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.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Michael, 24 Apr 2015 @ 6:25am

    Hmm...

    Companies that will ship someone a bowl of dicks...totally illegal.
    Birthday cards that will not stop playing music...totally illegal.

    Hey wait! Do the politicians there ever send anyone campaign cards? I'm pretty sure some of their promises can be categorized as clearly false.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Communicator, 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:00am

    "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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DDC, 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:05am

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 11:29am

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

      Sir, you are annoying me online, and according to the proposed law, that would be a crime.

      So do you still think this law is a good idea?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2015 @ 12:16am

      Re:

      You bloviate and annoy on every fucking article, blue.

      Go have yourself arrested.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 25 Apr 2015 @ 5:59pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:03am

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

    One really great unintended consequence of this, every politician in Ireland getting arrested.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:35am

      Re:

      Arrested? More like hanged...

      "matter that is grossly offensive or is indecent, obscene "

      They just outlawed porn in Ireland.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:53am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:49am

      Re:

      One really great unintended consequence of this, every politician in Ireland getting arrested.

      If they applied said law to the email spammers and telemarketer scammers the politicians would be collateral damage. Though I doubt anybody would even care.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 25 Apr 2015 @ 6:10pm

      Re:

      Both an insightful and a funny for you sir. Bravo. Keep it up.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 27 Apr 2015 @ 5:58am

      Re:

      One really great unintended consequence of this, every politician in Ireland getting arrested.

      Bring it!!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Thrudd, 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:04am

    Falsehood by mail

    They already do but none have been subjected to the justice of the stone as yet. Wonder if anybody has bothered to put this law to use against such lies or are government and law enforcers exempt?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:05am

    What will this do to customer service departments?

    I'm really, really annoyed at this company for their reply to my request for a refund....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:20am

    'this guy has really pissed me off! something ought to be done about him!'

    how the hell do these people get jobs like this? it's like trying to put sense into a friggin' idiot! no chance in hell!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 25 Apr 2015 @ 7:31pm

      Re:

      how the hell do these people get jobs like this?

      I'm convinced it's a combination of nepotism and "our sort of people" crap. Nothing else seems to explain how these boneheads continue to land positions where they can exercise power over others. Cf. Bernie Madoff, and HRC, and James Comey, ...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:25am

    A name so good, it can only have been chosen deliberately

    I refuse to accept the possibility that the agency responsible for this did not name itself "Internet Content GAG" on purpose.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:35am

    "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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:41am

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

      How about taking the day off? I believe somebody else is the designated asshole today.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DDC, 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:16am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 25 Apr 2015 @ 7:43pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:38am

    I suppose sending a text saying something like "your rent's late. pay up now!" would qualify as annoying, if not anxiety causing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:06am

      Re:

      Advertising commonly tries to provoke anxiety in order to get people to buy a product.

      If this law were in place a few decades ago, America would never have triumphed in its war against "Ring Around The Collar."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:01am

    A challenge!

    Oh, this sounds like a challenge! Let's all get together and annoy the pants off this asshole! Also, since most of us live in a country that is not his, let's tell him to suck eggs!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Sockatume, 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:27am

    You skipped the important clause, "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another". Simply sending something known to be false is not an offense.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2016 @ 7:48am

    needs more facts

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Math Is Not A Crime
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.