you know who i wish would die? idiots who don't understand that it is the congress that makes the laws -not Bush; that this was part of the domestic violence act to protect women; and that it was sponsored by three of the most liberal dems we have - kennedy, schumer, and Biden. you are an idiot.
This new law is completely and totally stupid. When you go into chat rooms and into blogs you go there by choice. It is not like having to go to a job where you work with annoying ***** and have to earn a living.
I go into chat rooms many times a week. I get my life theatened in there by one certain chatter every single time I go in there. I have reported him to Yahoo every single time and they have done nothing about him. I do not think he will ever really track me down and kill me, otherwise I would never go back into that chat room. (He wants to kill me because I think illegal aliens should be sent back where they came from.)
If this law is ever really instituted, Yahoo would be in violation too, since I have reported his death treats to me at least 100 times over the years.
it is you who just doesn't get it. despite what the author says, it does not have an effect on chat rooms or blogs. it was part of the domestic vioence act to protect against harassing emails, and was written by democratic senators kennedy, schumer and biden. all it does is take the law against telephone harassment and extend it to voice over internet and emails. the author got it wrong - don't be so gullible. any person can write some article - that doesn't make it true.
you know who i wish would die? idiots who don't understand that it is the congress that makes the laws -not Bush; that this was part of the domestic violence act to protect women; and that it was sponsored by three of the most liberal dems we have - kennedy, schumer, and Biden. you are an idiot.
I take it that Bush is completely clueless about technology, it certainly seems that way, if he had any idea he wouldn't bother with this law. Other than the fact it's unconstitutional, it's so easy to send an e-mail completely anonymously that it makes the law pointless.
please understand that it is the congress that makes the laws -not Bush; that this was part of the domestic violence act to protect women; and that it was written by three of the most liberal dems we have - kennedy, schumer, and Biden. to understand what the law really says, please go back about a dozen posts and read an open letter to declan mccullough. idiot after idiot on this site - it makes me sad my vote counts the same as yours
Awe man, this is annoying!!! The law is annoying...should the people who enacted this law be put in jail for annoying our rights of the 1st admendment?
I would like to add that some of the later impolite commentary added to your article has been some of the worst I've read on CNET. It disgusts me, in fact, these lap-dog Bush pundits, and all of these character-weasel/table-pounders that behave "as if" they're legal experts, who use this commentary space to malign anyone who disagrees with the perfect Karl Rove/George W. Bush style regime. Kind of like the President himself that still mistakenly proclaims "Osama Bin Laden=Saddam Hussein" and anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool, over and over again. Kind of like the "swift boat" folks that tried to falsely turn John Kerry into an anti-war hero(I voted for him in 2004, too bad he didn't win).
I get very weary of certain people that believe that repetitive knowledge is the key to true knowledge...like the guy above in the commentary I'll politely call "BUSHMAN", who believes that anyone who disagrees with him, no matter how politely, has to be squashed and twisted, and defined as an "idiot" . He made some interesting points at first, but I became so tired of hearing him repeat himself again and again and again with his perverse brass horn to anyone with a dissenting view(including yourself), that I finally began skipping his parts of the impolite commentary.
As for yourself, Mr. McCullagh, I do hope you continue in your profession of writing for CNET News.com. I liked your article and the ideas it provoked and brought forth---and I hope you continue to keep up the work of writing other excellent articles in the future.
michael G - i assume you were talking about me.....
i am the one who has been calling people idiots. i am hardly "bush man" - in fact i voted for kerry. what i will not do is tolerate idiocy. you have written a cogent response and therefore i have nothing rude to say to you. i freely, politely debated several people on this board, including the author, with no insults. i would be happy to do the same with you. the only people i called idiots were those deserving of same - anyone who because of this law posts "bush is evil and he is taking away our freedoms" or "america is like stalinist russia now", or "bush hates the constitution" is an idiot. there are several things to argue about Bush, but this law is not one of them. all of the people i attacked have a fatal flaw in their thinking - some ridiculous belief that it is the president that makes the laws, not the congress, and that this was some republican idea, when in fact the law was conceived by kennedy, schumer, and Biden, three of our most liberal senators, as part of the domestic violence act. anyone who disagreed with my interpretation of the law i had no problem with. but if you don't understand that the bill was veto-proof; that congress enacted it, not Bush; and don't take 5 minutes to look up the original and read it for yourself and see who sponsored it, then i have no time for your one-liners aand the bush is evil mantra. i am no legal "expert", but i am a lawyer and know how to read a law. i believe i am correct and the author is wrong - that he has completely overstated and exaggerated the effects of an innocuous law just to create some hype. any reputable source,like the NY times, taking this view? if they are,please provide a link. so far i have seen oneperson's interpretation of alaw stir up a hornet's nest -you may call that "excellent" journalism - i call it hack. but i will politely debate you, as i have others, until the cows some home. you call bush hitler, then you deserve to get zinged. have a nice day!
Okay, since annoyance concerning telecommunications was suggested (and if that is so important) then why not ban annoyance in general as well as through telecommunications and things that cannot truly harm you? In fact, if the subject of annoyance being wrong is so important then why shouldn't there be a law against annoying someone in the classroom or on the television? Or even in your own work space? The whole issue is that annoyances are going to happen, so if Bush and these other politicians are making annoyance such a big issue, then why do they not make it an issue which you can physically stand up to in the physical world? If you are annoyed in general, you will probably tell the one causing the annoyance to 'knock it off'. Whether they stop the annoyance or not, you can't help; but this is not the main issue. Bush annoys me, so if he annoyed me through telecommunications then it would be considered wrong; but on television or in person, if he annoys me, then it isn't considered wrong? But I would like to make a comment concerning the term "INTENT". Okay, so someone repeatedly calling you on the phone can be annoying and thought of as "intentional". But if the communication is made to be an intentional annoyance and isn't done repeatedly, then how exactly can you decide whether it was intentional or not besides in the view of the eye of the beholder? Someone can claim that another was 'intentionally' trying to annoy them, but the term "annoy" is an extremely personnel term and an annoyance to one person may not be an annoyance to another. Even "intentional" ones. (As was stated in an earlier comment in this subject) Now, back to the term "intent", even if someone claimed that an annoyance by another was intentional, the accused could easily respond that it was not an intentional "ANNOYANCE" and, therefore, could not be charged with it. Even in court, if someone claims that the annoyance caused was not intentional, what right is it for the judge to state that that person is lying and had indeed "intentionally" annoyed the 'victim' of the annoyance? Come on people. I believe that the other purposes for such a law (i.e. "abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications" section (c) of ยง 223.a.1) has a great purpose, but whoever decided to place the term "annoy" in a federal law either wanted to confuse people and/or twist this law to there own purposes (i.e. taking advantage of loopholes) or they just didn't think the whole idea through before using such a term as this that applies only to personal opinion between people. What if (not saying I would do this) I wanted to call one of the politicians responsible for agreeing to this law and complain to them about my dislikes about how these hair-brained terms such as "annoy" do not belong in a "politically correct" world and they charged me with annoyance over telecommunications? They would both be cases of annoyance, but my purpose wasn't to annoy them it was to let them know that I think they need to rethink the ideas on this new law. So I could be charged with annoying them over the phone, but I couldn't charge them for annoying me through law though neither would be initially intentional by the one annoying the other. I would like Bush to be arrested by stepping his annoying self into my life. Since annoyance is SUCH an important case in this matter.
how does a U.S. written law govern a global community ??
can someone explain the reality in this theory? does the isp / hoster need to be in the U.S. for this annoyance law to be held up in court? does the poster need to be located on a U.S. ip based network? does the poster need to be a U.S. citizen? what the bloody hell does the "annoyance" law have to do with a GLOBAL communications network? and does this also apply to text messages and comments we spew while walking down the street? does it include opinion of public relations / political topcis? if i were to say, my local politicians SUCK at their jobs...is that annoying? hmmmm....so much left unanswered...and obviously left to the powers that be....not us...to decide on (yes i agree with the articles concern) what constitues 'annoying'.
very weak and barely able to be applied in the technical sense of the word.
this methodology need to be applied. and now imagine the world of the internet...as infact a virtual world. networks, isps, hosting agents being countries, communities on these networks, isps, hosting agents, being states / cities.
who has made mr. bush the global authority? there are certain parameters of the federal branches of govt in drawing up / applying fed regulations / laws...and then there is a state precident in drawing up laws independently based on their citizens / communities influence or for their wellbeing.
i sincerely doubt whatever the language of the law of 'annoyance'....it is nearly impossible for it to be taken seriously...considering business & communities would not want to be told by the federal governement, smoking (as annoying as it is to some folks) should be strictly prohibited among staff / residents.
I haven't been able to read all of the comments here, so I don't know if this has been addressed or not.
As you may or may not know, the author has put together a two-page "FAQ" at: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=st.num" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=st.num</a> I posted a comment/question there on Friday which has not yet been addressed: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/5208-1028-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=13008&messageID=103628&start=-1" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/5208-1028-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=13008&messageID=103628&start=-1</a>
So, at the risk of being annoying, I an going to post it here as well. I hope that y'all will forgive the re-posting.
Thanks ~~~~~~~~~~::::::::::~~~~~~~~~~
Okay, I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I get a headache whenever I try to read stuff like this. But...
You state in the answer to the first question:
"""Before the new law took effect last Thursday, 47 U.S.C. 223 explicitly said it "does not include an interactive computer service." The changes override that for the "to annoy" section and now say it applies to the "Internet.""""
After reading the law and the changes, it seems to my "non-lawyer" mind, that this NOT what it says.
The new legislation says in Sec. 113: ---------------------------- SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.
(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end; (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: `(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)).'. (b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section. =============================
Now, Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) as it read BEFORE it was changed by this new legislation, said: ---------------------------- (h) Definitions 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 chapter; and (B) does not include an interactive computer service. =============================
After the new legislation's changes are applied, the section reads: ---------------------------- (h) Definitions 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 chapter; (B) does not include 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)). [[http://Bracketing the word 'and' with **_ _** was done by me for emphasis.]|http://Bracketing the word 'and' with **_ _** was done by me for emphasis.]] =============================
The "does not include an interactive computer service" does NOT appear to be overridden by the changes, but specifically INCLUDED through the use of the word **_and_**. If the legislation had used the word **_or_** or **_except_**, then saying that the "does not include an interactive computer service" is excluded might make sense.
Additionally, in the new legislation, note that it says: ---------------------------- (b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section. ============================= That also seems to reinforce the inclusion of "does not include an interactive computer service". If this is true, the law can now be read as: """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, and is not an interactive computer service... 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."""
I don't know. Maybe in the legal world, the word **_and_** really means **_or_** or **_except_**.
So, can you (or someone) explain WHY the word **_and_** in the context of this legislation doesn't really mean AND, but really means **_or_** or **_except_**?
If that cannot be adequately explained, then the entire analysis is flawed, because it is based upon a flawed premise.
Nursevic
(P.S. If anyone would like to see the original law with the new changes applied and color-coded to see what was changed, here is a page that shows it: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://people.delphiforums.com/Nursevic/eannoy/eannoy2.html" target="_newWindow">http://people.delphiforums.com/Nursevic/eannoy/eannoy2.html</a> )
This is part of the "Violence Against Women Act". To judge by title, it is only to protect women. Notice the language: "his identity" to refer to the accused and "any person" to the victim. Men are S.O.L. This law is fundamentally biased and flawed.
To all those who say this law only closes a loophole... it's the law's unintended consequences that people are concerned about. E.g. prohibition of alcohol in the 20s drove the small businessman out of work and replaced it with massive organized crime. Government rent control creates slums because the incentive for owners to fix their buildings is lost. Who knows how this bill will be used against its citizens? One things for certain, it will someday, and that's worth concern.
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." -- Thomas Paine
The man is after y'all, 1st the human rights, then the country, and then the facist pigs up north become dictators. Bush=dictator, I knew dis day comin, tahst why I live in australia im safe from american troops. Everyone knows america in the next 10yrs will become a dictatorship and enslave earth its only a matter of time.
C-net requires your name for an account. Good thing, because I might have found that offensive and then BUSH would have to declare internet terrorism and invade Australia!
So now I can have all those annoying people at work arrested if I can just get them to email me. And I wonder how many wives are going to have their husbands charged (or visa-versa).
I am currently researching this for an article I have been tasked to write. I am going to try and remain unbiased, but whether I succeed remains to be seen. What I wanted to say is that I am not Bush's biggest fan, nor do I think he's that great a president, but I have to agree with Mr. Mehr that Bush is not the real bad guy here. I won't get into other actions he's taken that we should be concerned about, but they certainly exist. I can also see how Mr. McCullagh was irresponsible to only include Specter's involvement for this article, but I think the people who are "to blame" for this law are immaterial (although I concede three of them were ultra-liberal politicians). The big question is whether or not it affects free speech. I am completely by the side of Mr. Mehr in at least one regard: Those of you who gloss over the article and write an ignorant, slapdash, three-line jab at Bush does NOT help your cause, or, indeed, the liberal cause. It does not sway anyone against him (possibly the reverse) anymore than a pro-Bush bumper sticker helps him. I realize I'm wasting my time here, since those who write those annoying (ha ha) posts won't read my comments anymore then they've read anyone else's, but I wanted to make it clear that I HAVE read all of them. I have tracked this article as far as I can, through both interest and necessity. Having said that, I'm not convinced Mr. Mehr is 100-percent right in his summation (I'm not a lawyer, I'm a journalist, but I'm reasonably educated ... honest). I've looked over the laws; the article and the comments and I've come to the conclusion that the REAL issue is not Bush's culpability, Mr. McCullagh's journalistic integrity, or the definitions of "annoy" or "intent." The real issue is that the wording of the law is so ambiguous as to create just this sort of confused debate. I'm sure that the law reads easily enough to you, Mr. Mehr, but for someone like me who gets a headache as soon as he sees (b)(section 1) or anything like it, legal language is not as easy to interpret. Unfortunately, that is the exact reason we get ignorant posts. However, like I said: I'm reasonably educated, so I CAN read through a few times (ok, a few dozen times) and get the idea. I find Mr. McCullagh's most provocative statement to be that the law is "ambiguous at best," and therefore is somewhat open to interpretation. I realize that, in all reality, both erroneous and serious claims will be judged on a case-by-case basis, but I think Mr. McCullagh's point is we shouldn't HAVE to allow the laws to be read case-by-case. If legal language is going to be so thick and confusing, it should at least be specific. :D I think the American legal system is one of the finest in the world (although I grew up in England, and am a proud Limey), and I think the majority of its flaws are necessary for its advantages to work, but I do think that specific language is important. Never mind WHEN "annoy" was put in the text, I think most can agree it is a completely unnecessary word ("harass" covers it just fine), and if the law was JUST meant to apply to VoIP or e-mail, it could have stated it in a much clearer, and more specific, way. Again, as Mr. McCullagh pointed out, this problem will likely be cleared up the first time this law is utilized or reviewed. This does not, however, mean that he was irresponsible to bring it to the attention of the public. Mr. Mehr claims he hasn't spent a lot of time on this, and while I don't TOTALLY believe that, I can say I have, and I think that anyone who is concerned about their freedom of speech, and who deserves to be heard, will take the time and initiative to research the subject before either speaking for or against it, and letting it keep them up nights. Not everyone is going to care enough to do that, but for those who do, Mr. McCullagh's article strikes me as a single step toward finding the truth, rather than an overblown piece of sensationalism. It's not perfect, but I'm a journalist, and my piece won't be either. As long as it doesn't get me fired, I'll be satisfied with it. Some questions still bug me, and I would welcome a response from anyone who has the whole story:
1/ How will this law affect anyone breaking it (regardless of how people THINK such a thing is done) from overseas? 2/ People keep saying, "As long as you say who you are, you can harass and annoy to your heart's content." I'm pretty sure that it's still illegal to harass over the Internet, even when you identify yourself. I think it's probably just covered under a different law. Am I right?
I hope I have expressed this thought in a reasonably intelligent manner, and I hope I didn't forget anything.
You know what? I refuse to believe this load of crap. I see people flame each other all the time on message boards, and such, without getting into trouble? So you know what? No...just no. I am not going to believe this nonsense to be true, and that's final.
... in the world are you supposed to report when you have people annoying you. I get 300 emails a day asking me to open a bank account so someone can deposit $15,000,000 into it. This is getting rediculous. What's worse is no matter how many of those emails I mark as spam and address I block, they still get through and as the days go by I get more and more.
This is a simplecase. we can do it anonymously in right.And White House can ageinst these actions in right. So,White House just never stop we can do it anonymously.But,Atlast,White House take illegal networkers into custody. Legal mind and comonsense bring this conclusion in easy. One question. "Are you a troublemaker or not?"
Just wondering, does this law apply ONLY to those sending "Anoying" e-mail FROM the U.S. only, or does it include email sent from OUTSIDE the U.S.? Does Mr. Bush expect this law to be a world-wide one? How will the U.S.Feds enforce email originating from OUTSIDE the U.S.?
Just a thought. Haven't seen that mentioned anywhere yet.
As the article states, then ignores, this was a rider on an important piece of legislation. As the Supreme Court shot down the line-item-veto that was passed by Newt Gingrich's republican lead Congress for Bill Clinton, the President couldn't simply remove the rider from the Bill. As the article stated, the Bill passed in both Houses of Congress due to the importance of the main part of the legislation; the President also had to take the bad with the good. To blame Bush for this POS is as disingenuous as it gets, but is pretty typical of what is passing for 'politics as usual' these days.
What exactly would you have had him do, shut down the Department of Justice to remove this annoying but rather trivial rider? <sigh> What's the use, it's simply another mindless excuse to bash Bush so off you go. Bash away, bash away, and a good night to all.
I don't believe this is the intent of this law. I believe if the law is read correctly, it's meant to prohibit the use of VOIP and other technologies not regulated currently from being used as a circumvention.
Manage updates with the Download App
I go into chat rooms many times a week. I get my life theatened in there by one certain chatter every single time I go in there. I have reported him to Yahoo every single time and they have done nothing about him. I do not think he will ever really track me down and kill me, otherwise I would never go back into that chat room. (He wants to kill me because I think illegal aliens should be sent back where they came from.)
If this law is ever really instituted, Yahoo would be in violation too, since I have reported his death treats to me at least 100 times over the years.
This law is totally bogus.
people who enacted this law be put in jail for annoying our rights
of the 1st admendment?
they're legal experts, who use this commentary space
to malign anyone who disagrees with the perfect Karl Rove/George W. Bush style regime. Kind of like the President himself that still mistakenly proclaims "Osama Bin Laden=Saddam Hussein" and anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool, over and over again. Kind of like the "swift boat" folks that tried to falsely turn John Kerry into an anti-war hero(I voted for him in 2004, too bad he didn't win).
I get very weary of certain people that believe that repetitive knowledge is the key to true knowledge...like the guy above in the commentary I'll politely call "BUSHMAN", who believes that anyone who disagrees with him, no matter how politely, has to be squashed and twisted, and defined as an "idiot" . He made some interesting points at first,
but I became so tired of hearing him repeat himself again and again and again with his perverse
brass horn to anyone with a dissenting view(including yourself), that I finally began skipping his parts of the impolite commentary.
As for yourself, Mr. McCullagh, I do hope you continue in your profession of writing for CNET News.com. I liked your article and the ideas it provoked and brought forth---and I hope you continue to keep up the work of writing other excellent articles in the future.
*******
We need a new president. Someone who's actually SMART.
Okay, so someone repeatedly calling you on the phone can be annoying and thought of as "intentional". But if the communication is made to be an intentional annoyance and isn't done repeatedly, then how exactly can you decide whether it was intentional or not besides in the view of the eye of the beholder? Someone can claim that another was 'intentionally' trying to annoy them, but the term "annoy" is an extremely personnel term and an annoyance to one person may not be an annoyance to another. Even "intentional" ones. (As was stated in an earlier comment in this subject) Now, back to the term "intent", even if someone claimed that an annoyance by another was intentional, the accused could easily respond that it was not an intentional "ANNOYANCE" and, therefore, could not be charged with it. Even in court, if someone claims that the annoyance caused was not intentional, what right is it for the judge to state that that person is lying and had indeed "intentionally" annoyed the 'victim' of the annoyance?
Come on people. I believe that the other purposes for such a law (i.e. "abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications" section (c) of ยง 223.a.1) has a great purpose, but whoever decided to place the term "annoy" in a federal law either wanted to confuse people and/or twist this law to there own purposes (i.e. taking advantage of loopholes) or they just didn't think the whole idea through before using such a term as this that applies only to personal opinion between people. What if (not saying I would do this) I wanted to call one of the politicians responsible for agreeing to this law and complain to them about my dislikes about how these hair-brained terms such as "annoy" do not belong in a "politically correct" world and they charged me with annoyance over telecommunications? They would both be cases of annoyance, but my purpose wasn't to annoy them it was to let them know that I think they need to rethink the ideas on this new law. So I could be charged with annoying them over the phone, but I couldn't charge them for annoying me through law though neither would be initially intentional by the one annoying the other. I would like Bush to be arrested by stepping his annoying self into my life. Since annoyance is SUCH an important case in this matter.
very weak and barely able to be applied in the technical sense of the word.
who has made mr. bush the global authority? there are certain parameters of the federal branches of govt in drawing up / applying fed regulations / laws...and then there is a state precident in drawing up laws independently based on their citizens / communities influence or for their wellbeing.
i sincerely doubt whatever the language of the law of 'annoyance'....it is nearly impossible for it to be taken seriously...considering business & communities would not want to be told by the federal governement, smoking (as annoying as it is to some folks) should be strictly prohibited among staff / residents.
my best.
m2
As you may or may not know, the author has put together a two-page "FAQ" at:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=st.num" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=st.num</a>
I posted a comment/question there on Friday which has not yet been addressed:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/5208-1028-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=13008&messageID=103628&start=-1" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/5208-1028-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=13008&messageID=103628&start=-1</a>
So, at the risk of being annoying, I an going to post it here as well. I hope that y'all will forgive the re-posting.
Thanks
~~~~~~~~~~::::::::::~~~~~~~~~~
Okay, I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I get a headache whenever I try to read stuff like this. But...
You state in the answer to the first question:
"""Before the new law took effect last Thursday, 47 U.S.C. 223 explicitly said it "does not include an interactive computer service." The changes override that for the "to annoy" section and now say it applies to the "Internet.""""
After reading the law and the changes, it seems to my "non-lawyer" mind, that this NOT what it says.
The new legislation says in Sec. 113:
----------------------------
SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.
(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(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)).'.
(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.
=============================
Now, Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) as it read BEFORE it was changed by this new legislation, said:
----------------------------
(h) Definitions
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 chapter; and
(B) does not include an interactive computer service.
=============================
After the new legislation's changes are applied, the section reads:
----------------------------
(h) Definitions
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 chapter;
(B) does not include 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)).
[[http://Bracketing the word 'and' with **_ _** was done by me for emphasis.]|http://Bracketing the word 'and' with **_ _** was done by me for emphasis.]]
=============================
The "does not include an interactive computer service" does NOT appear to be overridden by the changes, but specifically INCLUDED through the use of the word **_and_**. If the legislation had used the word **_or_** or **_except_**, then saying that the "does not include an interactive computer service" is excluded might make sense.
Additionally, in the new legislation, note that it says:
----------------------------
(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.
=============================
That also seems to reinforce the inclusion of "does not include an interactive computer service". If this is true, the law can now be read as:
"""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, and is not an interactive computer service... 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."""
I don't know. Maybe in the legal world, the word **_and_** really means **_or_** or **_except_**.
So, can you (or someone) explain WHY the word **_and_** in the context of this legislation doesn't really mean AND, but really means **_or_** or **_except_**?
If that cannot be adequately explained, then the entire analysis is flawed, because it is based upon a flawed premise.
Nursevic
(P.S. If anyone would like to see the original law with the new changes applied and color-coded to see what was changed, here is a page that shows it:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://people.delphiforums.com/Nursevic/eannoy/eannoy2.html" target="_newWindow">http://people.delphiforums.com/Nursevic/eannoy/eannoy2.html</a> )
SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." -- Thomas Paine
What I wanted to say is that I am not Bush's biggest fan, nor do I think he's that great a president, but I have to agree with Mr. Mehr that Bush is not the real bad guy here. I won't get into other actions he's taken that we should be concerned about, but they certainly exist. I can also see how Mr. McCullagh was irresponsible to only include Specter's involvement for this article, but I think the people who are "to blame" for this law are immaterial (although I concede three of them were ultra-liberal politicians). The big question is whether or not it affects free speech.
I am completely by the side of Mr. Mehr in at least one regard: Those of you who gloss over the article and write an ignorant, slapdash, three-line jab at Bush does NOT help your cause, or, indeed, the liberal cause. It does not sway anyone against him (possibly the reverse) anymore than a pro-Bush bumper sticker helps him. I realize I'm wasting my time here, since those who write those annoying (ha ha) posts won't read my comments anymore then they've read anyone else's, but I wanted to make it clear that I HAVE read all of them. I have tracked this article as far as I can, through both interest and necessity.
Having said that, I'm not convinced Mr. Mehr is 100-percent right in his summation (I'm not a lawyer, I'm a journalist, but I'm reasonably educated ... honest). I've looked over the laws; the article and the comments and I've come to the conclusion that the REAL issue is not Bush's culpability, Mr. McCullagh's journalistic integrity, or the definitions of "annoy" or "intent." The real issue is that the wording of the law is so ambiguous as to create just this sort of confused debate. I'm sure that the law reads easily enough to you, Mr. Mehr, but for someone like me who gets a headache as soon as he sees (b)(section 1) or anything like it, legal language is not as easy to interpret. Unfortunately, that is the exact reason we get ignorant posts. However, like I said: I'm reasonably educated, so I CAN read through a few times (ok, a few dozen times) and get the idea. I find Mr. McCullagh's most provocative statement to be that the law is "ambiguous at best," and therefore is somewhat open to interpretation. I realize that, in all reality, both erroneous and serious claims will be judged on a case-by-case basis, but I think Mr. McCullagh's point is we shouldn't HAVE to allow the laws to be read case-by-case. If legal language is going to be so thick and confusing, it should at least be specific. :D
I think the American legal system is one of the finest in the world (although I grew up in England, and am a proud Limey), and I think the majority of its flaws are necessary for its advantages to work, but I do think that specific language is important. Never mind WHEN "annoy" was put in the text, I think most can agree it is a completely unnecessary word ("harass" covers it just fine), and if the law was JUST meant to apply to VoIP or e-mail, it could have stated it in a much clearer, and more specific, way.
Again, as Mr. McCullagh pointed out, this problem will likely be cleared up the first time this law is utilized or reviewed. This does not, however, mean that he was irresponsible to bring it to the attention of the public. Mr. Mehr claims he hasn't spent a lot of time on this, and while I don't TOTALLY believe that, I can say I have, and I think that anyone who is concerned about their freedom of speech, and who deserves to be heard, will take the time and initiative to research the subject before either speaking for or against it, and letting it keep them up nights. Not everyone is going to care enough to do that, but for those who do, Mr. McCullagh's article strikes me as a single step toward finding the truth, rather than an overblown piece of sensationalism. It's not perfect, but I'm a journalist, and my piece won't be either. As long as it doesn't get me fired, I'll be satisfied with it.
Some questions still bug me, and I would welcome a response from anyone who has the whole story:
1/ How will this law affect anyone breaking it (regardless of how people THINK such a thing is done) from overseas?
2/ People keep saying, "As long as you say who you are, you can harass and annoy to your heart's content." I'm pretty sure that it's still illegal to harass over the Internet, even when you identify yourself. I think it's probably just covered under a different law. Am I right?
I hope I have expressed this thought in a reasonably intelligent manner, and I hope I didn't forget anything.
we can do it anonymously in right.And White House can ageinst these actions in right.
So,White House just never stop we can do it anonymously.But,Atlast,White House take illegal networkers into custody.
Legal mind and comonsense bring this conclusion in easy.
One question.
"Are you a troublemaker or not?"
Just a thought. Haven't seen that mentioned anywhere yet.
What exactly would you have had him do, shut down the Department of Justice to remove this annoying but rather trivial rider? <sigh> What's the use, it's simply another mindless excuse to bash Bush so off you go. Bash away, bash away, and a good night to all.
Aime Watts
Fall River, MA