Posted on 11/16/2011 2:57:32 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Using a pseudonym on Facebook or fibbing about your age on a dating site could be illegal if the U.S. Department of Justice has its way.
The DOJ is going to Congress today to argue that Web sites' terms of service policies should be enforceable by law, according to CNet. For that purpose, the department seeks an expansion of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a 25-year-old law that mainly deals with hacking, password trafficking, and threatening to damage a computer.
By outlawing terms of service violations, the department would have an easier time prosecuting cyberbullies such as Lori Drew, a 49-year-old woman who involved in a case where a 13-year-old girl committed suicide after interacting with a fake MySpace profile that Drew was involved with. Prosecutors got a conviction against Drew in 2008 for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but the case was thrown out by a U.S. District Court judge.
"It basically leaves it up to a website owner to determine what is a crime," U.S. District Judge George Wu said of his verdict in 2009. "And therefore it criminalizes what would be a breach of contract."
That's exactly what the Department of Justice is trying to do now, through Congress
Is the Solution Too Broad?
The department's heart is in the right place, of course, but as groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation pointed out in an August 2011 letter to the Judiciary Committee, outlawing terms of service violations is an overly broad way to solve the problem. In addition to snaring cyberbullies, it would also criminalize harmless fibs such as using a fake name on Facebook to protect privacy. It would also force people to digest needlessly long terms of service policies for online services,
(Excerpt) Read more at pcworld.com ...
Yes....It is like secret ballots and unions HATING that!!!!
..what the government wants is to be able to Alinskyite anyone who happens to express “opinions” which disagree with their homosexual loving, pederasty loving, Marxist loving opinions. They will use FBI, CIA or IRS on their “enemies” like they did to Gibson Guitars and they did to people who gave money to protect marriage.
Their pagan/marxist agenda has to get rid of Objective Truth (and God) so they can eliminate pederasty from APA dysfunctional list and create more sexual anarchy on college campuses. They want drug addicted, hedonists who don’t pay attention to all the graft and corruption in Congress.
It undermines their agenda when people put the truth out there. Communists must silence the Truth from getting out—it makes their ideas look utterly stupid-—like the right to put body parts in disease causing places and CODIFY it!!!!! These Democrats and some Republicans are really SICK!
Nobody uses Bob Dole’s name but me.....and nobody puts their fingers in Bob Dole’s Peanut Butter.
Damn, now we won’t be able to mention any quotes from Mark Twain or Vanilla Ice.
My real name is KickAssAndTakeNames. But I do feel that GOP Poet sort of speaks to my softer side. :-D. And we know how FR is a softer, gentler website. lol. NOT!
I'm Batman.
Holder needs to be frog-walked right out of DOJ
I’m the Empress of Massachusetts.
Here we go again!
I'M THE REAL BOB DOLE!
I hate peanut butter!
The only thing "wrong" is Congress can't stand the thought that there is a single morsel, a single crumb, outside it jurisdiction.
I am Patton. My parents cursed me with that name, I will wear it until they bury me in Arlington.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that anonymous speech is a right implied in the First Amendment [1]. Further, there is a world of Constitutional issues that will arise if Congress ever makes violation of TOS a criminal act. The first is that TOS are subject to change without notice. You could be in compliance on Monday and a felon on Tuesday. Some sites would respond by making their TOS useless to enforce. Other sites would move to offshore hosting and adopt a non-US domain name.
I am the BuckWheat!
[1]
http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/
“...The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym “Publius,” and “the Federal Farmer” spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor’s office before going door-to-door. ...”
Mildred Wilson here...
Some federal courts have ruled the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court recently said it would take that issue. If it's argued this term, there should be a decision next Spring.
Historically it has not been illegal to lie. Civil damages for lying can only be awarded if the recipient relies on the lie to his financial detriment and his reliance was justified. Criminal penalties for lying generally only apply in cases of fraud with proof of intent to defraud.
What the Justice Department is proposing is just wrong.
My name Jose Jimenez, worlds greatest liar
I’m afraidfortherepublic — literally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.