Re: Is this true ?

El Castor wrote: 
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote:


El Castor wrote:

Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote:



El Castor wrote:


Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote:




Pineywoods Pete wrote:




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."



I guess we won't be hearing much from Sordo anymore. He's afraid to post his real name. And Pig, too.

Alan


Apparently it's true. What a sad day this is. My goal is to become
even more annoying and become the first test case. Besides, I use my
real name, just not all of it. 

JEFF

"The moonbats bark thrice at midnight."

Why, Jeff, what a LIBERAL position for you to take. After all, this is only to wage a more aggressive war on terrorism. You reactionaries should be applauding this move. It's in keeping with the Bush plan to reduce your rights to zero. I don't understand what you find so sad about this. After all, this is exactly what we would expect from the Republicans, whose positions you continually support.

And BTW, it's what in the header that counts.

Alan 


Actually Alan, this provision of the DOJ appropriations bill has
absolutely nothing to do with the war on terror, or homeland security.

Of course it doesn't. Because if it was passed by the REPUBLICAN controlled Congress, you just have to find a way to spin it. 


It was passed as part of the Defense of Women Act -- a sub-species of
the DOJ appropriations bill.

Yes, you've already said that. However, I note that regardless, the bill was passed by the REPUBLICAN Congress. I note you sidestep that little tidbit.

Like I said, I believe the language was 
added by a left wing Democrat, and in any case had nothing to do with
the war on terror.

Of course you believe so. Your adherence to the cult of personality requires it.

The language is very deceptive, probably 
unintentionally so, since it merely expands a 70 year old
communications act to include Internet communications, as well as the
telephone. The word annoy does not appear in the new legislation, but
was picked up from the original Act. It was no doubt aimed at the
stalkers of women, but was clumsily worded, and wrongly pre-supposes
equivalency between telephone communications and the Internet.

Your opinion is appreciated. However, it has little to do with the allegation.

It was apparently intended to deal with anonymous stalkers of women. 

Of course it did.


Beginning to sound like the work of a Democrat? I think that's the
case -- the culprit probably being noted left winger Anthony D.
Weiner, Democrat of NY. I have sent an email to his office to verify
this and will be sure to report back when I hear from one of his
flunkies.

Actually, it sounds far more like the work of the Republican Administration. Risen in his new book details just how your poster boy is attempting to do that. You really ought to read it. Perhaps the scales would fall from your eyes.

Alan


Believe what you wish. 

As do you.

 The facts are otherwise.

What facts? You have admitted that you have none. Do you now assert your beliefs as facts?

As soon as I hear from
Weiner's office I'll let you know. 

I won't hold my breath waiting.

By the way, Alan, that test we took
was clearly worthless. You and I do not think alike. Not at all alike.

Indeed we do not. It is evident that you are not a logical-mathematical thinker. If you were, you wouldn't be the reactionary that you are.

			Alan
.

Relevant Pages

  • {OT} anonymous flaming illegal
    ... This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, ... A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, ... That's the ultimate question," Fein said. ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Porn, abuse, depravity - and how they plan to stop it
    ... Posted in Law, ... associate with internet policing - the Internet Watch Foundation ... creation of the IWF, which was founded in 1996 by the ISPA, the trade ... police in order to align their standards with what the law says. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: OT:Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
    ... here's the text of the new law: ... > in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section ... > OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS. ... > makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • New Law Fuels Tecnology / Legal Clash
    ... By BRIAN BERGSTEIN, AP Technology Writer ... With each new advance in communications, ... Commission's demands that a phone-wiretapping law be extended to ... essentially exempted the Internet. ...
    (comp.dcom.telecom)
  • Monitoring of email in America
    ... The federal government, vastly extending the reach of an 11-year-old ... law, is requiring hundreds of universities, online communications ... airports providing wireless service and commercial Internet ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
Loading