Something that will undoubtedly make you all happy.

Adrian wrote:

Probably the reason you don't see replys, is most people have killfiled her.

No, Honey, it's because nobody is replying to her.
-L.

NMR wrote:
Remember unless you have a federal arms license to sell guns you are only
allowed 1000 rounds total

That might be a state law, but it is not federal.

(Drive by posting, hanging out at misc.survivalism)

-L. wrote:

This is clearly unconstitutional but that means nothing nowadays....if
this doesn't get the ****er impeached, I don't know what will.

***paste***

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...2491&subj=news

By Declan McCullagh

Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

Minimal research debunks your claims.

First, it was attached to a "Must Pass" bill related to Domestic
Violence, and we would be hearing screams he should be impeached had he
vetoed the bill because of this attachement.

Second, Bush does not have line item veto authority.

Third, it is other than most people believe.

Adequately discussed in the blogosphe

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1136873535

(snip)

Skeptical readers will be shocked, shocked to know that the truth is
quite different. First, a little background. The new law amends 47
U.S.C. 223, the telecommunications harassment statute that goes back to
the Communications Act of 1934. For a long time, Section 223 has had a
provision prohibiting anonymous harassing speech using a telephone. 47
U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C) states that

[whoever] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications
device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass any person at the called number or who receives the
communications . . . shall be [punished].

Seems pretty broad, doesn't it? Well, there's a hook. It turns out
that the statute can only be used when prohibiting the speech would not
violate the First Amendment. If speech is protected by the First
Amendment, the statute is unconstitutional as applied and the
indictment must be dismissed. (snip)

That brings us to the new law. The new law simply expands the old law
so that it applies to the Internet as well as the telephone network. It
does this by taking the old definition of "telecommunications device"
from 47 U.S.C. 223(h), which used to be telephone-specific, and
expanding it in this context to include "any device or software that
can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of
communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the
Internet."

(snip)

The formulation is a bit awkward. But the key point for our purposes is
that the law is not the "ridiculous" provision Declan imagines. It
looks funny if you don't know the relevant caselaw, but in practice it
simply takes the telephone harassment statute we've had for decades and
applies it to the Internet.

UPDATE: Cal Lanier:

http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/archives/001318.html

takes a look, and concludes that this is just about making sure the
telephone harassment law applies to VOIP.

"Offbreed" wrote in message
oups.com...

-L. wrote:

This is clearly unconstitutional but that means nothing nowadays....if
this doesn't get the ****er impeached, I don't know what will.

***paste***


http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...2491&subj=news

By Declan McCullagh

Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

Minimal research debunks your claims.

First, it was attached to a "Must Pass" bill related to Domestic
Violence, and we would be hearing screams he should be impeached had he
vetoed the bill because of this attachement.

Second, Bush does not have line item veto authority.

Third, it is other than most people believe.

Adequately discussed in the blogosphe

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1136873535

(snip)

Skeptical readers will be shocked, shocked to know that the truth is
quite different. First, a little background. The new law amends 47
U.S.C. 223, the telecommunications harassment statute that goes back to
the Communications Act of 1934. For a long time, Section 223 has had a
provision prohibiting anonymous harassing speech using a telephone. 47
U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C) states that

[whoever] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications
device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass any person at the called number or who receives the
communications . . . shall be [punished].

Seems pretty broad, doesn't it? Well, there's a hook. It turns out
that the statute can only be used when prohibiting the speech would not
violate the First Amendment. If speech is protected by the First
Amendment, the statute is unconstitutional as applied and the
indictment must be dismissed. (snip)

That brings us to the new law. The new law simply expands the old law
so that it applies to the Internet as well as the telephone network. It
does this by taking the old definition of "telecommunications device"
from 47 U.S.C. 223(h), which used to be telephone-specific, and
expanding it in this context to include "any device or software that
can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of
communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the
Internet."

(snip)

The formulation is a bit awkward. But the key point for our purposes is
that the law is not the "ridiculous" provision Declan imagines. It
looks funny if you don't know the relevant caselaw, but in practice it
simply takes the telephone harassment statute we've had for decades and
applies it to the Internet.

UPDATE: Cal Lanier:

http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/archives/001318.html

takes a look, and concludes that this is just about making sure the
telephone harassment law applies to VOIP.


Thanks for the explanation. What this means is that people who take
Usenet to real life will be more liable to get into trouble than those they
would suppress. By sending emails to the employers, spouses, etc. of
those whose Usenet posts they do not like, they risk prosecution for
harrassment, just as those harrassing by telephone may.

It does not mean, as Pinhead Lynnie stated, that people
who are merely expressing opinions in this global, unmoderated forum
may be prosecuted, and it certainly does not mean that they must post
their real names.

Leave it to Lyn to give us the idiot's eye-view of any given thing.

I think this might be of interest to Megan.

Freaks who turn themselves out trying to control the content of
Usenet might just want to be a leetle beet careful about how far
they will go to try to shut someone up.

On 2006-01-10 11:09:42 -0600, "Adrian" said:

wrote:
*Very* interesting. And I hate it. I've never posted under socks, but
it's the word "annoy" that bugs me. I think the wording should be
stronger.
Hard to tell whether cybercat annoys anyone or not. I never see anyone
reply to her, so it's difficult to tell.

Sherry

Probably the reason you don't see replys, is most people have killfiled her.

That would be correct.

cybercat wrote:

Freaks who turn themselves out trying to control the content of
Usenet might just want to be a leetle beet careful about how far
they will go to try to shut someone up.

I was looking for information on something else when something
displayed in the Google search caught my eye and I came here to see
what the rest of the post said, so I don't know anything about the
person you mentioned. Bast knows we get enough trolls, kooks, net
nazis, and chain kissers over in ms.

I figure some types of netkooks and trolls are trying to control the
net, even as they scream about others trying to control what they say.

They think they have as much right to speak as everyone else put
together. If they shut down the net so no one can speak, they will be
right; a million times zero is zero.