The right to annoy

October 19: This summer, with a landmark judgment on the case American Civil Liberties Union versus Janet Reno, the US Supreme Court put a ...

October 19: This summer, with a landmark judgment on the case American Civil Liberties Union versus Janet Reno, the US Supreme Court put a serious crimp into the Communications Decency Act CDA, the Clinton Government8217;s attempt to kick four-letter words and lousy sentiments out of cyberspace. It appeared that freedom of speech on the Net was assured.

But now, censorship appears to be raising its ugly head again. This month, Bill Clinton decided to make the Internet a free trade zone. The US made the Net and still enjoys the right to do what it wants it. That is why US legislation on communications is followed closely by agencies the world over their own laws will eventually be based on it. Clinton8217;s comment was received favourably by entrepreneurs but it8217;s been raising hackles among guardians of democracy, who see a hidden agenda. Clinton couldn8217;t become a cybercop on his own steam, they say, so he8217;s roping in the international community. We wants all nations to come together and walk the beat with him.

Meanwhile, the court battle over decency is being carried on by Clinton D. Fein, president of ApolloMedia Corp, who has taken issue with Janet Reno on the inclusion of an annoyance clause in the CDA. General telecommunications law worldwide makes it illegal to annoy people by using a telephone. This is why it is possible for you to call up the Vigilance Department and complain about the guy who calls you up every night in order to breathe at you. The same clause was extended to the Net to stop people from getting you het up.The clause itself got everyone het up, because one person8217;s annoyance is another person8217;s entertainment.

The result: Fein filed suit against Reno in January and simultaneously, set up the Website Annoy.com, whose straightforward mission statement is quoted at the top of this article. It runs columns on subjects as diverse as marriage and censorship in language that would make conservatives see red. But that isn8217;t its chief attraction, or the reason why the US Government takes a dim view of it. That is the side panel that accompanies all the columns, allowing readers to send insulting anonymous mail to the people who have already been reviled in them.

Accompanying a column on censorship, for instance, Annoy.com carries a form to mail Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Senator Patrick Leahy and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. If they only had an option for Senator Larry Pressler, they would have covered the leading names in the free speech debate. And there8217;s a link on the page which allows you to abuse the writer of the column as well. On Annoy.com, free speech is completely assured and it8217;s completely anonymous: Annoy.com cleans out its mail server every night, so there8217;s no chance of being traced by the White House.

While organisations like Apollo Media continues the good fight, the jury is still out on what constitutes permissible communication in the modern age. Governments obviously should not have the right to control what their citizens can say. At the same time, the recipients of communications should not find themselves snowed under with stuff they don8217;t like. It8217;s easy to avoid that offline but the Net, where every other user is a publisher, is low on branding. Often, you can8217;t tell the book by its cover.

A possible solution, suggested by SafeSurf, is a rating system, like they have in the movie industry and on TV. But that suggests that the Internet is about to be codified and corporatised. That is anathema to most Netizens, who got online to get out of Big Brother8217;s clutches. An easy solution, obviously, is not in the offing. And until it appears, Ms Reno will continue to catch a lot of flak.