Re: Is this true ?

They had better start building a whole lot more prisons in a hurry then....
Not sense in throwing everyone in jail if you do not have the jail space to
house all those people. Besides, if everyone is in jail, who is going to
make sure that they all stay in jail?

"Pineywoods Pete" <waydownyonder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rv97s1t4j4gokmv49cseel7g9kgor8l11g@xxxxxxxxxx
>I read this on another group. Bush and Cheney will have us all in
> jail.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> New Law Cracks Down on Blogs, e-'Harassment'
> 2006-01-09
>
> Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
>
> By Declan McCullagh news.com
>
> 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."
>
> 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."
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Petty theft, conditional green card and etc questions
    ... > In any event when you applyt for immigration benefits you have to ... > evolved over the years through case law. ... > actual) maximum jail sentence allowed under state law for the crime, ...
    (misc.immigration.usa)
  • Re: Petty theft, conditional green card and etc questions
    ... > In any event when you applyt for immigration benefits you have to ... > evolved over the years through case law. ... > actual) maximum jail sentence allowed under state law for the crime, ...
    (misc.immigration.usa)
  • Re: OMG. Will usenet (and alt.coffee) change??? ;) (but only in America
    ... I know it is a coffee house staple to fear the government. ... We don't put spouse beaters in jail until they kill their spouse. ... charges/drug violations does the average gang banger have that we all ... was abudantly clear that this law was developed to help put teeth into ...
    (alt.coffee)
  • Re: Petty theft, conditional green card and etc questions
    ... > In any event when you applyt for immigration benefits you have to ... > Check on google with search words like "petty theft deprtation" etc ... > evolved over the years through case law. ... > actual) maximum jail sentence allowed under state law for the crime, ...
    (misc.immigration.usa)
  • Re: Petty theft, conditional green card and etc questions
    ... > result imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, ... > misdemeanor (petty theft) NOT a felony ... In any event when you applyt for immigration benefits you have to report ... through case law. ...
    (misc.immigration.usa)