Anonymous flames and negative feedback with "intent to annoy" now a felony?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by yENC Man, Jan 10, 2006.

  1. yENC Man

    yENC Man Guest

    OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
    "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy" is now a
    felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on message boards
    or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a felony...unless you use your
    real name. And I guess a case could be made that since most feedback is left
    on eBay using "handles" other than the "real name" of the user, negative
    feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?

    They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure that this
    law has all kinds of good intentions.


    Via CNet News.com

    http://tinyurl.com/czaml

    Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

    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.

    ....

    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.

    ....

    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?

    (More at the link.)
     
    yENC Man, Jan 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. yENC Man

    philo Guest

    "yENC Man" <> wrote in message
    news:_kEwf.805$...
    > OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
    > "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy" is now
    > a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on message
    > boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a felony...unless you
    > use your real name. And I guess a case could be made that since most
    > feedback is left on eBay using "handles" other than the "real name" of the
    > user, negative feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a
    > potential felony?
    >
    > They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure that
    > this law has all kinds of good intentions.
    >



    yes
    that's why i always use my real pseudonym!
     
    philo, Jan 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. yENC Man

    rjn Guest

    yENC Man wrote: >

    > ... prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing
    > his identity and with intent to annoy."


    What in the Constitution grants a "right" to be un-annoyed?

    Until recently, I'd suggest that because this is blatently
    unconstitutional, the first test case would get it tossed.

    But then Kelo and BCFR are unconstitutional too.

    What the Senate needs to be asking SCOTUS nominees is:
    1. Do you read and speak English?
    2. Have you actually read the Constitution?
    .... because it's clear a majority presently on the Court have not.

    --
    Regards, Bob Niland mailto:
    http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
    NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
     
    rjn, Jan 10, 2006
    #3
  4. yENC Man

    Ed Mars Guest

    Re: Anonymous flames and negative feedback with "intent to annoy"now a felony?

    yENC Man wrote:
    > Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.


    Don't miss "Intent To Annoy" from Paramount pictures
    starring Ben Affleck, Roseanne Barr, Lewis Black and
    that Hilton broad.

    Coming soon to a theater near you.

    Ed
     
    Ed Mars, Jan 10, 2006
    #4
  5. yENC Man

    Toolman Tim Guest

    In news:D,
    philo spewed forth:
    > "yENC Man" <> wrote in message
    > news:_kEwf.805$...
    >> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
    >> "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy"
    >> is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on
    >> message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a
    >> felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case could be
    >> made that since most feedback is left on eBay using "handles" other
    >> than the "real name" of the user, negative feedback that is left
    >> with the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?
    >>
    >> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure
    >> that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
    >>

    >
    >
    > yes
    > that's why i always use my real pseudonym!


    <VBG>!!

    --
    All that glitters has a high refractive index.
     
    Toolman Tim, Jan 10, 2006
    #5
  6. yENC Man

    Leythos Guest

    In article <_kEwf.805$>,
    says...
    > OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
    > "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy" is now a
    > felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on message boards
    > or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a felony...unless you use your
    > real name. And I guess a case could be made that since most feedback is left
    > on eBay using "handles" other than the "real name" of the user, negative
    > feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?
    >
    > They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure that this
    > law has all kinds of good intentions.
    >
    >
    > Via CNet News.com
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/czaml
    >
    > Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > ...
    >
    > 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.


    You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Leythos, Jan 10, 2006
    #6
  7. yENC Man

    Toolman Tim Guest

    In news:LZEwf.15222$%,
    Leythos spewed forth:
    > In article <_kEwf.805$>,
    > says...
    >> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
    >> "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy"
    >> is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on
    >> message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a
    >> felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case could be
    >> made that since most feedback is left on eBay using "handles" other
    >> than the "real name" of the user, negative feedback that is left
    >> with the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?
    >>
    >> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure
    >> that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
    >>
    >>
    >> Via CNet News.com
    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/czaml
    >>
    >> Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>
    >> ...
    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.


    Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?

    --
    All that glitters has a high refractive index.
     
    Toolman Tim, Jan 10, 2006
    #7
  8. yENC Man

    Leythos Guest

    In article <u2Fwf.539$>, lid
    says...
    > In news:LZEwf.15222$%,
    > Leythos spewed forth:
    > > In article <_kEwf.805$>,
    > > says...
    > >> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
    > >> "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy"
    > >> is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on
    > >> message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a
    > >> felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case could be
    > >> made that since most feedback is left on eBay using "handles" other
    > >> than the "real name" of the user, negative feedback that is left
    > >> with the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?
    > >>
    > >> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure
    > >> that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Via CNet News.com
    > >>
    > >> http://tinyurl.com/czaml
    > >>
    > >> Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
    > >>
    > >> 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.
    > >>
    > >> ...
    > >>
    > >> 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.

    > >
    > > You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.

    >
    > Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?


    Nothing electronic.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Leythos, Jan 10, 2006
    #8
  9. yENC Man

    Toolman Tim Guest

    In news:CaFwf.15319$%,
    Leythos spewed forth:
    > In article <u2Fwf.539$>, lid
    > says...
    >> In news:LZEwf.15222$%,
    >> Leythos spewed forth:
    >>> In article <_kEwf.805$>,
    >>> says...
    >>>> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law
    >>>> clearly. "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent
    >>>> to annoy" is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting
    >>>> comments on message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is
    >>>> now a felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case
    >>>> could be made that since most feedback is left on eBay using
    >>>> "handles" other than the "real name" of the user, negative
    >>>> feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a
    >>>> potential felony?
    >>>>
    >>>> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure
    >>>> that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Via CNet News.com
    >>>>
    >>>> http://tinyurl.com/czaml
    >>>>
    >>>> Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
    >>>>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>> ...
    >>>>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.

    >>
    >> Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?

    >
    > Nothing electronic.


    Well, since the news article is "quoting" text from the new law, and use the
    word "annoy" in part of the quote, I'd bet that it's in there. Or Cnet News
    could find themselves in trouble...

    Be that as it may, I guess I'd better start using my real name, since I
    *know* I annoy people all the time <G>

    Oh - wait - my name *is* Tim. Go figure...

    --
    All that glitters has a high refractive index.
     
    Toolman Tim, Jan 10, 2006
    #9
  10. yENC Man

    Leythos Guest

    In article <vfFwf.541$>, lid
    says...
    > In news:CaFwf.15319$%,
    > Leythos spewed forth:
    > > In article <u2Fwf.539$>, lid
    > > says...
    > >> In news:LZEwf.15222$%,
    > >> Leythos spewed forth:
    > >>> In article <_kEwf.805$>,
    > >>> says...
    > >>>> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law
    > >>>> clearly. "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent
    > >>>> to annoy" is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting
    > >>>> comments on message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is
    > >>>> now a felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case
    > >>>> could be made that since most feedback is left on eBay using
    > >>>> "handles" other than the "real name" of the user, negative
    > >>>> feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a
    > >>>> potential felony?
    > >>>>
    > >>>> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure
    > >>>> that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Via CNet News.com
    > >>>>
    > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/czaml
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 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.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> ...
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 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.
    > >>>
    > >>> You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.
    > >>
    > >> Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?

    > >
    > > Nothing electronic.

    >
    > Well, since the news article is "quoting" text from the new law, and use the
    > word "annoy" in part of the quote, I'd bet that it's in there. Or Cnet News
    > could find themselves in trouble...
    >
    > Be that as it may, I guess I'd better start using my real name, since I
    > *know* I annoy people all the time <G>
    >
    > Oh - wait - my name *is* Tim. Go figure...


    Read what they actually posted, and read it where they use the words
    Annoy. It the parts that they suggest and the parts that they quote,
    it's not that same.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Leythos, Jan 10, 2006
    #10
  11. yENC Man

    Toolman Tim Guest

    In news:JgFwf.15365$%,
    Leythos spewed forth:
    > In article <vfFwf.541$>, lid
    > says...
    >> In news:CaFwf.15319$%,
    >> Leythos spewed forth:
    >>> In article <u2Fwf.539$>, lid
    >>> says...
    >>>> In news:LZEwf.15222$%,
    >>>> Leythos spewed forth:
    >>>>> In article <_kEwf.805$>,
    >>>>> says...
    >>>>>> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law
    >>>>>> clearly. "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the
    >>>>>> "intent to annoy" is now a felony if you don't use your real
    >>>>>> name. Posting comments on message boards or blogs with the
    >>>>>> "intent to annoy" is now a felony...unless you use your real
    >>>>>> name. And I guess a case could be made that since most feedback
    >>>>>> is left on eBay using "handles" other than the "real name" of
    >>>>>> the user, negative feedback that is left with the "intent to
    >>>>>> annoy" is also a potential felony?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am
    >>>>>> sure that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Via CNet News.com
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/czaml
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> ...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?
    >>>
    >>> Nothing electronic.

    >>
    >> Well, since the news article is "quoting" text from the new law, and
    >> use the word "annoy" in part of the quote, I'd bet that it's in
    >> there. Or Cnet News could find themselves in trouble...
    >>
    >> Be that as it may, I guess I'd better start using my real name,
    >> since I *know* I annoy people all the time <G>
    >>
    >> Oh - wait - my name *is* Tim. Go figure...

    >
    > Read what they actually posted, and read it where they use the words
    > Annoy. It the parts that they suggest and the parts that they quote,
    > it's not that same.


    Nope - check it:

    <quote>
    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."
    </quote>

    That looks like they quoted it from the text.
    --
    Pursuant to Public Law No 109-162 I hereby certify that it is not my
    intent in any way to irritate, frustrate, bother, provoke, gall,
    disturb, vex, exasperate, ruffle, harrass, harry, pester, bedevil, piss
    off, piss on, or in any other way annoy the reader of this post.
     
    Toolman Tim, Jan 10, 2006
    #11
  12. yENC Man

    pcbutts1 Guest

    Fucking stalker you better leave me alone now, you annoy me stalker.

    --


    The best live web video on the internet http://www.seedsv.com/webdemo.htm
    NEW Embedded system W/Linux. We now sell DVR cards.
    See it all at http://www.seedsv.com/products.htm
    Sharpvision simply the best http://www.seedsv.com



    "Leythos" <> wrote in message
    news:JgFwf.15365$%...
    > In article <vfFwf.541$>, lid
    > says...
    >> In news:CaFwf.15319$%,
    >> Leythos spewed forth:
    >> > In article <u2Fwf.539$>, lid
    >> > says...
    >> >> In news:LZEwf.15222$%,
    >> >> Leythos spewed forth:
    >> >>> In article <_kEwf.805$>,
    >> >>> says...
    >> >>>> OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law
    >> >>>> clearly. "Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent
    >> >>>> to annoy" is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting
    >> >>>> comments on message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is
    >> >>>> now a felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case
    >> >>>> could be made that since most feedback is left on eBay using
    >> >>>> "handles" other than the "real name" of the user, negative
    >> >>>> feedback that is left with the "intent to annoy" is also a
    >> >>>> potential felony?
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure
    >> >>>> that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> Via CNet News.com
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/czaml
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> 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.
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> ...
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> 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.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.
    >> >>
    >> >> Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?
    >> >
    >> > Nothing electronic.

    >>
    >> Well, since the news article is "quoting" text from the new law, and use
    >> the
    >> word "annoy" in part of the quote, I'd bet that it's in there. Or Cnet
    >> News
    >> could find themselves in trouble...
    >>
    >> Be that as it may, I guess I'd better start using my real name, since I
    >> *know* I annoy people all the time <G>
    >>
    >> Oh - wait - my name *is* Tim. Go figure...

    >
    > Read what they actually posted, and read it where they use the words
    > Annoy. It the parts that they suggest and the parts that they quote,
    > it's not that same.
    >
    > --
    >
    >
    > remove 999 in order to email me
     
    pcbutts1, Jan 10, 2006
    #12
  13. yENC Man

    FML Guest

    Re: Anonymous flames and negative feedback with "intent to annoy"now a felony?

    Toolman Tim wrote:
    > In news:LZEwf.15222$%,
    > Leythos spewed forth:
    >
    >>In article <_kEwf.805$>,
    >> says...
    >>
    >>>OK, let me see if I understand the implications of this law clearly.
    >>>"Flaming" someone on Usenet or via email with the "intent to annoy"
    >>>is now a felony if you don't use your real name. Posting comments on
    >>>message boards or blogs with the "intent to annoy" is now a
    >>>felony...unless you use your real name. And I guess a case could be
    >>>made that since most feedback is left on eBay using "handles" other
    >>>than the "real name" of the user, negative feedback that is left
    >>>with the "intent to annoy" is also a potential felony?
    >>>
    >>>They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure
    >>>that this law has all kinds of good intentions.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Via CNet News.com
    >>>
    >>>http://tinyurl.com/czaml
    >>>
    >>>Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
    >>>
    >>>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.
    >>>
    >>>...
    >>>
    >>>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.

    >>
    >>You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.

    >
    >
    > Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?
    >

    Here you go, have fun:

    http://www.rules.house.gov/109/text/hr3402/109hr3402_text.pdf
     
    FML, Jan 10, 2006
    #13
  14. yENC Man

    boots66 Guest

    on or around 09 Jan 2006, reportedly in
    news:, FML
    <> was rumoured to have supposedly alleged:

    >>>You need to read the law, there is no wording for "Annoy" in it.

    >>
    >>
    >> Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation?
    >>

    > Here you go, have fun:
    >
    > http://www.rules.house.gov/109/text/hr3402/109hr3402_text.pdf


    Lots of words there. Lots. But "annoy" isn't one of them.

    --
    It has been said that man is a rational animal.
    All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
    ~ Bertrand Russell
     
    boots66, Jan 10, 2006
    #14
  15. yENC Man

    new identity Guest

    Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

    Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

    .........

    <snip>

    So how does this relate to SPAM?

    I know I get constantly annoyed by it.....

    Can I claim compensation?

    Can I steal Toolman's sig?

    <GG>
     
    new identity, Jan 10, 2006
    #15
  16. yENC Man

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>, pcbutts1
    @seedsv.com says...
    > Fucking stalker you better leave me alone now, you annoy me stalker.


    It does not work for you Butts1 - it has to be under harassment and
    posting that what I do does not come under harassment under the
    definition - it's a security warning and stands the test of the ISP
    definitions as you've already learned.

    If you post something that's a security risk, as well as anyone else,
    such as posting private, non-mirror links, to files that have vendor
    available links, I will post the valid links for them.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Leythos, Jan 10, 2006
    #16
  17. yENC Man

    Leythos Guest

    In article <wqFwf.543$>, lid
    says...
    > > Read what they actually posted, and read it where they use the words
    > > Annoy. It the parts that they suggest and the parts that they quote,
    > > it's not that same.

    >
    > Nope - check it:
    >
    > <quote>
    > 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."
    > </quote>
    >
    > That looks like they quoted it from the text.


    http://www.rules.house.gov/109/text/hr3402/109hr3402_text.pdf

    I found the link, please see that what you read int he MEDIA is hype,
    not factual information.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Leythos, Jan 10, 2006
    #17
  18. yENC Man

    Steve n Debs Guest

    On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:47:50 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote:

    > In news:CaFwf.15319$%,
    > Leythos spewed forth:
    >> [59 quoted lines suppressed]

    >
    > Well, since the news article is "quoting" text from the new law, and use the
    > word "annoy" in part of the quote, I'd bet that it's in there. Or Cnet News
    > could find themselves in trouble...
    >


    What, you mean someone will be annoyed!
     
    Steve n Debs, Jan 10, 2006
    #18
  19. yENC Man

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    lid says...
    > On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:47:50 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote:
    >
    > > In news:CaFwf.15319$%,
    > > Leythos spewed forth:
    > >> [59 quoted lines suppressed]

    > >
    > > Well, since the news article is "quoting" text from the new law, and use the
    > > word "annoy" in part of the quote, I'd bet that it's in there. Or Cnet News
    > > could find themselves in trouble...
    > >

    >
    > What, you mean someone will be annoyed!


    It's not in the law that I've read from the govt - in the PDF there are
    323 pages, and does not contain the word Annoy anywhere in the document.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Leythos, Jan 10, 2006
    #19
  20. yENC Man

    Leythos Guest

    In article <aVMwf.16009$>,
    says...
    > In article <>,
    > lid says...
    > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:47:50 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote:
    > >
    > > > In news:CaFwf.15319$%,
    > > > Leythos spewed forth:
    > > >> [59 quoted lines suppressed]
    > > >
    > > > Well, since the news article is "quoting" text from the new law, and use the
    > > > word "annoy" in part of the quote, I'd bet that it's in there. Or Cnet News
    > > > could find themselves in trouble...
    > > >

    > >
    > > What, you mean someone will be annoyed!

    >
    > It's not in the law that I've read from the govt - in the PDF there are
    > 323 pages, and does not contain the word Annoy anywhere in the document.


    You can read the law here too:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3402

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Leythos, Jan 10, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Haithwaite @ Blue Case Solutions

    Flames

    John Haithwaite @ Blue Case Solutions, Jul 8, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    611
    slumpy
    Jul 8, 2003
  2. =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=

    Re: The Searing Flames of AUK

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=, Jul 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    377
    Hiram Abiff
    Jul 12, 2004
  3. Rich

    Sony going down in flames

    Rich, Nov 17, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    931
  4. Matt Adamson

    Feedback from feedback on MCP questions

    Matt Adamson, Apr 27, 2009, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,621
    Matt Adamson
    Apr 27, 2009
  5. DasFox
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    4,679
    Ari Silverstein
    Jan 31, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page