Something that will undoubtedly make you all happy.

cybercat is toast.

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

-L.


***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.

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."

It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet,
you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes 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... without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined
under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
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.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by
voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House
approved in September had radically different wording. It was
reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive
computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely
annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write
something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors
wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring
pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants
to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without
worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed.
That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department
won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting
prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site,
says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane
postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein
said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States
Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that
outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But
the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so
Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday.
"I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple
point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something
that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a
1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing
anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited
government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he
signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he
felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton
realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related
material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the
Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans'
personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the
occasion.

-----------------------------------------------

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...
cybercat is toast.

Oh, the irony. But of course, Lynnie the witless will not get it.


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

-L.


***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.

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."

It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet,
you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes 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... without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined
under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
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.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by
voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House
approved in September had radically different wording. It was
reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive
computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely
annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write
something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors
wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring
pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants
to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without
worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed.
That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department
won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting
prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site,
says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane
postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein
said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States
Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that
outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But
the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so
Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday.
"I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple
point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something
that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a
1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing
anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited
government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he
signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he
felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton
realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related
material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the
Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans'
personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the
occasion.

-----------------------------------------------

-L. wrote:
cybercat is toast.

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

-L.


*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

wrote in message
ups.com...

-L. wrote:
cybercat is toast.

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

-L.


*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


Your killfile is your friend, friend, Sherry. Unlike your memory.

wrote:
-L. wrote:
cybercat is toast.

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

-L.


*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

The whole thing is just stupid - another attack on personal rights. I
think people out to have the backbone to post under their real names
and ISPs (those who don't are cowards), but forcing them to with some
stupid law doesn't really serve any purpose.
-L.

The first time that this law is called into effect it will be throw out of
court or will be challenged for be unconstitional. In the US there is some
thing called the first amendment guarantees the freedom of speech.
How are they going to regulate this there is no way to. Do you know how
easy it is to hide your ISP even from professionals trackers.
I can understand if an message was harmful emotional or had intent to
harm a person.
But as the writer said who determines what is annoying. People find
Barry annoying I have no problem with him. think he is a trip
I can't wait till some celebrity or represenitives gets nailed and see how
fast it gets changed.



Matthew

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...
cybercat is toast.

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

-L.


***paste***

snipped proposed legislation

Oh gawd, when is Dubya going to realize that the United States is not the
be-all and end-all of the entire world. Um, George, take a clue from the
fact that it's called the *WORLD* Wide Web! There really are other
countries and other people who might want a say in this! Doesn't he have a
clue how easy is it to get an ID with a Swedish (or other) ISP and have your
anonymous posts appear to originate from there? How does Dubya propose to
control what Swedish companies do (What's that? You say Sweden is
constructing weapons of mass destruction??!)
--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/

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.
--
Adrian (Owned by Snoopy and Bagheera)
A House is not a home, without a cat.
http://community.webshots.com/user/clowderuk

"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "-L."

This is clearly unconstitutional but that means nothing nowadays

Given: I always post through remailers
Given: Some people are annoyed by anything that
is posted through a remailer.
Therefo This, and every post that I make, is a
criminal act.

This will never hold up against the 1st amendment.
But it brings us one step closer to the need to exercise
our 2nd amendment rights to oust these clowns in
Washington.
Stock up on ammo, folks. The Second American
Revolution is closer than you think.


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

CatNipped wrote: How does Dubya propose to
control what Swedish companies do (What's that? You say Sweden is
constructing weapons of mass destruction??!)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^

Ok, you made me LOL!...
-L.