Why aren't you all blaming the Dems that signed too?
Why is everyone blaming just Bush on this. I like how the article says that Specter (the most left Republican in the Senate) made it so that the Congress had to sign (taking away blame from them), but they don't give President Bush or the Administraton the same out.
I think this is a rediculous idea, but put blame where you should. The people who wrote and signed it are all equal to blame, but the biggest blame must go to the idiot that changed the wording and hid it in a larger bill. How about we all flame him, oh wait we can't without using our name.
I'm a U.K. resident and i'm presuming this is only enforceable under U.S law as any alternative would be ridiculous... well more ridiculous.
So does that mean the U.S. courts will spend the taxpayers money discovering my identity in the case of a transgression, investing time and energy that could be spent elsewhere only to have it wasted because they can't even prosecute me?
Not that they'll need to of course as I'm not afraid to use my name. George you can come and find me. I have a few bones to pick with you.
<<If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.>>
If the author wants to accuse the President of the United States of violating constitutional law, perhaps this should be the focus of the article, no?
Think about it... which is worse... lousy wording in a bill about cyberstalking... or a President violating the constitution.
The author of this article injected political bias and launched unfounded and unsupported legal claims against the President. The article should be pulled immediately.
I highly doubt the author has enough "Constitutional Law Experience" to accuse, and judge the president in a technology article. Go back to Wired.
And get biased political authors out of my tech news please.
What trash. Where's the support? Where's the legal defense? What a cheap and easy shot... "I'm writing an article about a bill I don't like... I think I'll take this opportunity to accuse the President of illegal actions without substantial evidence or any consideration to the fact that he may be innocent."
So much for democracy and unbiased media. News.com is going downhill fast... and they are riding the far-left liberal open-source roller coaster of insanity. I'm about done getting information here.
i just read the text of the section - it does not as far as I can see criminalize web postings, message boards, etc, but only email. the person has to "receive" the communication - not go out and find it. #2 - bush does not make the laws - the selective bashing is just ridiculous. anyone bother to take a look at who SPONSORED this bill? along with specter, you can forward your hate mail to kennedy, schumer, and Biden. not everything in this world is bush's fault. if he had vetoed the bill , you would be on here saying he is for domestic violence. amazing to me how uniformed you people are on how the government works - "it's all bush's fault!" - you sound like children.
Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking,Mr Bush is doing a lot better than some other presidents have done,and every problem in the world should not be blamed on him.(By the way I am a registered INDEPENDENT wich is what everyone should be instead of playing this stupid childish games of the democrats against republicans and Vise Versa,This is why nothing ever gets done in washington because they really dont seem to care (Politicians I meen)about the real issues at hand as much as they do disagreeing with the oppossing parties,They should be voted into office for What they Stand For,Not Who They Stand With" maybe then something might actually get accomplished for the people instead of just lining the politicians pockets with our hard earned money,I waste enough of my own money by myself,I sure dont need some politician doing it for me....Anyways thats just my oppinion,i could be wrong.d.g.
if the facts and common sense annoy you - and yes i get the tongue in cheek reference to annoy. the legal reason it's in there is to distinguish from "threats". i helped a friend of mine get a restraining order against her stalker ex-boyfriend. he never threatened her - just sent 50 emails a day to her work email saying he was gonna commit suicde and all this other crap - but never threatened her. it's stalking, but without the annoy part in there, maybe no restraining order. also - as i previously stated, it does not apply to messageboards - only email.
English Website documents how Shimon Peres lost the primary
Shimon Peres lost the primary election in November as a direct result of the Hebrew internet site www.shimonperes.net and other very public efforts of David Rutstein to expose Shimon Peres as an accomplice in the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. The English website that chronicles David Rutstein's campaign for justice for Rabin is located at www.davidrutstein.com.
The www.davidrutstein.com website includes court documents from David Rutstein's slander lawsuit against Shimon Peres as well as various actions that have been taken to help raise Israeli awareness to the fact that those responsible for Yitzhak Rabin's assassination have gotten away with murder and must be arrested and brought to trial for justice to be served. Radio and television interviews, as well as the video footage of Rutstein's arrest at the 10th anniversary Rabin memorial rally in Tel Aviv are included at the site. There is also ample documentation revealing how Amir Peretz of the Labor Party "used" David Rutstein to win the Labor Party nomination. David Rutstein is sueing Shimon Peres for $50,000 for slander while ironically calling Shimon Peres a "killer" in the most public ways without getting sued! Shimon Peres fears to attract more attention to how he came to power over Rabin's dead body. Something very strange is going on and history is being made even as we read. Will Israelis let Shimon Peres get away with murder or seek justice for Yitzhak Rabin? Don't let them bury the truth: REOPEN THE RABIN FILE!
The only issue I have with the article is that it is not fully disclosed who greased the rails to get sec.113 in the bill. The article says, &Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors& I want to know who those other sponsors are. The article implies that Specter, a Republican, is responsible for this slight of hand and because Bush, a Republican President, signed the bill it is a Republican affront to our constitutional rights.
The article appears to only mentioning Republicans in negative tones while you champion Clinton for telling the Justice Department to ignore a law.
I think it is important to keep a watch over our rights and that is why a free press is so crucial but more and more people are not allowed to make up their own minds about an issue because the writers and editors are not honest and forthcoming with the facts.
If there was one Democrat in that list of others then you have not been honest.
The fact is this type of game that our elected officials play, the amending of critical bills with unrelated issues, is a common tactic used by both sides. It is a shame that our leaders refuse to adopt the philosophy that if a bill cannot stand on its own merits then it should fail. A weak bill that can only survive if it is hidden should not be voted into law yet it happens all the time.
As to this bill and sec.113 President Bush would have had to veto the bill for it not to be law. I could only imagine what the headlines would have been if the President rejected the budget for the Justice Department. Only line-item-veto could have prevented sec.113 from being law while passing the rest of the bill but that authority was taken away in 1998.
Not only did the author wrongly accuse the president of violating constitutional law, he used his personal liberal bias to turn the entire article into an anti-Republican piece. The kicker is that the most absolute liberal extermist politicians backed this bill. Its the very type of ignorance we see from the far left all the time... It reeks of "Bush Lied" B.S.
The author should be fired for injecting inappropriate and biased political grandstanding. News.com editors FAILED. This guy is a hack.
this goes out to the pres and all the other ppl who agree with the annoyance law being passed or w/e. "The annyoance act or w/e u call it annoys me." lmao what u gonna do about that?
This is the one that was passed by the House and Senate. It's an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934. The section it refers to is one where you can be persecuted by law for calling someone up with the intention to harass them. Actually I'll let you all read it yourselves:
"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;"
Notice the word "Receives" at the end there. Like Jay Mehr said, that would lean more towards e-mail since you don't recieve message boards, forums, blogs, ect.
So lets review. The law normally stated that if you tried to harass/threaten someone over the phone you could be prosecuted. Now they are including harassments/threats you recieve over the net. What's the problem?
Nice bias reporting Declan McCullagh. I have a favor to ask you. Next time you write something, take a big whiff of it so you'll know it's a steaming pile of dog crap your printing.
Scott, could you link me to a valid archive, please. I'm quite interested in all the information I can find on this particular law and would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Now you can arrest all these Christians Soldiers who annoy the hell out of everyone, everytime they post messages on web boards dedicated to cars.....
Web Boards dedicated to car maintenance: Christians Soldier dedicated to Jesus: Jesus Saves! Jesus died for your sins. You must repent and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior. Or else you will die and go to hell. **** Islam, **** Buddah, **** Mormons, **** Muslums, **** Asians, **** Black People.
Not only has the author misrepresented the issue, he has thoroughly misunderstood the issue. See my earlier post titled "What does Annoy mean"
All the people shouting hoarse over this new benign and useful law, suffer from severe misunderstanding of the word annoy.
The bill if anything will bring some element of sanity and responsibility on the internet.
I think all the hoarse shouting arising from misunderstanding the word "Annoy" shows that our education system has failed to teach our felow citizens well, or they have failed to study well :)
Please clear up the meaning of the word Annoy with a good dictionary. The scenario you mention does not qualify as annoy.
See <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.answers.com/annoy" target="_newWindow">http://www.answers.com/annoy</a>
The law only requires that you identify yourself, it does not prevent you from annoying someone.
No different than the real world. Lets say someone who is mad at you, comes to your front door every day and irritates you by saying something ridiculous or false about you. Would you report that person to the local authorities and have him off your back? That is exactly what this law will allow you to do on the internet as well. It helps you, to identify someone who annoys you.
Please before replying to my post, please clear up the word Annoy in a good dictionary.
That lead to further supression down the road. I wrote the not-too-popular "Sedition Act(of 1918)" reflection(see above), to demonstrate the point. The "Sedition Act of 1918" is an uncomfortable point with many Americans. People don't want to think that once, America almost became swallowed by it's Executive branch of Government, during a time of crisis and war. Or that it could possibly happen again, in these troubled times. There are several here that may disagree with Declan McCullagh's reporting. But we all need to be careful when it comes to being "censored" in our way of life, or freedom of speech.
it's not a question of whether or not we "disagree" with his reporting - it's that it is digested as actual "news". this idiot reports as NEWS that BUSH is gonna throw people in jail who say bad things on messageboards. by the reply's on this board i have figured out that most people A) read something, B) believe it is true, and then C) go off ill-informed on their soapbox regurgitating some nonsense about how it is bush's fault.
all i did to get to the bottom of this was actually READ the law in the column next to the article. then i googled the law and realized that it was a bi-partisan effort on behalf of domestic violence, sponsored by not only specter, but kennedy, schumer and biden. you don't need someone else to tell you what something means - read it for yourself. so michael G. - tell me the censorship that is involved here? tell me what part of this law censors ANYONE in ANY way. i'd love to know.....my guess is like most people on this board, you have no idea what you are talking about......
The law is not censoring. You are free to say anything you want. It just makes you put your name on it before sending it to someone else. So talk off the Orwellian glasses and come live in 2006, not 1984.
Controlling the Press is one of the most important tasks facing the up and coming dictator.
Back in the day, all one had to do was silence/control the Media No easy task, but do-able. But this damned internet has really made it harder. Allowing the proliteriate to express thier opinions anonomously, without fear of reprisal?? Thats dangerously close to freedom of speech!!
It's just hoping you will be less likely to express your views without the protective cover of anonimity.
"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."
The annoying thing about hastily and ill-crafted legislation is that it forces one to be pedantic, muddying rather than clarifying the law, inviting legal challenges and outright violations. Remember, it depends what is is.
Assuming for arguments sake that this law is designed to deal solely with conduct rather than content issues, so its not that someone sends you content you find annoying, but sends it hundreds of times, which you find annoying.
If the language as amended above is to be taken on its face, the first problem is with the word utilizes, since it doesnt clarify whether utilizing it has to be for its intended telecommunication purpose.
Loudly setting off the alarm of my cell phone every two minutes whilst attending a ballet doesnt change the fact that the device CAN BE USED to originate communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet. Or that I have not revealed my identity. Or that I have not annoyed many people. Similarly, if I was to hold up my cell phone, displaying an aborted fetus as the background image, and point it at doctors entering or leaving an abortion clinic, without revealing my identity, would that constitute *utilizing* a prohibited device and thus a felony?
And if one is to assume that the device or software must indeed be used to *originate* telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet, then the question of *what* is transmitted becomes unclear. With Annoy.com postcards, for instance, the sender uses the service to create a message which is then published on Annoy.coms servers and inaccessible to the public. What is actually transmitted to the recipient is a notification that they have been sent a communication and provides them with a unique key that allows them to retrieve it if they so choose.
In fact, with C|Net, I was able to forward this very article to me, containing theoretically annoying content by spoofing Arlen Specter, and C|Net (like most news publications that facilitate emailing content, but unlike Annoy.com) actually sends the self-generated content in the email notification itself, only linking to the story.
Ironically, a remaining provision of the CDA is what actually protects third party content providers, and since Annoy.com does not monitor or approve postcards, and therefore intent cannot be established, prosecution is unlikely. Annoy.coms overall stated intent to annoy is content based.
Nonetheless, I believe the law requires too many assumptions and remains vague enough to warrant a constitutional challenge.
im not from america so #### you bush, im not revealing who i am. or is bush, stupid as always, expecting me to follow this to? whatever law he puts up is for _america_ only, not for the whole world.
Why do you American allow your gov't to take your freedoms like this. It seems your gov't is taking more and more of your liberties that your country men have fought hard for. and... why do you guys squabble over democrat or republican, they are essentially both the exact same, both lie cheat steal and send hard earn american tax payer money to israel. Even the last canidates from each party are in the same secret society, the skull and bones thingy. Perhaps ' regime change ' is required. Either way from this angle it totaly looks like America is slowly losing some of it basic rights and many sheeple are going along with it. ( for the people who will call me ' liberal ' commie ect. if it will make you feel better then go right ahead )
the article is incorrect - WE LOSE NO FREEDOMS BECAUSE OF THIS LAW. It only covers email, not messageboards and even then it DOES NOT restrict what you can say. just that if you are harassing someone over email, you can not do it anonomously- and if it is considerd cyberstalking, i,e, 50 messages a day, threats, etc, then there are penalties - the SAME thing if i called you on the phone repeatedly. that's it - nothing more nothing less - it just codifies an existing law about phones and adds email. i'm not going to flame you, but just try and be more informed before you talk about big bad america taking away people's rights. on the other hand, i shouldn't blame you since you are from a foreign country and 3/4 of the americans on this board couldn't figure that out for themselves either - they needed some idiot writer in a tech article to spoon feed them wrong information.
at home, so of course he is also failing to create it abroad.
While I understand the impetus to treat cyberstalking and harrassing and threatening messages as the crimes they are, this legislation is overbroad, vague, and certainly will not stand even nominal scrutiny.
probably not based on your comment. for the 10th time - it is NOT Bush who created this law, but specter, KENNEDY, SCHUMER AND BIDEN - in case you don't know, they are some of the most liberal democrats america has.
So if a nun (for example) chose to send a piece of Catholic literature by email to a Presbyterian and used her religious name (Sister whatever) would that qualify? Guaranteed to be fairly annoying to the recipient, and the identity is an assumed one.
I don't know for sure who the losers will be in this, but I know who the winners will be - lawyers must adore badly drafted laws.
If Bush wants to do any good with the anti-Anonymous law the law should zero in on CPS. They should not be allowed to come in your home, on an anonymous tip, and rip your child from your arms. They should not be allowed to use those tips as evidence in court, which should be considered hear say anyway, but is taken as truth. Judges and DA's should not be allowed to continue to break the God given rights of parents by relying on anonymous information. The law makers should not be allowed to forget, or displace the Constitution, as they seem to do so often in these cases. Do a search on Google, or check out Yahoo groups. Check out how many groups are out there for parents wrongfully accused. Read about the hellish torment the courts put them through, all on the word of an anonymous call.
I guess its going to come down to ALL blogs, web sites, email, phone calls and snail mail will have to include something of the nature like this>>
<img src="http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/tb/circleslash.gif" width="9" height="9" border="0" alt="No!"/><a href="#">Report as annoying</a>
In the case of snail mail, you will have to include a postage paid reply note giving the recipient the option to report you. In a phone call, after every call that is made, the phone companies will have to provide an option to...say like (after the call has ended) press 1 to report as annoying.
All of us could become or informants, (is that called snitch, rat fink?) man...this is getting very weird! lol. Unless you all want to create an all volunteer "Telecommunications Act Violation Reporting" organization...hmmm... I may be on to something.
Seriously, we can rant and we can rave...unless you let your congressman or woman know what you think. Unless you vote with your heart, nothing will change. You already can't start a revolution to overthrow any part of the US Government, as determined by the Smith Act, or is that the Patriot Act(as some would have you believe).
The U.S. Government has annoyed the general populace for years. I'm annoyed now with their religous & political pompous. I do not recall voting to office Adolph Hitler, The S.S. or their contingency.
The fall of Communism in Europe is undoubtably a beginning rise within the U.S. structure. To deny civil liberties of speech, thought etc; those choices to be over ridden by a "class" of government officals. The segragation between people is further widing between rich & poor, gay & straight, ethicnical back grounds, as well as our religous freedoms due to "politcal correctness".
Where are OUR freedoms? The freedoms of Americans are slowly being stripped away by politicians. Too much government, too much power, will be this Great Countries undoing!
Am I to understand that our forefathers fought for freedoms that would be denied to the American people that was given us through the Constitution Of The United States Of America?
....Not what the founding fathers had in mind....
Is this to become another....Follow The Ho Chi Mien Trail???
How does With Liberty & Justice For All fit into any of this???
he gets it! This is what the people are referring to...
He gets it! Suddenly, the very things that our forefathers and numerous veterans foreign and domestic have served for, became and become injured, disabled and many died/die for... the rights and protections imbued in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the rule of law and proper performance of the government are more and more under attack and broken and inferred to as "non-applicable (n/a)" via the forced political emphasis that uses political power against the citizens to stiffle what it perceives as unpopular and perhaps dangerous to their agenda. However, these laws and rights are still the valid rules of the country, birthed from the prior common law elements leading to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from wherein they were established. The danger and damage are the incidents of political abuse of power taken and used against the citizens and the law(s) that are supposed to establish and protect and not to serve only a powerful ruler and forces acting against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a design of our founding principles that lead to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that our citizens are authorized and have a duty to participate in word and deed to these prinicples. In fact, the only way for these principles to succeed is a majority of the governed to communicate to the elected representatives the ideas and the actions their electorate intend them to take as their duty to the citizens and the country. It is paramount that the citizens majority must be involved to communicate and see that the elected actually do take actions mandated by their constituants. If the citizens do not ensure the proper results; then, it is more of the same "auto-pilot-government" serving the desires of the lawmaker(s) and the other elected officials.
The Department of Justice will most likely not prosecute *everyone* that annoys anyone over the 'net. However, this law makes it very easy for them to teach people who "annoy" politicians, VIPs and/or the Justice Dept. itself a little lesson, by claiming they are in violation of this law.
The way I see it, this is just another step towards the United States of 1984. Big George is watching you.
you wrote: "The way I see it, this is just another step towards the United States of 1984. Big George is watching you."
okay - explain your point. name one freedom you lose by this law - name one liberty that is trampled on - show one example of how because if this law "Big George" is watching you, and for bonus points, name the three democratic senators who sponsored the bill. i'll be waiting anxiously for your reply......
Manage updates with the Download App
I think this is a rediculous idea, but put blame where you should. The people who wrote and signed it are all equal to blame, but the biggest blame must go to the idiot that changed the wording and hid it in a larger bill. How about we all flame him, oh wait we can't without using our name.
So does that mean the U.S. courts will spend the taxpayers money discovering my identity in the case of a transgression, investing time and energy that could be spent elsewhere only to have it wasted because they can't even prosecute me?
Not that they'll need to of course as I'm not afraid to use my name. George you can come and find me. I have a few bones to pick with you.
If the author wants to accuse the President of the United States of violating constitutional law, perhaps this should be the focus of the article, no?
Think about it... which is worse... lousy wording in a bill about cyberstalking... or a President violating the constitution.
The author of this article injected political bias and launched unfounded and unsupported legal claims against the President. The article should be pulled immediately.
I highly doubt the author has enough "Constitutional Law Experience" to accuse, and judge the president in a technology article. Go back to Wired.
And get biased political authors out of my tech news please.
What trash. Where's the support? Where's the legal defense? What a cheap and easy shot... "I'm writing an article about a bill I don't like... I think I'll take this opportunity to accuse the President of illegal actions without substantial evidence or any consideration to the fact that he may be innocent."
So much for democracy and unbiased media. News.com is going downhill fast... and they are riding the far-left liberal open-source roller coaster of insanity. I'm about done getting information here.
childish games of the democrats against republicans and Vise Versa,This is why nothing ever gets done in washington because they really dont seem to care (Politicians I meen)about the real issues at hand as much as they do disagreeing with the oppossing parties,They should be voted into office for What they Stand For,Not Who They Stand With" maybe then something might actually get accomplished for the people instead of just lining the politicians pockets with our hard earned money,I waste enough of my own money by myself,I sure dont need some politician doing it for me....Anyways thats just my oppinion,i could be wrong.d.g.
Oh wait...I'd better be careful. This is <a href="http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=news.com.com">anonymous</a>. Or is it?
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=107451" target="_newWindow">http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=107451</a>
English Website documents how Shimon Peres lost the primary
Shimon Peres lost the primary election in November as a direct result of the Hebrew internet site www.shimonperes.net and other very public efforts of David Rutstein to expose Shimon Peres as an accomplice in the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. The English website that chronicles David Rutstein's campaign for justice for Rabin is located at www.davidrutstein.com.
The www.davidrutstein.com website includes court documents from David Rutstein's slander lawsuit against Shimon Peres as well as various actions that have been taken to help raise Israeli awareness to the fact that those responsible for Yitzhak Rabin's assassination have gotten away with murder and must be arrested and brought to trial for justice to be served. Radio and television interviews, as well as the video footage of Rutstein's arrest at the 10th anniversary Rabin memorial rally in Tel Aviv are included at the site. There is also ample documentation revealing how Amir Peretz of the Labor Party "used" David Rutstein to win the Labor Party nomination. David Rutstein is sueing Shimon Peres for $50,000 for slander while ironically calling Shimon Peres a "killer" in the most public ways without getting sued! Shimon Peres fears to attract more attention to how he came to power over Rabin's dead body. Something very strange is going on and history is being made even as we read. Will Israelis let Shimon Peres get away with murder or seek justice for Yitzhak Rabin? Don't let them bury the truth: REOPEN THE RABIN FILE!
www.davidrutstein.com
www.kemplervideo.blogspot.com
The article appears to only mentioning Republicans in negative tones while you champion Clinton for telling the Justice Department to ignore a law.
I think it is important to keep a watch over our rights and that is why a free press is so crucial but more and more people are not allowed to make up their own minds about an issue because the writers and editors are not honest and forthcoming with the facts.
If there was one Democrat in that list of others then you have not been honest.
The fact is this type of game that our elected officials play, the amending of critical bills with unrelated issues, is a common tactic used by both sides. It is a shame that our leaders refuse to adopt the philosophy that if a bill cannot stand on its own merits then it should fail. A weak bill that can only survive if it is hidden should not be voted into law yet it happens all the time.
As to this bill and sec.113 President Bush would have had to veto the bill for it not to be law. I could only imagine what the headlines would have been if the President rejected the budget for the Justice Department. Only line-item-veto could have prevented sec.113 from being law while passing the rest of the bill but that authority was taken away in 1998.
The author should be fired for injecting inappropriate and biased political grandstanding. News.com editors FAILED. This guy is a hack.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109QleJiU:e91030:" target="_newWindow">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109QleJiU:e91030:</a>
This is the one that was passed by the House and Senate. It's an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934. The section it refers to is one where you can be persecuted by law for calling someone up with the intention to harass them. Actually I'll let you all read it yourselves:
"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;"
Notice the word "Receives" at the end there. Like Jay Mehr said, that would lean more towards e-mail since you don't recieve message boards, forums, blogs, ect.
So lets review. The law normally stated that if you tried to harass/threaten someone over the phone you could be prosecuted. Now they are including harassments/threats you recieve over the net. What's the problem?
Nice bias reporting Declan McCullagh. I have a favor to ask you. Next time you write something, take a big whiff of it so you'll know it's a steaming pile of dog crap your printing.
Web Boards dedicated to car maintenance:
Christians Soldier dedicated to Jesus:
Jesus Saves! Jesus died for your sins. You must repent and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior. Or else you will die and go to hell. **** Islam, **** Buddah, **** Mormons, **** Muslums, **** Asians, **** Black People.
Jesus Saves!
All the people shouting hoarse over this new benign and useful law, suffer from severe misunderstanding of the word annoy.
The bill if anything will bring some element of sanity and responsibility on the internet.
I think all the hoarse shouting arising from misunderstanding the word "Annoy" shows that our education system has failed to teach our felow citizens well, or they have failed to study well :)
best,
Valli
See <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.answers.com/annoy" target="_newWindow">http://www.answers.com/annoy</a>
The law only requires that you identify yourself, it does not prevent you from annoying someone.
No different than the real world. Lets say someone who is mad at you, comes to your front door every day and irritates you by saying something ridiculous or false about you. Would you report that person to the local authorities and have him off your back? That is exactly what this law will allow you to do on the internet as well. It helps you, to identify someone who annoys you.
Please before replying to my post, please clear up the word Annoy in a good dictionary.
best,
Valli
"Sedition Act of 1918" is an uncomfortable point with many Americans. People don't want to think that once, America almost became swallowed by it's Executive branch of Government, during a time of crisis and war. Or that it could possibly happen again, in these troubled times. There are several
here that may disagree with Declan McCullagh's reporting. But we all need to be careful when it comes to being "censored" in our way of life, or freedom of speech.
all i did to get to the bottom of this was actually READ the law in the column next to the article. then i googled the law and realized that it was a bi-partisan effort on behalf of domestic violence, sponsored by not only specter, but kennedy, schumer and biden. you don't need someone else to tell you what something means - read it for yourself. so michael G. - tell me the censorship that is involved here? tell me what part of this law censors ANYONE in ANY way. i'd love to know.....my guess is like most people on this board, you have no idea what you are talking about......
Back in the day, all one had to do was silence/control the Media
No easy task, but do-able.
But this damned internet has really made it harder.
Allowing the proliteriate to express thier opinions anonomously, without fear of reprisal??
Thats dangerously close to freedom of speech!!
It's just hoping you will be less likely to express your views without the protective cover of anonimity.
The annoying thing about hastily and ill-crafted legislation is that it forces one to be pedantic, muddying rather than clarifying the law, inviting legal challenges and outright violations. Remember, it depends what is is.
Assuming for arguments sake that this law is designed to deal solely with conduct rather than content issues, so its not that someone sends you content you find annoying, but sends it hundreds of times, which you find annoying.
If the language as amended above is to be taken on its face, the first problem is with the word utilizes, since it doesnt clarify whether utilizing it has to be for its intended telecommunication purpose.
Loudly setting off the alarm of my cell phone every two minutes whilst attending a ballet doesnt change the fact that the device CAN BE USED to originate communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet. Or that I have not revealed my identity. Or that I have not annoyed many people. Similarly, if I was to hold up my cell phone, displaying an aborted fetus as the background image, and point it at doctors entering or leaving an abortion clinic, without revealing my identity, would that constitute *utilizing* a prohibited device and thus a felony?
And if one is to assume that the device or software must indeed be used to *originate* telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet, then the question of *what* is transmitted becomes unclear. With Annoy.com postcards, for instance, the sender uses the service to create a message which is then published on Annoy.coms servers and inaccessible to the public. What is actually transmitted to the recipient is a notification that they have been sent a communication and provides them with a unique key that allows them to retrieve it if they so choose.
In fact, with C|Net, I was able to forward this very article to me, containing theoretically annoying content by spoofing Arlen Specter, and C|Net (like most news publications that facilitate emailing content, but unlike Annoy.com) actually sends the self-generated content in the email notification itself, only linking to the story.
Ironically, a remaining provision of the CDA is what actually protects third party content providers, and since Annoy.com does not monitor or approve postcards, and therefore intent cannot be established, prosecution is unlikely. Annoy.coms overall stated intent to annoy is content based.
Nonetheless, I believe the law requires too many assumptions and remains vague enough to warrant a constitutional challenge.
bush, stupid as always, expecting me to follow this to? whatever law he puts up is for _america_ only, not for the whole world.
While I understand the impetus to treat cyberstalking and harrassing and threatening messages as the crimes they are, this legislation is overbroad, vague, and certainly will not stand even nominal scrutiny.
I don't know for sure who the losers will be in this, but I know who the winners will be - lawyers must adore badly drafted laws.
They should not be allowed to come in your home, on an anonymous tip, and rip your child from your arms.
They should not be allowed to use those tips as evidence in court, which should be considered hear say anyway, but is taken as truth. Judges and DA's should not be allowed to continue to break the God given rights of parents by relying on anonymous information. The law makers should not be allowed to forget, or displace the Constitution, as they seem to do so often in these cases.
Do a search on Google, or check out Yahoo groups. Check out how many groups are out there for parents wrongfully accused. Read about the hellish torment the courts put them through, all on the word of an anonymous call.
<img src="http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/tb/circleslash.gif" width="9" height="9" border="0" alt="No!"/><a href="#">Report as annoying</a>
In the case of snail mail, you will have to include a postage paid reply note giving the recipient the option to report you. In a phone call, after every call that is made, the phone companies will have to provide an option to...say like (after the call has ended) press 1 to report as annoying.
All of us could become or informants, (is that called snitch, rat fink?) man...this is getting very weird! lol. Unless you all want to create an all volunteer "Telecommunications Act Violation Reporting" organization...hmmm... I may be on to something.
Seriously, we can rant and we can rave...unless you let your congressman or woman know what you think. Unless you vote with your heart, nothing will change. You already can't start a revolution to overthrow any part of the US Government, as determined by the Smith Act, or is that the Patriot Act(as some would have you believe).
hmmmm....sorry for the tangent. :)
The fall of Communism in Europe is undoubtably a beginning rise within the U.S. structure. To deny civil liberties of speech, thought etc; those choices to be over ridden by a "class" of government officals. The segragation between people is further widing between rich & poor, gay & straight, ethicnical back grounds, as well as our religous freedoms due to "politcal correctness".
Where are OUR freedoms? The freedoms of Americans are slowly being stripped away by politicians. Too much government, too much power, will be this Great Countries undoing!
Am I to understand that our forefathers fought for freedoms that would be denied to the American people that was given us through the Constitution Of The United States Of America?
....Not what the founding fathers had in mind....
Is this to become another....Follow The Ho Chi Mien Trail???
How does With Liberty & Justice For All fit into any of this???
It is a design of our founding principles that lead to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that our citizens are authorized and have a duty to participate in word and deed to these prinicples. In fact, the only way for these principles to succeed is a majority of the governed to communicate to the elected representatives the ideas and the actions their electorate intend them to take as their duty to the citizens and the country. It is paramount that the citizens majority must be involved to communicate and see that the elected actually do take actions mandated by their constituants. If the citizens do not ensure the proper results; then, it is more of the same "auto-pilot-government" serving the desires of the lawmaker(s) and the other elected officials.
The way I see it, this is just another step towards the United States of 1984. Big George is watching you.
okay - explain your point. name one freedom you lose by this law - name one liberty that is trampled on - show one example of how because if this law "Big George" is watching you, and for bonus points, name the three democratic senators who sponsored the bill. i'll be waiting anxiously for your reply......