OT - Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

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-anno...3-6022491.html

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

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

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.

"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??

"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.

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

"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

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

"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