It's now illegal to post on the Internet anonymously


PDA






taliv
January 9, 2006, 03:00 PM
goodbye internet (http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html)


It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."


no more pro-LEO threads, no more anti-LEO threads...

no more sending email to president@whitehouse.gov...

another casualty in the war on spam

If you enjoyed reading about "It's now illegal to post on the Internet anonymously" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Biker
January 9, 2006, 03:07 PM
To be perfectly honest, that post really annoyed me. I want all of your personal info, taliv, or you will be reported.

Ah, how easily is a nation of criminals controlled...

Biker

gunner03
January 9, 2006, 03:09 PM
All you have to do is ID right?? If I care enough to send something, I don't see a problem with saying who I am. I'm not saying to go all over the internet giving up your personal info, but I don't have a problem saying good job, or I don't agree.

carguym14
January 9, 2006, 03:16 PM
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand, from the novel Atlas Shrugged



One step at a time..................

CAS700850
January 9, 2006, 03:25 PM
Reading the language, it looks like the same old Telephone Harrasment laws, just expanded to include things other than phones. Key language "with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person"

"Like, Susie Q. is totally harassing me by e-mailing me about her dates with Greg, because she knows like I'm totally in love with Greg. Can't we like get her indicted on federal charges?"

Yeah, they'll line up a load of cases for Grand Jury like this. :rolleyes:

shermacman
January 9, 2006, 03:35 PM
How do you define "annoy"?

My sister calls me a right-wing-knuckle-dragging-gun-toting-Neanderthal-God-fearing-conservative. She does not mean it as a compliment, but I am quite proud of it!

geekWithA.45
January 9, 2006, 04:00 PM
They can pry my identity from my cold, dead brain.


Justice Thomas on 1A and Anonymity:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZC1.html

USMCRotrHed
January 9, 2006, 04:14 PM
No more internet for me. Most of what I write is expressly intended to annoy leftists.

carlrodd
January 9, 2006, 04:20 PM
How do you define "annoy"?

My sister calls me a right-wing-knuckle-dragging-gun-toting-Neanderthal-God-fearing-conservative. She does not mean it as a compliment, but I am quite proud of it!

well that's a win/win situation. not only has she inadvertantly complimented you......now you can also deny that and have her prosecuted.

Correia
January 9, 2006, 04:57 PM
I'm afraid Hardin/Gunkid is going to have to go away for about fifteen consecutive life sentances...

sm
January 9, 2006, 05:27 PM
Dear .gov,

I have been more than just "annoyed" by .gov meddling.

I do not appreciate MY Freedoms being infringed upon. I do not appreciate .gov allowing more and more Tyranny to come into and disrupt my life. I certainly do not apprecitate .gov breathing my air as they do these things either.

Control under the guise of various Wars on Terror, Drugs, or anything else is still Tyranny. Control under the guise of being Political Correct is still Tyranny.

Tyranny just flat out annoys me.

I am watching, I am paying attention, I am not the only one that remembers some histories of people whom choose Freedom over Tyranny.

In case your over-priced computer tools are not enough, may I suggest :
http://www.dnsstuff.com/

I use it, as do others. Just remember, a tool is never able to do harm by itself, it requires a user of said tool. It is the intent of the user of said tool that determines whether Moral Law or Criminal Law has been broken.

Regards,

Steve

Boogyman
January 9, 2006, 06:05 PM
Obviously hearing what the American people have to say is something Bush considers "annoying"...
In fact, in a recent interview, when asked what he thought of protesters outside the whitehouse, Bubble-Boy replied, "oh, you get used to it after awhile..."

CentralTexas
January 9, 2006, 06:16 PM
if you "annoy" someone that is. Has America just ceased to exist as I knew it?:(

http://tinyurl.com/9ljnb

By Declan McCullagh

Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST
TalkBack E-mail Print TrackBack
See all Perspectives

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

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.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.

Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's Washington, D.C., correspondent. He chronicles the busy intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired.

ka50
January 9, 2006, 06:20 PM
lmao dubya must be the worst violator of civil liberties I've ever seen in America!

Henry Bowman
January 9, 2006, 06:32 PM
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident That has to be a pseudonym.

Sinsaba
January 9, 2006, 06:32 PM
goodbye internet (http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html)


... with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...


no more pro-LEO threads, no more anti-LEO threads...

no more sending email to president@whitehouse.gov...

another casualty in the war on spam


How do you prove intent?

CentralTexas
January 9, 2006, 06:44 PM
Yes, and it annoys me....
:D
CT

Kurush
January 9, 2006, 07:02 PM
I'm filing this one away for the next time someone tells me they've never committed a felony.

spacemanspiff
January 9, 2006, 07:12 PM
with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person.
will the burden be upon the state/gov/whatever to prove the intent?

lbmii
January 9, 2006, 07:15 PM
Well I for one find myself very annoyed with the all of you.

Fellons all of you!

rchernandez
January 9, 2006, 07:17 PM
I think I'll change my Forum name to "Elvis".


This post is surely annoying! Anyone have the DOJ's hotline number? ;)

spacemanspiff
January 9, 2006, 07:18 PM
maybe i'll just have name changed to Spaceman Spiff.

:neener:

CAnnoneer
January 9, 2006, 07:18 PM
It seems the constitution has become a minor piece of annoyance for many in WashDC.

If somebody tries to defend Bush on this one, I might get annoyed.

Cosmoline
January 9, 2006, 07:21 PM
I have a right to annoy people. And certainly if you enter a forum on line you give up any claim to be free from annoyance. It's DOA.

Duncaninfrance
January 9, 2006, 07:24 PM
You should live here - the French don't really understand the internet yet so trying to communicate with someone by e.mail is like platting fog!
Duncan:banghead:

Hook686
January 9, 2006, 07:43 PM
I find this post personally annoying Biker ... who the heck are you really ?

;)

Kodiaz
January 9, 2006, 07:43 PM
Hmm is it almost time to start up the well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state thing because I'm not feeling very free right now.

I wonder what the liberals will say about the 1st amendment getting the kind of beating the 2nd usually gets.


Thomas Jefferson your country needs you.

TexasRifleman
January 9, 2006, 07:46 PM
Oh man I'm in trouble... I usually annoy MYSELF! Should I report myself to.....myself?

c_yeager
January 9, 2006, 07:47 PM
<---- Real name.

Have fun in jail! :neener:

Biker
January 9, 2006, 07:59 PM
I find this post personally annoying Biker ... who the heck are you really ?

;)
Got me dead to rights.

Admiral Poindexter at your service.
:p
Biker

progunner1957
January 9, 2006, 08:05 PM
"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."

Great. Just great. Now wer'e all criminals - just what "The Government" wants.

As Edward Abbey once said, "The more corrupt the government, the more numerous its laws.":D

Flyboy
January 9, 2006, 08:17 PM
"Not more than two years." Gee, that sounds an awful lot like a crime punishable by more than one year in prison.

Looks like THR is going to fall apart, now that all the gunnies are going to be gun-less.

Turkey Creek
January 9, 2006, 08:25 PM
Just when I thought that the Feds couldn't get any more annoying than they already are they surprise me- Is there no end to their lunacy?- Will my grandchildren be able to interact in any way with anyone else without fear of some kind of prosecution?- Methinks it's time to start over again :banghead:

ArmedBear
January 9, 2006, 08:32 PM
"Not more than two years." Gee, that sounds an awful lot like a crime punishable by more than one year in prison.

Looks like THR is going to fall apart, now that all the gunnies are going to be gun-less.

Since repeatedly raping a 7-year-old girl is now worth 60 days, this REALLY sounds excessive. :uhoh:

odysseus
January 9, 2006, 08:39 PM
This is so dumb, I can barely keep still reading it. Thank's again neo-cons.

What are they thinking? We already have slander, harassment, libel, stalking, and etc. laws addressing true problems. This is patently dumb. It's the government's way of saying it doesn't like how free, free-speech on the Internet is.

Let me ask anyone out there: Doesn't the 1st Amendment protect this kind of speech? I know all speech is not protected, but I am sure speech doesn't have to be authenticated, and impeading speech for this abridges free speech?

On another note: I find commercials on paid cable annoying. Can I get remediation for this annoyance?

dpesec
January 9, 2006, 08:44 PM
just another way to stifle free speech. Now, I personally hold that I won't say anything behinda person's back I wouldn't say to his or her face. So this won't bother me in the least.

You know, I wonder what John Payne, and Ben Franklin would say. They both used pen names to write things that annoyed people. I wonder how the .gov could forget that.:D

dpesec
January 9, 2006, 08:46 PM
....
Let me ask anyone out there: Doesn't the 1st Amendment protect this kind of speech? I know all speech is not protected, but I am sure speech doesn't have to authenticated, and impeading speech for this abridges free speech?
...

It's possible, but do you really want to be the test case?

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 08:47 PM
My name is...Gladiator.

Wiley
January 9, 2006, 09:03 PM
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

Anyone else pick this up?

Thanks, Arlen. How's the chemo? :fire:

lycanthrope
January 9, 2006, 09:07 PM
I'm Spartacus!

Flyboy
January 9, 2006, 09:07 PM
You know, I wonder what John Payne, and Ben Franklin would say. They both used pen names to write things that annoyed people. I wonder how the .gov could forget that.
You jest, but the cynic in me suggests that .gov didn't forget anything.

Brad Johnson
January 9, 2006, 09:13 PM
If I annoy myself, who do I call to report it?

Brad

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 09:14 PM
No, I'M Spartacus!

rick_reno
January 9, 2006, 09:19 PM
Makes sense, people don't want to be annoyed - I'm glad the Republican controlled Congress is looking out for our liberty and freedom. Happy thoughts, Joy, Joy.

Ezekiel
January 9, 2006, 09:21 PM
So the next time someone sends me an annoying message from a Hotmail account -- using a name that is not their own -- I can report it to the police to both "discover" who they are [/i]and[/i] prosecute them?

cosine
January 9, 2006, 09:35 PM
I'm Spartacus. *drinks Pepsi*
Sorry, just had to do it. :neener:


Now, seriously, this is just plain dumb. I am aften annoyed by what I see posted on the Internet, but to make it a crime to annoy someone? Jeez!:confused: Man, this is so stupid I can't even rationally counter or say something contructive about such actions.



Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident
That must be a pseudonym. :uhoh:

Kodiaz
January 9, 2006, 09:37 PM
It isn't stupid it's a total violation of our 1st amendment rights. This is supposed to happen in Cuba or China not the USA.

FPrice
January 9, 2006, 09:42 PM
I'm Spartacus.

Or am I FPrice?

Damn, don't you just hate when that happens.

cosine
January 9, 2006, 09:44 PM
It isn't stupid it's a total violation of our 1st amendment rights. This is supposed to happen in Cuba or China not the USA.

That's why it is so stupid. Nobody on Capitol Hill realizes such or wants to make a stink about that? I wish personal projects, wants, or agendas couldn't be attached to these so-called "must pass" bills. They should be made to introduce a totally new bill for this kind of stupid stuff, so that a ruckus could be made about it.



Okay, I'll stop posting now. I'm still worked up.

geekWithA.45
January 9, 2006, 09:50 PM
No way, dudes. I am like, SO TOTALLY Spartacus.

azredhawk44
January 9, 2006, 09:56 PM
Maybe we need to pass a law like this:

Every law in america except the Constitution will expire in 7 years. No law may be written to last longer than 7 years. All tax codes, military expenditures, social security law, welfare benefits, nanny-statisms, everything.

That would keep congress so busy re-authorizing and debating existing law that they wouldn't have the TIME to screw with adding new law.

azredhawk44
January 9, 2006, 09:57 PM
Did I offend anyone's delicate arses when I said "nanny-statisms?":neener:

cosine
January 9, 2006, 10:00 PM
Okay, I'll post again. Azredhawk, that's a pretty good idea, but what about existing laws that are just fine? I mean, they would expire, and there is no guarantee that we would get the same law passed again, laws that are genuinely useful and that we might have worked hard to get passed.



No way, dudes. I am like, SO TOTALLY Spartacus.Do you think we've confused the .gov yet?:D

cosine
January 9, 2006, 10:02 PM
Did I offend anyone's delicate arses when I said "nanny-statisms?":neener:
Nope!:D

Kodiaz
January 9, 2006, 10:15 PM
azredhawk +1000


Just 1 other law that doesn't expire though if you don't mind.

Any persons attempting to infringe upon the freedoms given by the bill of rights shall be guilty of treason.

cosine
January 9, 2006, 10:29 PM
Just 1 other law that doesn't expire though if you don't mind.

Any persons attempting to infringe upon the freedoms given by the bill of rights shall be guilty of treason.

+1.

However, one more provision to be added which doesn't expire: The definition of "do not infringe" needs to be settled once and for all, because the concept of "do not infringe" may be interpreted differently by different people. For example, I think that many anti-gun leftists do not believe that they are infringing upon the 2nd Amendment with their anti-gun legislation.

joab
January 9, 2006, 10:35 PM
Some kind of wierd double post here

1911 guy
January 9, 2006, 10:36 PM
I'M Spartacus!

joab
January 9, 2006, 10:39 PM
Upon further simple investigation

(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)).'.

If you go here (http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf) to page 58 you will see that I can annoy you all I want to on the forums


The term "hook, line and sinker" just keeps coming to mind every time I read one of these "They're taling our rights away" threads

ctdonath
January 9, 2006, 10:40 PM
Hmmm. If someone can be physically located starting with what they have annoyingly posted, are they actually "anonymous" per this law? Where is the line between identified and anonymous? I usually post as "ctdonath" - that's pretty darn close to spelling out my full name, but a case could be made that it's not clear enough under the law; there is at least one other C. T. Donath out there I know of; is that insufficiently clear? I occasionally post under another moniker that looks anonymous, yet with an hour of sleuthing you could still bang on my front door in short order; is that clear enough?

At best, this law will be tossed for being unconstitutionally vague and infringing on privacy & free speech.

At worst, the failing of this law will be used by would-be tyrants as the basis to more strongly push a National ID (next law: no posting anything without giving your SSN lest they raid the wrong house (there are two people with my name in this country)).

OB: Your mother was a hamster, and your father smells of eldeberries.

ctdonath
January 9, 2006, 10:41 PM
Flyboy,
Methinks you're right. <shudder> :uhoh:

Old Fuff
January 9, 2006, 10:47 PM
Oh darn! The Old Fuff just had a "senior moment" and forgot who he is. :evil:

joab
January 9, 2006, 10:47 PM
How many here have actually researched the bill as opposed to accepting the word of a reporter.
You know, those press people that are always totally accurate and non-biased with their stories

TexasRifleman
January 9, 2006, 10:51 PM
So what if I am annoyed by something I read on ATF's website?

Can I stop them from annoying me? :evil:

feedthehogs
January 9, 2006, 11:06 PM
I for one applaud any laws that throw spammers, telemarketers and other non solicited annoying sales people in the slammer.
If they had any marketable skills, they would have a real job.
:)

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 11:11 PM
WE'RE SPARTACUS!!!:D

Standing Wolf
January 9, 2006, 11:25 PM
Heck, at my age, I can't even remember my own whatchmacallit half the time, still less remember to own up to annoying people.

bogie
January 9, 2006, 11:26 PM
I'll have you know that "Bogie" has appeared as my name on a National Benchrest Shooters Association sanctioned match. Hence, I qualify to use it. I answer to it.

Thppt.

Standing Wolf
January 9, 2006, 11:27 PM
Heck, I'm not sure I even know what "annoy" means.

spartacus2002
January 9, 2006, 11:29 PM
WE'RE SPARTACUS!!!:D


Hah, I've got you all beat. I'm ME!

Phaetos
January 9, 2006, 11:35 PM
So the next time someone sends me an annoying message from a Hotmail account -- using a name that is not their own -- I can report it to the police to both "discover" who they are [/i]and[/i] prosecute them?


Yeh, does this apply to spam?

quaffin1
January 9, 2006, 11:39 PM
We are now supposed to support the ACLU??

seems strange.

Phaetos
January 9, 2006, 11:40 PM
Now.... if you "annoy" someone using a pseudo-name as 99.99999% of people do on the 'net, how do you report it and to whom? Call your local police and have them come look at your computer? They will laugh you outta town ... at least our cops would. Since it IS an alias, and they do find someone to look into it, won't they need a warrant or something to show to the owner of said "forum" or wherever they posted to get their true name? Assuming that the name in the database is their real name anyway. What if you post something to a newsgroup? How on God's green Earth will they find out who it was that posted it? That is the most ANONYMOUS route to annoy someone that I can think of.

Phaetos
annoyed by this stupid law ... can I report Sen. Spectre for for annoying me?

CAnnoneer
January 9, 2006, 11:46 PM
I'm Kornholio! Hrrrmrr!

Preacherman
January 9, 2006, 11:48 PM
Duplicate threads merged.

Preacherman (who must now unmask his true identity - I'm the alter ego of Rasputin... :evil: :neener: :D )

50caliber123
January 10, 2006, 01:12 AM
This is impossible to enforce. 1) Too many people would be violaters. 2) If someone is truly anyonymous, how do you know its anyone in particular?

oneslowgun
January 10, 2006, 02:23 AM
Every time I read "An un-named source" or "Name withheld" in the media, I am annoyed! No longer can there be "An un-named WhiteHouse source", or "A Senior Source within the Administration/ Senator's staff/Governer's staff/Government Committees." All these ANNOY me. Not only Do they annoy me, but I belive that this "Annoyance" is deliberate!

This garners mistrust of my Government as a "Group", and attempts to "Gain" my trust in "un-named" sources. I find this ANNOYING! I demand that these "Sources" be named!!

(Now, using the above cited law), I have a legitimate grievance. Just how long do you think it would take to turn the MSM into a "Howling Mass of Indignation" over this "So called" Constitutional Law, if they were REQUIRED to reveal their sources, because the "Source", "Annoyed" me?

Why if you were "Annoyed" over even ONE news article that qouted a "Un-Named" source, couldn't you (and many others) call the FBI and demand action under this "Law"? And even also demand a case number? Reporting a violation of the "Law", and and asking for information about the follow up on the violation is well within your rights isn't it? Failure to procede with the investigation, would be a violation of not only the duties of a Federal Officer, but a failure to adhear to their "Oath of Service".

The pain of a bad Law dosen't have to rest on "Our" shoulders alone.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 10, 2006, 02:37 AM
More commentary challenging the legal interpretation here:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/annoy_someone_o.html

SemiAutoMan
January 10, 2006, 02:38 AM
lol it's always been illegal to harrass by computer trust me I was arrested for it 2 years ago :P

PCGS65
January 10, 2006, 02:42 AM
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice.

It's the darn republicans I tell you, the darn republicans:cuss:


The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

oooops there's 45 democrats in the senate.
It's the darn democrats I tell you, the darn democrats:cuss:

All this BS is just pi$$ing me off. But since I'm not annoyed it's not illegal.:neener:

Warren
January 10, 2006, 02:50 AM
I'M SPARTACUS......

.......and I have the little leather skirt to prove it.

HonorsDaddy
January 10, 2006, 03:02 AM
It's possible, but do you really want to be the test case?
He might not - but i would. Legal bills would hardly be an issue - donations from sources from the ACLU, EFF, NRA, and God knows who else would more than cover it

That kind of attitude is how these laws get passed and enforced - we're all too scared to say "No more"

taliv
January 10, 2006, 03:02 AM
you know they went after king when he spoke out on vietnam

dasmi
January 10, 2006, 03:21 AM
Dear Federal Government,
Piss off.
Sincerely,
dasmi

Logistics
January 10, 2006, 03:21 AM
Hey Centac I've got coffee cans in the trunk of my car......

Sindawe
January 10, 2006, 03:31 AM
Dear Federal Government,

After long and carefull consideration, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one suitable repsonse. That being the case, it is with the utmost due respect that your officers and employees are invited to go engage in sexual congress with yourselves.

With utmost sincerity,

Sindawe

TTBMA

Optical Serenity
January 10, 2006, 03:34 AM
You know, maybe its just me but I don't see why this is such a big deal. There are thousands of laws out there that are insane like this one, and well, how often do you get charged with them?

PCGS65
January 10, 2006, 04:20 AM
He might not - but i would. Legal bills would hardly be an issue - donations from sources from the ACLU, EFF, NRA, and God knows who else would more than cover it.

Don't forget donations from THR!;)

grimjaw
January 10, 2006, 04:28 AM
I have been more than just "annoyed" by .gov meddling.

sm, +1, well written

jmm

Zedicus
January 10, 2006, 04:44 AM
I bet the Liberals will be the first to try to use this assinine insult of a law first on anyone they don't see eye to eye with....:barf:

Zedicus
January 10, 2006, 04:51 AM
You know, maybe its just me but I don't see why this is such a big deal. There are thousands of laws out there that are insane like this one, and well, how often do you get charged with them?
True, but such laws shouldn't exist in the first place to begin with.:fire:

Otherguy Overby
January 10, 2006, 07:41 AM
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand, from the novel Atlas Shrugged

One step at a time..................

Step by step, slowly I turn...

spartacus2002
January 10, 2006, 08:02 AM
Hey Centac I've got coffee cans in the trunk of my car......

:evil: now THAT's a blast from the past!

1 old 0311
January 10, 2006, 08:46 AM
I realize I am in the minority on this, but I don't feel people should 'hide' behind a pen name. I think it does prompt some to say things they wouldn't have the courage to say if their own name is posted. I use my name on ALL the gun, and political, sites I use. Each to his own!

Kevin

mtnbkr
January 10, 2006, 09:10 AM
Heck, at my age, I can't even remember my own whatchmacallit half the time, still less remember to own up to annoying people.
Don't worry, it comes naturally. ;)

Chris

Michigander
January 10, 2006, 09:17 AM
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

Thank goodness most vote for the lesser of the two evils. Whew! I just don't even want to think about what a Democrat might have slipped in there...!!! :scrutiny:

Oh, wait, was that last sentence annoying? My apologies if that last sentence annoyed anyone, that was not my intent. :(

edited to add: Please ignore my sig line. Thanks. ;)

Ryder
January 10, 2006, 09:24 AM
Is there a grandfather clause? That'd be great.

Oh, and did you know it's only Glock owners that annoy other people? ;)

Colonel
January 10, 2006, 10:28 AM
I think we should all flood the DoJ with complaints. Today.

If the law wasn't meant to be enforced, why did they pass it?

Wait...I wonder if that would "annoy" them...

captain obvious
January 10, 2006, 10:30 AM
Hey Centac I've got coffee cans in the trunk of my car......

Still have my extra large folgers can in the passenger footwell of my jeep....

buzz_knox
January 10, 2006, 10:51 AM
You know, maybe its just me but I don't see why this is such a big deal. There are thousands of laws out there that are insane like this one, and well, how often do you get charged with them?

Whenever it becomes convenient or expedient to charge someone with the "insane" law who otherwise could not be persecuted . . . I mean, prosecuted.

I've gotten to see archaic laws used like that. It's not pleasant.

Igloodude
January 10, 2006, 11:36 AM
Whenever it becomes convenient or expedient to charge someone with the "insane" law who otherwise could not be persecuted . . . I mean, prosecuted.

I've gotten to see archaic laws used like that. It's not pleasant.

The scary thing about this one is, you don't even need to be prosecuted. "They" can simply use the law to de-anonymize you, and then decide not to indict.

Anonymous
January 10, 2006, 11:42 AM
Well I guess I'm in trouble now.

benEzra
January 10, 2006, 11:49 AM
I realize I am in the minority on this, but I don't feel people should 'hide' behind a pen name. I think it does prompt some to say things they wouldn't have the courage to say if their own name is posted. I use my name on ALL the gun, and political, sites I use. Each to his own!
My main concern is security. I wouldn't post stuff here and elsewhere about guns I own, how I store them, etc. if any criminal with a computer could just look my name up on Yahoo People Search and decide to pay my house a visit.

It's a simple matter for the government, or for a site admin, to find out my name, but why make it easy for the opportunistic criminal or stalker who latches onto something I say?

That's the same reason I don't have any gun-related stickers or vanity plates on my car. I'm not ashamed of being a gun owner, but I don't see the percentage in announcing "hey, I own guns, follow this car home and rob my house when I leave," any more than I'd want to announce that on the Internet.

Cellar Dweller
January 10, 2006, 04:09 PM
47 U.S.C. 223 OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) Whoever--
(1) in interstate or foreign communications--
(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; 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

Obviously the Powers That Be must have a Tool for the "War on DissentTM;" what right-thinking person WOULDN'T be in favor of this (for the children)?

joab
January 10, 2006, 07:13 PM
Or stay on 58 for a definition of telecommunication device to see that
Interactive computer services are not included.

Or you can keep adjusting your tinfoil hats and watching for the sky to fall

Highland Ranger
January 10, 2006, 08:36 PM
You connect to the internet via ISP

Your connection is via an IP address

That IP address can be logged by a web board or anyone else trading electrons on the internet.

So if I want to see who you are, I get a subpeona to have the board admins tell me what IP is associated with your post.

I look up who owns it.

I subpeona their logs and find out who was on that IP at the given time.

I ring your door bell. HELLLO!

Only way around this is to borrow some bandwidth (somehow) and do it from a scrubbed computer.

If you play above the rim you can spoof the info as well.

Both methods are well beyond the average citizen.

lycanthrope
January 10, 2006, 11:12 PM
Or you can keep adjusting your tinfoil hats and watching for the sky to fall

Shiny side goes out.

Geno
January 10, 2006, 11:35 PM
Vote out EVERY Dim-wit(hypo)crat and EVERY Reject(puke)likan presently in office. Ban the lawyers from serving as politicians! Abolish "Federalism" and declare it unconstitutional...hey wait...it already is unconstitutional!

I AM SO READY FOR OUR NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!!!! I intend to volunteer my every free minute to diminish these "illegitimates".

IMPEACH! IMPEACH!! IMPEACH!!! Did I mention we need an IMPEACHMENT. Take out the whole lot of any and every other "illegitimate" in Washington who ignores our wonderful Constitution!

Me

Cellar Dweller
January 10, 2006, 11:36 PM
(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; and
(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)).'

sienna is stricken, green is language added...which affects (a)(1)(c) which is on pg. 54.

Crackberry, internet appliance, web-enabled cellphone, XBOX, computer, etc. appear to be devices covered; "interactive computer services" are exempt if none of the message is Internetted (private dialup BBS is all I can think of offhand). Blogs, message boards, IMs, PMs, email all appear to be covered because they are "transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet."

Chris Rhines
January 10, 2006, 11:46 PM
You connect to the internet via ISP

Your connection is via an IP address

That IP address can be logged by a web board or anyone else trading electrons on the internet.

So if I want to see who you are, I get a subpeona to have the board admins tell me what IP is associated with your post. And when the board admin gets the subpeona, he runs a disk zeroer over the logfile. 'Leastways that's what I'd do if the feds subpeonaed any of my data...

I look up who owns it. And you find out that the IP belongs to a public internet proxy service based in Romania. And they don't even keep records...

Both methods are well beyond the average citizen. So don't be average. Near-perfect internet anonymity is available to those with a bit of free time and the motivation to pursue it.

- Chris

WayneConrad
January 10, 2006, 11:57 PM
You know, maybe its just me but I don't see why this is such a big deal. There are thousands of laws out there that are insane like this one, and well, how often do you get charged with them?

Whenever I sufficiently annoy the government. These laws are a sword of Damocles, dangling over your rights and welfare.

Would you permit me to point a pistol at you, provided that I seldom pull the trigger? Or to tap your phone line, provided that I seldom listen to it?

Highland Ranger
January 11, 2006, 12:14 AM
Chris - wasn't saying it couldn't be done.

Was trying to inform those who don't know, that they are very traceable . . . .

Phyphor
January 11, 2006, 01:59 AM
Duplicate threads merged.

Preacherman (who must now unmask his true identity - I'm the alter ego of Rasputin... :evil: :neener: :D )

Better watch them puns, Preacherman, you'll be bunkin' with those you guard... :neener:

(Seriously, though, I can't believe this law is serious. Whiskey Tango FOXTROT?):banghead: :cuss: :fire:

Phyphor
January 11, 2006, 02:00 AM
Dear Federal Government,

After long and carefull consideration, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one suitable repsonse. That being the case, it is with the utmost due respect that your officers and employees are invited to go engage in sexual congress with yourselves.

With utmost sincerity,

Sindawe

TTBMA

You left out 'sideways with a rusty meathook' :evil:

sm
January 11, 2006, 02:05 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2159480&postcount=25

palerider1
January 11, 2006, 02:36 AM
what the :cuss: is this all about? what about freedom of speech? did they make this law so the government can censor us? i have never heard of anything so stupid in my life. if you look on the back of the door in your hotel room if you ever go to niagara falls canada it lists some of the local laws still on the books. one of them is that it is illegal to ride your horse over the falls....duhhh do they think people are stupid....if you dont believe me look on the door if you ever go there.

i'll sign my name in case i offended someone:)

R. Paul Gilson

palerider1

danurve
January 11, 2006, 01:40 PM
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand, from the novel Atlas Shrugged



One step at a time..................

Ayn Rand must have suspected the decline of western culture long before many.

Woodland_Annie
January 11, 2006, 02:08 PM
My main concern is security. I wouldn't post stuff here and elsewhere about guns I own, how I store them, etc. if any criminal with a computer could just look my name up on Yahoo People Search and decide to pay my house a visit.

It's a simple matter for the government, or for a site admin, to find out my name, but why make it easy for the opportunistic criminal or stalker who latches onto something I say?

That's the same reason I don't have any gun-related stickers or vanity plates on my car. I'm not ashamed of being a gun owner, but I don't see the percentage in announcing "hey, I own guns, follow this car home and rob my house when I leave," any more than I'd want to announce that on the Internet.
+1
I believe in free speech and write my member of Congress and Senators (state and federal) on any number of issues, using my full name and address. However, I won't give that information on an internet forum. While it can be found by somebody who is persistent and capable, why should I volunteer it? There are too many "lurkers" out there.

BTW I don't keep bumperstickers on my car either. If you care what I think about anything, just ask.;) If you don't care, my bumperstickers would only be boring eye candy.

Boogyman
January 11, 2006, 04:48 PM
Hmm is it almost time to start up the well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state thing because I'm not feeling very free right now.

I wonder what the liberals will say about the 1st amendment getting the kind of beating the 2nd usually gets.


Thomas Jefferson your country needs you.

Thomas Jefferson WAS a liberal. So was George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, the list goes on. I'm a liberal and I agree with everything you just said.
Are you sure you know what a liberal really is? Maybe you should look it up...

sm
January 11, 2006, 05:30 PM
Truth exists; only falshood has to be invented.

-Georges Braque

GigaBuist
January 11, 2006, 08:02 PM
Or stay on 58 for a definition of telecommunication device to see that
Interactive computer services are not included.

Or you can keep adjusting your tinfoil hats and watching for the sky to fall
As a card carrying member of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade I recommend taking a look at the link Joab posted, and check these two out too:

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1136873535.shtml
http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/archives/001319.html

So, not only are interactive computer systems explicitly left out, there's existing precedent from the Supreme Court that struck down the original 1934 telephone bill when found it violated somebody's 1st ammendment rights.
If speech is protected by the First Amendment, the statute is unconstitutional as applied and the indictment must be dismissed. An example of this is United States v. Popa, 187 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In Popa, the defendant called the U.S. Attorney for D.C on the telephone several times, and each time would hurl insults at the U.S. Attorney without identifying himself. He was charged under 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C), and raised a First Amendment defense. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Ginsburg reversed the conviction: punishing the speech violated the Supreme Court's First Amendment test in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), he reasoned, such that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to those facts.

So, Congress screwed up by using the same old wording that was too vague. They've done worse.

JohnKSa
January 12, 2006, 01:14 AM
WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.

I don't understand what everyone is so worked up about... :D

X Who
January 13, 2006, 01:57 AM
Whenever I sufficiently annoy the government. These laws are a sword of Damocles, dangling over your rights and welfare.


When any ordinary citizen complains under this law, he'll probably have to hire a lawyer to shepherd the case and even then it probably won't go anywhere. When a politician gets annoyed with someone putting the truth about that politician on the Internet, that someone will be in trouble, and the prosecution will be paid for with his taxes, no money out of the politician's pocket.

This is a law to protect politicians from the people.

If you enjoyed reading about "It's now illegal to post on the Internet anonymously" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!