Comments on: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. And that irritates CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh.

[drxgv]

I believe you are misreading the law.

H.R.3402 Sec. 113 (a)(3)(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)).

Therefore the new wording applies only to instances arising under subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1).

The subsection referred to by the amended text is:
"(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;"

The presence of the phrase "Called number" pretty conclusively removed all internet communications such as blogs and message boards. This seems to be measure to close a loophole that existed for internet based phone call services like vonage, etc because there is clearly no called number with regard to blogs.

[declan00]

One crucial word

Perhaps that was the intent of the law's authors, but that's not what the law actually says.

What you're missing is the word _or_, which is crucial. If the law applied _only_ to VoIP phone calls, that would be one thing.

But the use of the word _or_ extends it to anyone "who receives the communications."

The US Code as amended reads like this: "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."

If, in some alternate hypothetical universe, your VoIP-limited version of the law were actually the one enacted, then I might agree with you. That is not the case today.

[johnkeller2004]

It's coming...

"[U]tilizes a telecommunications device" and "who receives the communications" are the important phrases.

Just wait. I have no doubt some Federal ***** persecutor is going to try someone who opposes Bush under this unconstitutional statute. Some Bushevik prick will claim they are "annoyed" by an anonymous, biting commentary they "received" via the World Wide Web.

[tjguy]

RE I believe you are misreading the law.

I am confidant that any loophole you find here is unintentional, a result of "cut and paste" legislation. That seems obvious by using the phrase "or utilizes a telecommunications device". Nevertheless a "called number" could be defined as an IP address.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Makes you wonder????

Do they actually read the Bills that they are voting on or is this just another fine example of the "old boys club" principle (what they don't know won't hurt them). Whichever, it just goes to show the level of respect that politicians afford to the rest of this great nation.

P.S. Declan, lets hope you are not writing under a nom de plume, otherwise Sen "Single Bullet" Spector, may come after you.

[publius_publicola]

who authored the changed bill?

James Sensenbrenner is the author of the DoJ appropriations bill, but I can't tell from thomas.gov which congressional representative authored the changed language re "annoy" -- Declan, do you know?

I know it's often a tricky question, having worked for a lobbying organization that wrote legislation itself and passed it along to congressional staffers, but I'd be curious to know whose office the language came out of -- is it Specter's, as your article seems to imply?

Thanks.

[vsankar]

what does annoy mean?

I think the author should clear up the word annoy for good, as I think his article arises from a misunderstanding of what the word means.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines Annoy as:

v.tr.
1) To cause slight irritation to (another) by troublesome, often repeated acts.

2) To harass or disturb by repeated attacks.

I for one would certainly like to protect myself against annoyance as defined the second definition.

Also the said act, does not prevent anyone from annoying. It only requires that you disclose your identity. If one does not have the courage to disclose ones identity, for fear of counter attactk, then such a coward does not deserve protection via the medium of internet.

Stand up for what you believe in. Good old mores, still hold good.

best,
Valli

[johnkeller2004]

Reality

1) I post a message on a forum smartly using a pseudonym pointing out facts regarding Bush's crimes.

2) Bushevik prick is "annoyed" by my post, and complains to the Federal ****** that I have violated the "law."

[mcugaedu]

You've misread it totally

You've misread it. The operative phrase is "with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass."

"With intent" is important. It's not illegal to "create an annoyance," it's illegal to *try* to pester people. The law does not leave annoyance in the eye of the beholder.

Also consider the phrase "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass." Criminal law is interpreted narrowly. "Annoy" lacks a clear legal defintion, but not "abuse" or "threaten" or "harass." Accordingly, the four words will be interpreted as specifying a single type of action.

In short... The only thing I can see wrong with this law is that non-experts may misread it.

[johnkeller2004]

Nope, we didn't

This is just more Stalinist fascism. Yet more bullshi* packaged in "protect women" wrapping.
If I were posting this anonymously, and I pissed you off, you'd try to make it a Federal case.

[tjguy]

re:You've misread it totally

You may have the operative phrase correct but the operative word is "or" not "and". It seems like annoying someone would qualify as a violation under a narrow reading of this legislation if the annoyance was intentional.

Annoyance, even if intentional, can have it's good effect. I submit that those that have the responsibility of voting on this measure could be prosecuted for violating it with their campaign tactics.

[hardedge]

Here is the list of co-sponsors

Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6]
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5]
Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3]
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Gibbons, Jim [NV-2]
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1]
Rep Green, Mark [WI-8]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16]
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8]
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2]
Rep Pryce, Deborah [OH-15]
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39]
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29]
Rep Scott, Robert C. [VA-3]
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32]
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35]
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9]

If you know those names, you'll understand that isn't a republican bill... nor is it a democrat bill. It took majority of stupidy on both sides of congress to usher it through. Congress... You remember those guys, the one's who want oversight on Al Qaeda wire taps?

Although DM has singled out a small segment of the bill for public humiliation, let's look at some of the other provision:

? Authorizes appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal years 2006 through
2009
? Implements reforms to the Department?s grant programs
? Creates a privacy officer at the Justice Department who must report to Congress on
alleged privacy violations by the Department, is responsible for coordinating the
Department?s privacy efforts, and ensures the Department complies with all applicable
federal privacy laws and regulations
? Establishes an office to ensure grant money is used appropriately and to reduce waste,
fraud, and abuse in grant programs
? Reauthorizes for 2007-2011 core programs from the Violence Against Women Act of
1994 and 2000 and makes improvements to those grant programs to enhance the
ability to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking
? Authorizes grants to train medical personnel in dealing with victims of these crimes
? Authorizes prevention grants designed to educate communities on the realities of
these crimes
? Reauthorizes the STOP program, which provides state formula grants that help fund
collaborative efforts between police and prosecutors and victim services providers
? Reauthorizes grants with the goal of police officers aggressively arresting abusers
who commit acts of violence or violate protection orders
? Authorizes new grants to improve training for court officials and law enforcement.

See, in politics, sometimes you have to put a little stuffing in the turkey to get it across the table. But be light of heart. These are folk you all voted for.

[casper2004]

They have us vote to make us think we're doing something.

I didn't vote for any of them, but even if I did, my vote don't count. Our shadow government decides who gets into office, no one else.

[Lumbaka]

Links for who sponsored

list of co-sponsors:

From the Library of Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:20:./temp/~bdbPll:@@@P

And from the House:
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr060111.shtml


I like the Talkback section of stories like this...
http://news.com.com/5208-1028-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=12943&messageID=102440&start=151

[Reverend Oddball]

federal law?

how does that affect non us cits?

has the bushmonkey thought about non-us cits?

unlikely. But even if he did, who cares? He can't legislate against foriegners, and isn't bright enough to cnsider us anyhoo.

Europe laughs at him, as does most of the world. God's sake, care about important crap, rather than internet drama.

[nintendoman]

Wow....

I actually dislike Bush even more now. I thought such a thing was impossible.

[drlith]

misreading amendment

This is definitely an exercise for the interested reader, but I think you and your sources are misinterpreting the meaning of this particular amendment to the Communications Act of 1934. I think it almost certainly should be interpreted as extending the "obscene or harrassing phone calls" section of the act to VoIP phone calls. It specifically leaves in an exclusion of "interactive computer service" but does extend the provisions of the 1934 legislation to include "telecommunications...that are transmitted in whole or in part by the Internet."

A press release from the bill's cosponsor supports this interpretation: "Sec. 113. Preventing Cyberstalking. To strengthen stalking prosecution tools, this section expands the definition of a telecommunications device to include any device or software that uses the Internet and possible Internet technologies such as voice over internet services. This amendment will allow federal prosecutors more discretion in charging stalking cases that occur entirely over the internet."

As amended, the specific subsection reads as follows:

(h) For purposes of this section

(1) The use of the term 'telecommunications device' in this section

(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this Act;

(B) DOES NOT INCLUDE THE USE OF AN INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE; and

(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))

"Interactive computer service" is defined in section 230 (f)2 of this bill as 'an information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services
offered by libraries or educational institutions."

[jaysee999]

government obfuscation

I think Kathryn is on the right track, but so far I have found it almost impossible to determine exactly what HR 3402 has done. The HR, in the clever way our lawmakers to things to keep us from figuring out what they have done, only says change this and change that in a bunch of other laws... the congressional site indicates that HR 3402 became Public Law 109-162, but if you try to get the PDF of that you get a message that it "was not coded correctly" and if you try for the text of the PL you get an error message saying "No Such Document docid-> publ162.109 IPaddress-> 162.140.64.21 dbname-> 109_cong_public_laws" ... so "ignorance of the law is no excuse" but so far it's impossible to get a copy of the law we're supposed to obey...

Further, if you read Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I, Section 223(a)(1)(C) it says:

(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or
not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with
intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who
receives the communications;

... add email to that section, and you have what seems to be reported in this news item ... including the "intent to annoy" ...

When one tries to track down some specifics on laws and changes such as this, it becomes really clear why our government and it's lawmakers and enforcers either have no idea what is going on, or can manipulate texts and references to accomplish whatever they want to accomplish.

I want to see a REAL copy of the after-revision Title 47 section, so we know what the final changes actually say.

[Teh_Kurr]

Oh wow..

LYKE THIS SOOOO FUNNI LAWL i lyke fink th@ bush is stupid head n he shuld go sleep long tyme LAWL
i meen he b dum cause he get made fun of on interweb n he cry n make law it vry funni LOLOLOL
i fink he shuld be stab in throat many tyme
i fink he like th@ vry much

kthx bi bi

[robbydobby]

eAnnoyance

Listen--

Create eAnnoyance, then there should be an "Internet Jail", not physical jail.

If you did something annoying, you don't go to Jail. Someone mis-interpreting this?

eAnnoyance.com

[chrisperry17]

by the way

Neither the technical sub-sub paragraph minutiae nor fact that this reg. just governs phoned intent to annoy gets to the real issue. First, if Cheney's meat puppet prez (A-HAAA! intent to annoy, potential lese majeste) or any Neocon pettifogger gave a rat sass about the legal minutiae, illegal domestic wiretaps would not have occurred and the legal FISA court route would have stood; habeus corpus, posse comitatus, due process, search and seizure...all are written into the law of the land as rights of American citizens; all are being dismantled under Bush. Flagrante bello and the W-o-T allow a virtually unlimited prerogative for His Imperial Highness.

Second, so what if "SO FAR", this reg. only applies to Web phone calls, if indeed that's the case (haven't read it): eg, in the beginning, the beach was wide open day or night--go for a night skinny dip? then it became illegal to swim at night; next, you could only use half of the beach; and then you got fined if caught outside the buoys; finally, only wealthy locals could get access.

Recall the "slippery slope". Once law enforcement starts getting on your case, they just can't get enough...hey, wow,this is fun: first, subway bag searches, then its down on the corner too, then its "into the van" for a strip search.

Wake up; we are already being tracked, recorded, mined and increasingly subject to embedded technologies in the new American police state/gulag. This reg. is what it is: one more step toward self-censure and a chill on free and public discourse.

[webrand]

Two years of this is long enough.

When I posted the kind of trash illustrating the annoyance posted daily on yahoo's financial message boards, C?net must have been too embarrassed to show it and they erased it.

The poster whose posts were shown in the erased message is known on the Yahoo FCEL message board as TFF or That ******** Fellow. That is because he focuses on three subject, ********, buggery and jews. His favorite however, seems to be ********.

A complaint to Yahoo will get his post erased and eventually his identity canceled, however Yahoo cheerfully permits him to adopt a new identity. By now he is long past his 100th identity and well on his way to 200. He may have adopted a macro to permit him to change identities quickly as he can change them quicker than you can say "Jack Robinson". He also changes identities to recommend posts made under another alias.

He is so prolific in his posting that it take several hours a day just to complain to Yahoo.

Why doesn't Yahoo do something? It seems to be most interested in protecting its full and complete discretion in acting on posts on its message board. It has let this disgraceful situation go on for at least two years, perhaps longer.

An action in libel is a very expensive endeavor. These days it is likely it would cost $200,000 and then when you sue the nasty one, you find he has no assets and you are out your legal expenses.

This law is the right way to go, but those focusing on the first amendment may get it knocked out.

[gsparky2001]

How to deal with some spammers

I had been getting Real annoyying spam to our buisness e-mail from an online casino overseas,and from another one in las vegas,Buying a weekly powerball ticket is the closest thing to gambling we do in our house,so I contacted the Company OVER 100 Times on thier TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBER wich they must pay for the call on,and I did this over a 1 month period from every Pay Phone I passed(Sometimes I think I May have even forgot to hang up the phone,OOPS,I can be absent minded that way),each time I SLOWLY Explained how Disgusted we were with Thier Spam & how I wanted it to stop,I would keep them on the phone as long as possible (After all its thier Dime)& just a little of my time.Now normally I would not do this type of thing but after calling them twice telling them not to do it, they continued,so did I...After approx. 1 month The spam stopped comming from them,I would imagine they got thier phone bill and figured out that it was a losing proposistion for them so they stopped.I can not say for sure that that is why they stopped but it sure seemed to work for me.I have also written e-mails back to companys who try to spam us ( being Very Nasty By the way)and carefully explained to them How I would make a point NOT to buy any of thier products EVER because of thier sleazy advertising tactics,and how I would Make sure to tell evryone I know NOT to buy any of thier Products and if they dident like it than they were welcome to sue me in court for Deflaming thier company however since we were on a federal No call list (wich doesent work by the way)that I would be glad to counter sue them for Jamming up our buisness computers causing Great financial burden upon our company,This sometimes works,I have also contacted the B.B.B. state agencys in thier states & filed complaints against thier companys(This method seems to get the quickest responsive action)because unless they dispute the complaint in a meeting with the BBB than it usually goes into record,There again affecting thier overall buisness,These methods may seem sleazy to some but I think ALL SPAM & POPUP ADS are sleazy so they deserve the same type of response.And as The
great comedy talk show host dennis miller so often sais "Thats just my oppinion,I could be wrong",one of the reasons he sais that by the way at the end of each show is so he cant be
sued for stating Innaccurate "Facts",he is just stating his oppinion wich is protected by our constitution,as for myself I would NEVER buy ANYTHING that came by Spam OR Popup ad,because if they have to force someone to look at thier product than it is probably not worth buying anyway......so anyways,Good luck with the spam,I may not have made a very big dent in it but every little bit helps.(Oh and a letter from our company lawyer has also helped on occasion.Also any drug companys sending us popups or e-mail we usually Forward to the U.S.Drug Enforcment Agency,and we let the companys know this before we do it,that also seems to have a big effect sometimes but not always.None of these methods of retaliaton are against the law by the way because they contacted us first,we were just responding......Just something to think about.
Sincerly,D.G.

Speech and Conduct

Hi Declan. After receiving a deluge of email follwing your story, I responded on Annoy.com. Some excerpts in relation to the conversation here.

I think the legislation is problematic on so many levels, but if one considers that it appears similar to how the Communications Decency Act broadened §223 beyond telephones to communications transmitted by computer, restricting a medium that is significantly less intrusive than the telephone. A ringing telephone intrudes into private space and carries the ability to harass or annoy even if no content is communicated, especially when the calls are repeated or come in the middle of the night. But computer communications are silent and, importantly, they are read only if the recipient chooses to read them.

It appears, with Sec. 113, that one is guilty of a crime if one were simply to "utilize" a telecommunications device "with intent to annoy" a person. Regardless of the content, or even in its absence. A conduct rather than a content crime. Perhaps waving a Blackberry in someone's face. Or annoying someone by using their cell phone as a vibrator.

Let's assume for a minute that the new law is based on not only conduct but speech as well. In 1973, the Supreme Court attempted to define obscenity in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973), by establishing a three-part test for obscenity: "hard core" sexual material that appeals to the prurient interest; is patently offensive under community standards; and lacks serious literary or other value. Each of the three parts of the Miller test must be met to criminalize even obscene speech.

Assuming it was possible to actually define content as annoying (perhaps unanimous agreement by Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken) using a similar standard to Miller, how on earth do you decide whether, when or where a particular piece of content is annoying? Is it annoying in a particular community?

Perhaps an annoyingly erroneous news dispatch on the cover of the New York Post in Sago, West Virginia might be more annoying there than it would be to the poor person reading it as fact on the subway in Manhattan. And therefore, if someone chose to send the story anonymously to Rupert Murdoch, expressing their outrage, which community would decide the appropriate level of content annoyance to legitimize a federal lawsuit by Mr. Murdoch?

Further, assuming it was determined that the content was likely annoying enough to Mr. Murdoch in Manhattan, would the content become less annoying if Mr. Murdoch was to sip on a scotch, smoke a joint or pop a Xanax?

And what exactly constitutes the annoyance. Is it the fact the email was sent to him at home rather than the office? Or that it was sent by Ted Turner? Or whether the sender's intent was to gloat at Murdoch's mistakes, or communicate them in the hope he remedy them?

[webrand]

Two years of this is long enough.

When I posted the kind of trash illustrating the annoyance posted daily on yahoo's financial message boards, C/net must have been too embarrassed to show it and they erased it.

The poster whose posts were shown in the erased message is known on the Yahoo FCEL message board as TFF or That ******** Fellow. That is because he focuses on three subject, ********, buggery and jews. His favorite however, seems to be ********.

A complaint to Yahoo will get his post erased and eventually his identity canceled, however Yahoo cheerfully permits him to adopt a new identity. By now he is long past his 100th identity and well on his way to 200. He may have adopted a macro to permit him to change identities quickly as he can change them quicker than you can say "Jack Robinson". He also changes identities to recommend posts made under another alias.

He is so prolific in his posting that it take several hours a day just to complain to Yahoo.

Why doesn't Yahoo do something? It seems to be most interested in protecting its full and complete discretion in acting on posts on its message board. It has let this disgraceful situation go on for at least two years, perhaps longer.

An action in libel is a very expensive endeavor. These days it is likely it would cost $200,000 and then when you sue the nasty one, you find he has no assets and you are out your legal expenses.

This law is the right way to go, but those focusing on the first amendment may get it knocked out.

[System Tyrant]

Those focused on the First Amendment...

Those focused on bypassing the First Amendment will someday find a world that doesn't allow even these kinds of comments.

The law is stupid. It is another one of those laws that tries to bypass the American Constitution.

The simple fact is this law will be uneffective in stopping people like the one you describe. Lawyers will just find ways to go around it and all that will really happen is a few good lawyers will get rich and famous. When will people understand that you can't stop people from being a**holes and bullies. What you can do is ignore them, stand together against them, or join them.

The fact is people have always been this way. It's only now, with the aid of technology, that it becomes global. It is much easier to spread hate than kindness. If we allow the freedoms that we all take for granted to be suppressed because of a handfull of people like the ones you described then we have allowed that kind of hate to win.

Aw well, who needs rights anyway.

[Halcyon6]

Silly Rabbit

Now lets try this approach before you go giving away My Rights...You can however give away yours at anytimne you wish...Not my problem as it were...

Stop using the board he posts on, and let them know why your not going to use it again till your certain they rid themselves of this individual...If you don't feel this is an option due to job related issues or whatever then, try not reading them...I'd think by now you would recognize his posts before you even read them...If your reading them knowing who it is and what he'll say then your not very bright...Kinda like the person driving by a wreck not wanting to look but doing it anyways...You can't help yourself...

[Michael G.]

The Sedition Act

For the good of my country, I'd like to add an excerpt from a book I read.

The Last Days of Innocence-America at War, 1917-1918(Meirion and Susie Harries):

"By the summer of 1918, the instruments for repression were almost perfect. On May 16, 1918, the
President signed the Sedition Act, which reinforced and extended the Espionage Act. Disloyalty was now a crime, and the penalty was a $10,000 fine or twenty years in prison. It was now an offence to obstruct the draft, to oppose the Librerty Loan scheme, or to call for revolution along Soviet lines. As the courts interpreted the act, it was an offence to call the Secretary of the Navy a fool or to spread depressing rumors about the war...Abuse hurled at the heat of the
moment could, if it had the slightest political tinge, be incriminating. As one senior law officer observed, the Sedition Act 'gave the dignity of treason to what were often neighborhood quarrels or bar-room brawls'."(Page 302)

"In the summer of 1918, Attorney General Gregory was recieving fifteen hundred letters a day, each pointing a finger at someone. Cases brought under the Espionage or Sedition Acts poured through the courts, and law officers were swamped with information and demands for action. In Eureka, California, a man was sentenced to five years' hard labor for criticizing the President, on the testimony of his own daughter. The young playwright Eugene O'Neill, on vacation in Massachusetts, took his typewriter to the beach to
work; the sun glinting off the machine was spotted by a man who leaped to the conclusion that this was a signal to enemy ships offshore. O'Neill was arrested at gunpoint and spent several hours held incommunicado in the basement of the town hall."(Page 307)

"In his Flag Day address of June 1917, Wilson had declared 'Woe be to the man or group that seeks to stand in our way!'It was now obvious that this had been more than a rhetorical flourish. In the twelve months since then, America had passed from a free, tolerant civilian democracy with the emphasis on government at the local and state levels to a country dominated from the center. By the summer of 1918, coercion had replaced voluntarism as the mainspring of the war effort at home."(Page 308)

I hope I don't get sued for copyright infringement.

[edgirard]

Citizens in peril from gov't officials

See these references:
Re: Free Speech and Right to Assemble
http://home.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?man=1&num=10&spage=search%2Fresultshome1.htm&channel=english&searchType=web&string=free+speech+under+Bush
and
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
Shortcut to: http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html#talkback

After reading this, it just re-inforces the following to me:
1. Our rights are only what we can enforce.
2. As always, it depends on the conduct of the court, the lawyer(s) and the judge whether or not the protections of the Constitution and Law under it are protected and enforced.
3. #2 above "trickles down" to how we are treated by the court(s), police and everything else under control of the power(s) in the gov't, as to how we'll be treated, how the law is interpreted and is enforced for us or against us in the exercise(s) of our speech etc "under the law".
4. I remember reading that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson et al spoke/wrote that:
"It is the duty of citizens to speak and act against unreasonable government." and that our supreme court previously ruled: "offensive speech is not illegal and is to be tolerated under the protection of the 1st Amendment".
5. So, it is just as in the days of pre-, during 1776 ... that when gov't is unresponsive to it citizens, from whom the gov't is granted/derived of it's power, and all else fails; then, the only other alternative is to repeat exactly what our founding fathers did, and, God, help us (please)!
6. because, if you speak aloud, or, show a sign of protest against the current (leadership)
the secret service forces/mandates the local police to move your person out-of-the-sight, ear and way or if you refuse; then, you are handcuffed, arrested and detained anyway.
7. So, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are now completely mute and more-or-less non-existant by the demonstrative political force demand. Even on the grounds of the whitehouse a senator's wife and her accompanying friend were removed simply due to the message on their shirts. I note that recently someone in the (R) administration noted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are now merely afterthoughts, mere historical references without current day applicability...
However; this is not my view.

because from what i see, we are all in the same situation as our founding forefathers!
/-/-/
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

[gordone_smith]

e-annoyance unconstitutional

Clearly unconstitutional...most advertising is anonymous and relies on that fact for its effectiveness. Knowing the author of the message would reduce its effectiveness. Can you say that communications over the internet would be subject to the law but using other mediums anonymously would be lawful and acceptable? Clearly, unconstitutional because there is not an equal application of the law from one communication medium to another. This e-annoyance law itself is provocative and harassing if it is applied to individuals or organizations...Clearly it is going to be used against those who express unpopular views which is the reason for free speech in our society. Clearly, bad law but we have some really mediocre people running our government in both parties. Compare George Bush, Arlen Specter, Bill Clinton, Russ Feingold to Ancient Rome and Greece or presidents within our own century--FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, or Herbert Hoover...No contest...Giants to midgets.

[daDebil]

I hate spam but I defend the right of spammerz to spread thier sh!t around

This law is annoying to me. How do I go about suing it's authors, and dubya, for diseminating it?

--T

[eric9897]

How far is too far?

So if you're a registered Democrat, is it considered annoying if you happen to ping www.whitehouse.gov during a presiding Republican administration/congress/supreme court?

-Eric Botticelli
http://freespeeches.net

[Hemsteter]

Military Bloggers Beware

Military bloggers (Milbloggers) are people who are in the military. They often blog anonymously to avoid possible problems with superiors who might hold differing political or social opinions. This law may result in significant problems for them. Similar problems may occur for others in government (including police and fire fighters) who perfer to blog anonymously.

On the other hand, putting people in uniform on trial may be the quickest way to convince many that this law is a bad idea.

[JoeBloee]

weak identity

...my interpretation of "identitiy" in context to the Internet, would be my account/user (id)entity. Ie: Joe Bloe. It does not state what type of identity. In context of the phone, soliciters usually "identify" the company they are calling from. Maybe a first name. Rarely do I recall hearing a full name in the past. So each communication technology has it's own definiton of "identity", so any online identy would be adequate.
But, this is pointless since it's clear this is not enforceable and violates exiting freedoms.
So do politicians even read these Acts? Oh, that's righ they don't.