OT: This is no joke....
DouginUtah
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
Hope you don't find this message to be annoying. <g>
Eric Jorgensen
That's ok, I never troll anonymously - I'm not afraid of letting people
know who i am :)
Seriously though, lawyer-types have been debunking that one for at least
a week.
Steven J Simmons
> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
[ ] Freedom of expression
[ ] Right to privacy
Choose any one (1).
Is that what I'm to understand from this?
GMAN
>DouginUtah <she...@xxxmission.com> wrote:
>> Annoying someone (anonymously) via the Internet is now a federal crime.
>
>>
> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
>
>> Hope you don't find this message to be annoying. <g>
>
>[ ] Freedom of expression
>
create fear and to stalk someone.
Your rights end when you cross that fine line between speaking your mind and
putting someone in fear of their life.
>[ ] Right to privacy
>
Your right to privacy ends when you take away that right from the person you
are stalking or are harrassing via email or usenet.
Eric Jorgensen
glen...@xmission.com (GMAN) wrote:
> You have the right of freedom of expression but you do not have the right
> to create fear and to stalk someone.
>
> Your rights end when you cross that fine line between speaking your mind
> and putting someone in fear of their life.
>
> Your right to privacy ends when you take away that right from the person
> you are stalking or are harrassing via email or usenet.
Whaa?
A court order can usually compel the service provider to cough up
identifying information. Which would be required to enforce this new law,
anyway. And the service provider has the option of fighting the court
order, anyway.
My test for the sanity of any internet-specific legislation, fwiw, is to
replace the word 'internet' with 'telephone' and see if it sounds totally
insane.
Harassment is already illegal. Do we need a new law for internet
harassment?
I could call you from a pay phone and give you a hell of a time . . . if
that were my bag . . . and it would be illegal. Should it be more illegal
if i don't tell you who i am?
Thant Tessman
> In article <dq6guj$v6i$1...@news.xmission.com>, Steven J Simmons <dai...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
>
>>DouginUtah <she...@xxxmission.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Annoying someone (anonymously) via the Internet is now a federal crime.
>>
>>http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
>>
>>
>>>Hope you don't find this message to be annoying. <g>
>>
>>[ ] Freedom of expression
>>
>
> You have the right of freedom of expression but you do not have the right to
I hope that it's obvious that there's a big difference between annoying
someone and creating fear for their safety.
But it's pretty obvious this administration has no respect for freedom
of expression or privacy anyway. In their twisted minds, spying on U.S.
citizens without a warrant isn't a crime, but leaking the fact is:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nationworld/story/5430826p-4904844c.html
Even this isn't as brazen as their attitude toward imprisonment and
torture. Why aren't these guys in jail?
-thant
--
"That's not a good way to determine how good or bad things are, by
how many things are exploding." -- Lawrence DiRita, chief spokesman
for the United States Defense Department
Ray
'Internet' portion was a rider apparently added by a Republican and
three Democrats that basically amended another existing law to account
for new technology. And if you do not think Bushie should have signed
the bill that was in front of him, well, then can we assume you espouse
the theory that woman deserve to be abused (taking your post out of
context)? (btw, the bill that was signed was titled "Violence Against
Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act")
The media for some reason figured to ignore 99 percent of the bill and
bash Bush on a very minor portion that was not even really new, just a
small modification (from what I can tell on reading analysis of it) of
an existing law. If he HAD vetoed the bill, what do you think the
headlines would be, something like "BUSH HATES WOMEN, SAYS ABUSE IS OK,
VETOES VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN BILL"? Think on the way the media
distorts things.
Eric Jorgensen
Ray <No...@msn.net> wrote:
> Thant, you need to go read what the bill signed really was. The
> 'Internet' portion was a rider apparently added by a Republican and
> three Democrats that basically amended another existing law to account
> for new technology. And if you do not think Bushie should have signed
> the bill that was in front of him, well, then can we assume you espouse
> the theory that woman deserve to be abused (taking your post out of
> context)? (btw, the bill that was signed was titled "Violence Against
> Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act")
I think it's wholly appropriate to come down on congress for outlandish
and divisive riders.
You're referring to section 113, which reads:
-----------
SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.
(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `;
and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax
Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.
(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this
section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term
`telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.
-----------
The objection is that this change, in conjunction with the existing
wording in the communications act of 1934, is dangerously vague and broad.
I am utilizing this communications device with intent to annoy you, and
could conceivably be on the hook for 2 years in jail for it.
Thant Tessman
> Thant, you need to go read what the bill signed really was. [...]
"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."
http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=nl
Seems like the gripes about it being badly worded are legitimate.
Eric Jorgensen
Thant Tessman <a...@standarddeviance.com> wrote:
> Ray wrote:
>
> > Thant, you need to go read what the bill signed really was. [...]
>
>
> "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."
>
> http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=nl
>
> Seems like the gripes about it being badly worded are legitimate.
Yes. Some versions of the amendment included wording about the severity
of harm being done - but i could conceivably get in trouble for use of the
<blink> tag.
Ray
> Ray wrote:
>
>> Thant, you need to go read what the bill signed really was. [...]
>
>
>
> "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."
>
> http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=nl
>
>
> Seems like the gripes about it being badly worded are legitimate.
>
> -thant
>
Then I can assume that the badly written rider is more important than
the remaining 99% of the main bill and Bush either should have taken the
heat for supposedly being insensitive to the problems of women who are
abused or you do not think abused women is an important issue?
While I agree with you that the rider is badly worded, we can only hope
that Bush will take the risky step of saying do not enforce it (wonder
what dirt the media will garner from that!) like Clinton did on a
similar issue. But I think the main purpose of the signed bill is more
important (having been involved with abused women).
The real finger should be pointed at Congress (note, generic, not
'administration' as most people keep trying to say since both sides
fight to keep it AND the President has no say in the matter) for refusal
to kill the rider system and have each law stand on it's own merit.
Thant Tessman
> Then I can assume that the badly written rider is more important than
> the remaining 99% of the main bill and Bush either should have taken the
> heat for supposedly being insensitive to the problems of women who are
> abused or you do not think abused women is an important issue?
Implying that I don't consider abused women an important issue is a
pretty slimy way to argue your point. You don't have anything more
logically sound than that?
Why should a law intended to protect people from abuse and threats need
to concern itself specifically with how those threats were communicated
anyway? --that is, unless the real issue is control of a specific means
of communication rather than any actual crime. And why should disclosing
your identity matter one way or the other? Should it be okay to "abuse,
threaten, or harass" a person if you *do* disclose your identity? Or
again, is the real concern unfettered communication itself?
> While I agree with you that the rider is badly worded, we can only hope
> that Bush will take the risky step of saying do not enforce it (wonder
> what dirt the media will garner from that!) like Clinton did on a
> similar issue. But I think the main purpose of the signed bill is more
> important (having been involved with abused women).
I often find that the stated purpose of a law and its actual
consequences in practice often don't match. This is particularly
descriptive of federal law.
> The real finger should be pointed at Congress (note, generic, not
> 'administration' as most people keep trying to say since both sides
> fight to keep it AND the President has no say in the matter) for refusal
> to kill the rider system and have each law stand on it's own merit.
It is the natural tendency of government to write and interpret law in
such a way as to accumulate and centralize political power. The Founders
designed our government in such a way as to prevent (or at least impede)
this by, among other things, the separation of powers. Unfortunately, it
doesn't seem to be working. Any argument about whether to blame Congress
or the President (or the Supreme Court) for any specific failure or
abuse of government is a distraction from this fact. As for Republican
versus Democrat, consider the fact, as I previously brought up, that
Bush the Younger, in blatant defiance of the Constitution, has
authorized domestic wiretaps without a court order. The law requiring
the telecommunications industry to build their networks in such a way as
to make it easy to do this was passed under the Clinton administration.
A few folks made some noise about the potential abuse of such a law at
the time but it apparently didn't matter in the end. Hell, Clinton has
killed more innocent Iraqis than Bush has. It's just that his weapons of
choice were starvation and disease via trade sanctions. If Bush and
cohorts were worse, it's in the fact that they spent more money and
killed more U.S. soldiers doing it. But I'm going off topic again. My
apologies.
-thant
--
In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the
clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature,
and not the executive department. ... The trust and the temptation would
be too great for any one man. -- James Madison, 1793
Eric Jorgensen
Thant Tessman <a...@standarddeviance.com> wrote:
> of communication rather than any actual crime. And why should disclosing
> your identity matter one way or the other? Should it be okay to "abuse,
> threaten, or harass" a person if you *do* disclose your identity? Or
> again, is the real concern unfettered communication itself?
I actually can't find that in the text - i suppose it may be a
misunderstanding born out of only skimming it. There's a lot of legalese
about how personal identification data can't be published on the internet
by law enforcement agencies.
Protection orders can't be published, for example. Which makes some
amount of sense. If someone is trying to avoid an abusive somebody, making
it extra easy for that somebody to find out where they're living doesn't
make a lot of sense.
On the other hand, how are you supposed to stay 500 feet away if you
don't know where the perimeter is? Not that i have any better suggestions.
We've become so civilized that abusive men no longer just meet with
unfortunate accidents in dark alleys when word gets around. Which is
probably for the best. Probably.
> I often find that the stated purpose of a law and its actual
> consequences in practice often don't match. This is particularly
> descriptive of federal law.
Thant, Thant, Thant. Why do you hate America so much? :-)
Ray
that will not generate a straight answer about this one little amending
rider (that apparently had two Democrats also sponsoring it, Kennedy
being one)
AND
is much less than 1 percent of the entire package
AND
appears to be generating more technical press hype than the entire BILL
has words as well as a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric not directly related to
anything in said bill, I will sum up the questions into just one simple
one that should be easy to answer.
What would have happened if Bush VETOED the bill, would everyone applaud
his actions of killing a major bill over a small edit of another law or
would "This is no joke...." be even MORE virulent? Please concentrate
on the question, only consider what would have happened if he VETOED it.
Do not go off onto other subjects that have no bearing on this bill
and the one rider under discussion. Just what would have happened?
(Oh, and your James Madison, 1793 tag line? Despite various media
posturings, overall the Congress does support "Bush's" war. If not,
then they would stop the funding instead of adding more money to it.
And yes, there are enough Republicans in the House and Senate opposed to
it to make a difference if it were only a party line matter. And that
is not considering that many of them (Congress people) had said in the
past that what Bush finally did should be done.)
Eric Jorgensen
Ray <No...@msn.net> wrote:
> Well Thant, since your apparent hatred keeps you going off onto tangents
> that will not generate a straight answer about this one little amending
> rider (that apparently had two Democrats also sponsoring it, Kennedy
Ted Kennedy? You know he has a dog named Splash, right? I don't care how
many well-meaning bills he associates himself with, I'll never quite be
able to picture him as a man protecting women.
> I will sum up the questions into just one simple
> one that should be easy to answer.
>
>
> What would have happened if Bush VETOED the bill
Bush can't even spell 'veto'. He hasn't vetoed anything. He'd have to
ask dick cheney how to do it. You're asking a rhetorical question - this is
just something that doesn't ever actually happen.
I'll answer, though. He'd be vilified for falling into the trap that
was set when they named it the "violence against women" bill. They have to
give it a name like that to make sure that nobody will stand in it's way,
and they can squeeze in every weaselly bit of "such-and such will be
amended to read . . " that they can possibly find room for.
Please explain the moral high ground of this abuse of the rider system.
So, how 'bout that line item veto? Not that W would know what to do with
it.
Thant Tessman
[...]
> (Oh, and your James Madison, 1793 tag line? Despite various media
> posturings, overall the Congress does support "Bush's" war. If not,
> then they would stop the funding instead of adding more money to it. [...])
You're right. And they do this not only in defiance of the Iraqi people
to whom they are supposedly bringing democracy, but now apparently they
are doing it in defiance of the people of the United States that they
supposedly serve. It is estimated that by 2007, the United States will
spend more on so-called "defense" then the entire rest of the world
combined. Our government is broken.
Eric Jorgensen wrote:
> Ted Kennedy? You know he has a dog named Splash, right? [...]
Wow. I didn't know that. You can't make this stuff up.
-thant
--
Those who kill people with car bombs are "terrorists"; those who kill
far more people with cluster bombs are the noble occupants of a
"quagmire." -- John Pilger
Thant Tessman
[...]
> Bush can't even spell 'veto'. He hasn't vetoed anything. [...]
To be fair, he did threaten to veto a bill banning torture...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=awYJ7XA28j6c&refer=us
-thant
--
"I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing
about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they
say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
-- George W. Bush (Bob Woodward, "Bush at War", pp. 145-46)
Ray
bill, I do not even know what he voted on it. He was apparently a
CO-SPONSER of the RIDER. Read the part that you cut and pasted:
"one little amending
>>rider (that apparently had two Democrats also sponsoring it, Kennedy "
Moral ground? The tech media and some people here are bashing Bush over
passing the rider and ignoring the majority of the bill and it's other
riders (which as you say could have been a set trap), there is no
'moral' ground, just an excuse to bash brought on by a system that has
been abused for a long time.