AOL chatroom.
But never in his wildest imagination did he expect to be sued in court for what he characterized as “razzing.”
“We gave him crap,” said Marlowe, a 33-year-old welder in Fayette, Ala. “I’m not going to deny it. I teased him and he teased me back. He gave it back better than he ever got it.”
A generation ago, such petty personal beefs might have been settled with fists outside the corner bar, but now it’s the Internet age — and Ohio resident George Gillespie instead filed a $25,000 lawsuit."
Call me uninformed, but I think something like this is what the law is going for.