Irish Legislator Proposes Law That Would Make Annoying People Online A Criminal Act

from the because-snail-mail,-telephones-and-the-internet-are-all-the-same,-right? dept

Is Ireland looking to pass a law that would “outlaw ebooks and jail people for annoying others?” Well, no, not really, but that’s the sort of unintended consequences that follow when laws are updated for the 21st century using little more than a word swap. (h/t Brian Sheehan)

Ireland has had long-standing laws against harassment via snail mail, telephones and (as of 2007) SMS messages. A 2014 report by the government’s somewhat troublingly-named “Internet Content Governance Advisory Group” recommended updating this section of the law to cover email, social media and other internet-related transmissions. UPDATE APPLIED:

1. The Post Office (Amendment) Act 1951 is amended in section 13, as substituted by section 4 of and Schedule 1 to the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007, by the substitution of the following section:

“Offences in connection with public electronic communications networks

13. (1) A person who—

(a) sends or causes to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or is indecent, obscene or menacing, or

(b) for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another—

(i) sends or causes to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that the sender knows to be false, or

(ii) persistently and without reasonable cause makes use of a public electronic communications network, is guilty of an offence.

Violators are looking at sentences ranging from 1-5 years and fines of up to €75,000 — all for doing something as minor as “causing annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety.” In addition, the proposed amendment would provide for the seizure of devices used to send the annoying messages, including computers, cell phones — even the internet connection itself.

Provisions for device seizures first showed up in the 2007 update, as cell phones finally gave law enforcers something they could confiscate with minimal public outrage, at least at that point. Even in 2015, it’s still pretty difficult to justify cutting off someone’s phone service and almost impossible to find anyone who agrees that banning someone from using the postal service isn’t a pretty clear violation of basic rights. But when it comes to computers and internet connections, many legislators still feel these essential tools of communication are just “luxuries” — a status they haven’t held for several years.

But back to the headline. The broad language — if read literally — could make emailing an ebook to someone a criminal offense. Works of fiction are, by definition, false. But this isn’t a new “feature” of this proposed amendment. The sending of knowingly false messages dates back to the day when people still routed most of their communications through the post office. So, everyone who’s ever sent anyone a fictional book through the mail — including Amazon — is a potential violator of this law.

It’s the vestigial language from previous iterations of the law — words meant to target scam artists and aggressive telemarketers — that is problematic. Simply appending the words “electronic communications” to an old law doesn’t address the perceived problem (cyberbullying is cited in the governance group’s report). It just creates new problems.

Written in this manner, the proposed law allows the pursuit of criminal charges for annoyance and inconvenience — and the internet has plenty of both. The saving grace is that this pursuit is left to law enforcement, rather than routed through a civil process. It’s a criminal offense, which is an adversarial process every step of the way — in stark contrast to other, far more terrible “cyberbullying” laws that shift the burden of proof to the accused — if they’re even allowed to defend themselves.

Yes, the law is badly written, but it’s a not a legislative land grab. It’s just a lazy update to an existing law — one that may have worked out fairly well given the narrow confines under which it operated. But this proposal — a lazy “on the internet” patch job — has the potential to criminalize lots of previously protected speech.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Irish Legislator Proposes Law That Would Make Annoying People Online A Criminal Act”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
30 Comments
DDC (profile) says:

Re: "Well, no, not really"????

So you are the blog police? People / governments never use badly crafted laws to go after their opposition or to just rack up convictions? You can garuntee that won’t happen?

Also, you can read a substantial part of the article withough clicking through. So calling click bait is a really weak argument.

Are you going to actually contribute something to the discussion?

tqk (profile) says:

Re: "Well, no, not really"????

The headline is really just an excuse for the writer to bloviate on what has not and won’t happen.

You haven’t been keeping up with the US gov’t’s actions lately, I see. If it were the US enacting this today, I’d already be renditioned to some concentration camp just on what I did this morning (and that was just complaining about Canada extending copyright terms).

If Ireland wants to enforce this as written, and Ireland gets to act the way the US does nowadays (world cop), I’m getting a free ride to the Emerald Isle courtesy of Irish taxpayers. Cool! I’ll get to hang out and learn from real honest to gawd IRA “terrists” [sic]. I’ve always wanted to know how to make C4 in my kitchen (purely as a scientific pursuit of knowledge, you understand).

Is online trolling really so depraved that we need to sink to this to protect our precious bodily fluids? Whatever happened to that old saw, “Consider the source”?

Me, I blame Catholicism (or religion generically), but I’m fairly prejudiced in that regard (which I’ll readily admit). They’re so bludgeoned by priests into towing the party line that any thought of thinking independently is considered a crime against gawd.

Gahd! Humans can be so pathetic when they refuse to think. We have brains, and we’ve invented marvelous tools which our brains can use (logic), yet laziness is far more often the victor.

No, you have not been censored.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I was thinking more along the lines of forum shopping and libel tourism.

Yesterday I made a post that could “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety” to an American politician. Since Techdirt is accessible in Ireland, could he take legal action against me there?

Even with a conviction for such a comment being highly unlikely, even without legal costs to defend yourself, just being told of a police investigation could still have a chilling effect on free speech.

Anonymous Coward says:

"Well, no, not really"????

The headline is really just an excuse for the writer to bloviate on what has not and won’t happen. Applying same language to online as elsewhere isn’t much of a jump to worry about.

More clickbait.


Okay, I waited half an hour, didn’t come out of “moderation”. If get that, they rarely get through, though sometimes ALL do. So blame Masnick for double posts.

DDC (profile) says:

Re: "Well, no, not really"????

30 minutes in moderation? Poor baby. I’m guessing there is a good reason for that, “Comunicator” already on a different ip.

If you had anything other than screaming “click bait” to add to the conversation, maybe you wouldn’t be held in moderation.

I blame you for your double posts.

Blame me for feeding the troll.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: "Well, no, not really"????

Okay, I waited half an hour, didn’t come out of “moderation”.

“This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to view it.

Moron. TD doesn’t do it the way you expect web forums to work. Your post is there, and we can see it if we choose to, but no, you are not waiting for a moderator to approve your post.

So blame Masnick for double posts.

Boor. Twit. Imbecile. Ultramaroon! Physician, heal thyself.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...