PDA

View Full Version : OT - Create an e-annoyance, go to jail


Lorraine
January 10th 06, 09:42 AM
I don't know why I thought of this group when I read this. I'm not
posting it to annoy anyone, just to inform. :-) However, I am using my
real name.



Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a
prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail
messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog
as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small
favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet,
is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and
two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv
Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
"What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called
"Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment
law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his
identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania
Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an
unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan:
to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

For the rest of the story:
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

NMR
January 10th 06, 10:34 AM
I be the first to say this is unconstitutional and completely unable to
be regulated. The technology that exist to the average user can hide your
ISP with easy even from professional. The internet cafes and free wireless
spots are all over and are unable to be traced. If some one post from
overseas there is no way to bring them to supposed justice.
I am guaranteed being an American citizen the freedom of speech by the
first amendment of the constitution
Who decides what is annoying. I can't wait till the first person is brought
in the media will have a field day and any half intelligent lawyer will tear
apart this new law


Matthew

Joe Canuck
January 10th 06, 11:56 AM
NMR wrote:
> I be the first to say this is unconstitutional and completely unable to
> be regulated. The technology that exist to the average user can hide your
> ISP with easy even from professional. The internet cafes and free wireless
> spots are all over and are unable to be traced. If some one post from
> overseas there is no way to bring them to supposed justice.
> I am guaranteed being an American citizen the freedom of speech by the
> first amendment of the constitution
> Who decides what is annoying. I can't wait till the first person is brought
> in the media will have a field day and any half intelligent lawyer will tear
> apart this new law
>
>
> Matthew
>
>

I am annoyed by your post! :-D

Lorraine
January 10th 06, 04:03 PM
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:34:11 GMT, "NMR"
> wrote:

> I be the first to say this is unconstitutional and completely unable to
>be regulated.

I agree with the enforcement/regulating issue, however, no where in the
constitution are you guaranteed *anonymous* free speech. Regardless,
the constitution has little meaning to the current administration.

I tend to think it would be funny to make mass complaints. No faster
way to get the rules changed.....

It is all pretty stupid, and gives me even less confidence in our
current legislative and executive branches.

L.

cybercat
January 10th 06, 04:24 PM
"Joe Canuck" > wrote in message
...
> NMR wrote:
> > I be the first to say this is unconstitutional and completely unable
to
> > be regulated. The technology that exist to the average user can hide
your
> > ISP with easy even from professional. The internet cafes and free
wireless
> > spots are all over and are unable to be traced. If some one post from
> > overseas there is no way to bring them to supposed justice.
> > I am guaranteed being an American citizen the freedom of speech by
the
> > first amendment of the constitution
> > Who decides what is annoying. I can't wait till the first person is
brought
> > in the media will have a field day and any half intelligent lawyer will
tear
> > apart this new law
> >
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
>
> I am annoyed by your post! :-D
>

Yeah, well you are kind of getting on my nerves, Joe.

*looking around suspiciously*

Is "Canuck" your REAL name??

cybercat
January 10th 06, 04:29 PM
"Diane" > wrote in message
.net...
> In article >,
> Joe Canuck > wrote:
>
> > NMR wrote:
> > > I be the first to say this is unconstitutional and completely
unable to
> > > be regulated. The technology that exist to the average user can hide
your
> > > ISP with easy even from professional. The internet cafes and free
> > > wireless
> > > spots are all over and are unable to be traced. If some one post from
> > > overseas there is no way to bring them to supposed justice.
> > > I am guaranteed being an American citizen the freedom of speech
by
> > > the
> > > first amendment of the constitution
> > > Who decides what is annoying. I can't wait till the first person is
> > > brought
> > > in the media will have a field day and any half intelligent lawyer
will
> > > tear
> > > apart this new law
> > >
> > >
> > > Matthew
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I am annoyed by your post! :-D
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> I am annoyed by your annoyance.
>

Hell, I'd be willing to go to prison if I could take John Doe
with me.

Levon
January 10th 06, 04:39 PM
Diane wrote:

> Dear Sir,
>
> I am annoyed by your annoyance.
>
> Signed,
>
> Lady Kitty Pussywillow, Esq.
>
> (thank Monty Python)

Dear LKP

Your involvement in this new "annoyance movement" is highly annoying to
us!
It is unfortunate for you at this time. We cannot have our good name
associated
with this sort of reveling. Your Fired!

We are contemplating asking the magistrate to jail you for no less than
6 months...
we are so annoyed our proffits are suffering. Our wives are becoming
annoyed at our shallow bank accounts! If you will return our retainer
to us, we will drop this matter!

Thank You
Annoyed

NMR
January 10th 06, 08:29 PM
"Lorraine" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:34:11 GMT, "NMR"
> > wrote:
>
>> I be the first to say this is unconstitutional and completely unable to
>>be regulated.
>
> I agree with the enforcement/regulating issue, however, no where in the
> constitution are you guaranteed *anonymous* free speech. Regardless,
> the constitution has little meaning to the current administration.
>
Untrue about that part I can stand in a crowd, in a protest line and say
whatever, hold up a sign saying what ever and never have to identify myself

Levon
January 11th 06, 12:00 AM
NMR wrote:

> Untrue about that part I can stand in a crowd, in a protest line and say
> whatever, hold up a sign saying what ever and never have to identify myself

they will break you down to china town

Dick Peavey
January 11th 06, 04:20 PM
"Lorraine" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:34:11 GMT, "NMR"
> > wrote:
>
>> I be the first to say this is unconstitutional and completely unable to
>>be regulated.
>
> I agree with the enforcement/regulating issue, however, no where in the
> constitution are you guaranteed *anonymous* free speech. Regardless,
> the constitution has little meaning to the current administration.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Anonymous speech is very much
constitutionally protected.

> I tend to think it would be funny to make mass complaints. No faster
> way to get the rules changed.....

You "misunderestimate" (in Dubya's word) the viciousness of our leaders.

> It is all pretty stupid, and gives me even less confidence in our
> current legislative and executive branches.

It's wickedness, not stupidity.

Look folks, this law is not a joke. Arlen Specter went out of his way
manipulating parliamentary tricks to get it passed. It's an obscure rider in
an otherwise unrelated agricultural bill.

Read Declan McCullugh's description, at the url given in the first post.

The fear among civil libertarians is not that it will be enforced, but that
it will be selectively enforced. Say the wrong thing, but be on the "right"
side of the regime in power, and prosecutors will be too busy for such a
piddling offense. Say the right thing but on the "wrong" side of the regime,
and it's prison.

Dick

5cats
January 11th 06, 04:32 PM
Lorraine wrote:

> I don't know why I thought of this group when I read this. I'm not
> posting it to annoy anyone, just to inform. :-) However, I am using
> my real name.
>
>
>
> Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
>
> It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a
> prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying
> e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
>
> In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a
> blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for
> small favors, I guess.
>
> This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of
> Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and
> Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include
> stiff fines and two years in prison.
>
> "The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv
> Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
> "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
>
> Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit
> called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone
> harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without
> disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
>
> To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania
> Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an
> unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan:
> to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the
> measure.
>
> For the rest of the story:
> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-60224
> 91.html

Well, I find that law very ANNOYING!

Levon
January 11th 06, 09:24 PM
Dick Peavey wrote:

>
> Look folks, this law is not a joke. Arlen Specter went out of his way
> Dick

the law is good

if a person does well, then there's nothing to be concerned about

our rulers are not a terror to us...

evidently this law is needed for extreme situations.

Levon
January 12th 06, 02:30 AM
Diane wrote:
> In article >, "Dick Peavey" >
> wrote:
>
> > Look folks, this law is not a joke. Arlen Specter went out of his way
> > manipulating parliamentary tricks to get it passed. It's an obscure rider in
> > an otherwise unrelated agricultural bill.
>
> I think there ought to be a law against THAT sort of thing. I hate that
> these inane laws and pork barrel projects get buried in completely
> unrelated legislation. It's just ludicrous.
>

it sounds like something that is difficult to enforce

sort of a grudge law, it was snuck in..therefor must be highly arguable

i mean, it's not like i annoy anyone

Levon
January 12th 06, 03:03 AM
Lorraine wrote:

> This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet,

you know, im thinking some sico was taunting and terrorizing someone

not only this..but it could be a law that enables a pre-meditated
conviction
or intent to convict...a law is needed on someones behalf, they went to
great lengths (so i hear) to have it passed

im just saying im not really concerned

swallow a camel, but strain at a nat...

more enabling laws have been snuck in...i hear about a world government
how we are selling our constitution...by the same method you're talking
about
the agenda is to have a world court with a world tax. I don't like to
talk about
our leaders, especially when I dont really know the facts, I feel so
slighted from
the truth, i feel I rarely get the whole story, it just never seems
like enough information to get to the truth

Charlie Wilkes
January 14th 06, 09:35 PM
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:20:59 -0600, "Dick Peavey" >
wrote:

>
>"Lorraine" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:34:11 GMT, "NMR"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I be the first to say this is unconstitutional and completely unable to
>>>be regulated.
>>
>> I agree with the enforcement/regulating issue, however, no where in the
>> constitution are you guaranteed *anonymous* free speech. Regardless,
>> the constitution has little meaning to the current administration.
>
>The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Anonymous speech is very much
>constitutionally protected.
>
>> I tend to think it would be funny to make mass complaints. No faster
>> way to get the rules changed.....
>
>You "misunderestimate" (in Dubya's word) the viciousness of our leaders.
>
>> It is all pretty stupid, and gives me even less confidence in our
>> current legislative and executive branches.
>
>It's wickedness, not stupidity.
>
>Look folks, this law is not a joke. Arlen Specter went out of his way
>manipulating parliamentary tricks to get it passed. It's an obscure rider in
>an otherwise unrelated agricultural bill.
>
>Read Declan McCullugh's description, at the url given in the first post.
>
>The fear among civil libertarians is not that it will be enforced, but that
>it will be selectively enforced. Say the wrong thing, but be on the "right"
>side of the regime in power, and prosecutors will be too busy for such a
>piddling offense. Say the right thing but on the "wrong" side of the regime,
>and it's prison.
>
>Dick
>
Bring it on. These laws founder when the fruitcake fanatics run up
against real-world fact patterns in a public hearing. The prosecutor
will end up playing the part of Wm. Jennings Bryant, while the
libertarian gets to be Clarence Darrow.

The liberals founder as surely as do the conservatives in this arena.
Roy Black knows that. He is defending Rush Limbaugh from a liberal
vendetta. A number of years ago, he got a serial rapist acquitted
because the prosecutor turned the proceeding into a conservative
vendetta by dragging Ted Kennedy to the stand.

I predict Black will make Limbaugh's antagonists look equally stupid,
vindictive and petty before the case gets thrown out.

And what about the great vendetta of recent times... the Clinton
Impeachment? Who won, and who lost? Ask Dick Livingston, or, for
that matter, ask coulda-been-a-Supreme Ken Starr, now working for a
liquor lobby in Ohio. If you ask Clinton, he'll just chuckle.

But we digress. This is a cat group.

Charlie

cybercat
January 14th 06, 10:01 PM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote:
>
> And what about the great vendetta of recent times... the Clinton
> Impeachment? Who won, and who lost? Ask Dick Livingston, or, for
> that matter, ask coulda-been-a-Supreme Ken Starr, now working for a
> liquor lobby in Ohio. If you ask Clinton, he'll just chuckle.
>


Go Charlie!!!