Goodbye. I'll miss you.


PDA






V4Vendetta
January 10, 2006, 10:32 PM
With a certain new law in place, posting something on the internet that might offend someone is a crime. Since what might not annoy one person might annoy another person, I've decided not to post anything on the internet until either the law is repealed, or I'm 75. Then I'll be too old to care. Take care of yourselves. Thanks for all the help, the laughs, the advice & fun. In the words of the late & great Edward R. Murrow, "Good night & Good Luck. :( :(

If you enjoyed reading about "Goodbye. I'll miss you." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mole
January 10, 2006, 10:37 PM
Surely you jest....giving up now to such stupidity will turn you into a sheeple.

mole

1911Ron
January 10, 2006, 10:38 PM
Wow what law is that. sounds kinda draconion

GunnySkox
January 10, 2006, 10:39 PM
I can't imagine that Tshirthell or somethingawful or rotten will survive this new brand if abject retardery for very long. -.-

~GnSx

"This brand of abject retardery" refers to that new law, not this thread.

Snagglepuss
January 10, 2006, 10:39 PM
:confused: :confused: :confused:

axeman_g
January 10, 2006, 10:39 PM
*** are you talking about?:neener:

I hope that didn't offend anyone.

Zundfolge
January 10, 2006, 10:46 PM
*** are you talking about?:neener:

I hope that didn't offend anyone.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=175814

Raph84
January 10, 2006, 10:46 PM
I guess I haven't been watching the news closely enough because I don't know what law this is in reference to.

Can somebody give me a heads up.....do I need to don the tin foil helmut and throw on a flak vest?

Bruce333
January 10, 2006, 10:50 PM
I guess I haven't been watching the news closely enough because I don't know what law this is in reference to.

Can somebody give me a heads up.....do I need to don the tin foil helmut and throw on a flak vest?You're too late!:banghead: You should have had your tin foil helmet on already! Now we can't trust you anymore.:uhoh:

V4Vendetta
January 10, 2006, 10:50 PM
Go to www.keepandbeararms.com for info of this sort. Here is a direct link.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/100106eannoyance.htm

"Surely you jest....giving up now to such stupidity will turn you into a sheeple"


Oh I'll still watch the boards. I just won't post anything.

Biker
January 10, 2006, 10:53 PM
Hell, I offend people in real life and survive it, so I'll be fornicated if I worry 'bout the net. It's just another law and one of many. They got us by the short and curlies anyway, so we might as well fart in their general direction.:evil:
Biker

mbs357
January 10, 2006, 10:59 PM
Good Lord, I'm probably a triple quadruple ubar felon.
:uhoh:

dav
January 10, 2006, 11:09 PM
Most people are reading WAY too much into this law.
It has always been against the law to harass another person.
All this law says is you can't get around that by being anonymous on the Internet.

It is specifically aimed at those who INTENTIONALLY harass someone else, it has nothing to do with airing valid opinions that HAPPEN to annoy someone.

I can still say .45 is better than 9mm, even though that annoys 1/2 of the people on this board.

The law recognizes that they are here by choice, and must expect to be exposed to opinions they will not like. They have no legal recourse, just because they do not know who I am. That is totally immaterial.

dav
January 10, 2006, 11:10 PM
:cuss:

V4Vendetta
January 10, 2006, 11:13 PM
There is a difference between the letter of the law & the spirit of the law. I forgot to state above that I will respond to PM's.

McCall911
January 10, 2006, 11:13 PM
With a certain new law in place, posting something on the internet that might offend someone is a crime. Since what might not annoy one person might annoy another person, I've decided not to post anything on the internet until either the law is repealed, or I'm 75. Then I'll be too old to care. Take care of yourselves. Thanks for all the help, the laughs, the advice & fun. In the words of the late & great Edward R. Murrow, "Good night & Good Luck. :( :(

Hey, I'm 53 and already don't care!

As the Russians (supposedly) say: "Don't let the ba$****$ get you down!"

SilentStalker
January 10, 2006, 11:21 PM
With a certain new law in place, posting something on the internet that might offend someone is a crime. Since what might not annoy one person might annoy another person, I've decided not to post anything on the internet until either the law is repealed, or I'm 75. Then I'll be too old to care. Take care of yourselves. Thanks for all the help, the laughs, the advice & fun. In the words of the late & great Edward R. Murrow, "Good night & Good Luck. :( :(

I surely hope you are joking!

f4t9r
January 10, 2006, 11:30 PM
thats crazy , so everytime I get offended on the Net by something somebody wrote, Im gonna call the internet police.
Dont give in to such :cuss:

Taurus 66
January 10, 2006, 11:35 PM
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."


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.

Can someone please help this article make sense? Who's in support of this new law? Arlen Sphincter?, American Communist Liar's Union?, Who??

If this is indeed a law, does this mean anyone who sends me spam mail is now a criminal?

And forget about Bush ever rising up to any occasion. The rock he's under is just too heavy.

Razor
January 10, 2006, 11:38 PM
With a certain new law in place, posting something on the internet that might offend someone is a crime. Since what might not annoy one person might annoy another person, I've decided not to post anything on the internet until either the law is repealed, or I'm 75. Then I'll be too old to care. Take care of yourselves. Thanks for all the help, the laughs, the advice & fun. In the words of the late & great Edward R. Murrow, "Good night & Good Luck. :( :(

I don't believe in luck. That offends me.

:neener:

V4Vendetta
January 10, 2006, 11:41 PM
I'm not sure if the amount of posts that say "I hope you are joking" are referring to my decision not to post anything or because you don't want anyone to give in or because you don't think that there is a actual law about annoying someone. I don't want to give in. I won't give up. They haven't broken my spirit. Within each one of us there is a inch of integrity, of hope, of will. We must NEVER lose that inch. Within it, we are free.

"Hey, I'm 53 and already don't care!"

I've still got 35 years left till then.

ctdonath
January 10, 2006, 11:41 PM
Could someone post the friggin' law? What laws say and what people say of laws is usually two rather different things.

Highland Ranger
January 10, 2006, 11:42 PM
I've been offended since the 80's . . . .

NineseveN
January 11, 2006, 12:35 AM
Could someone post the friggin' law? What laws say and what people say of laws is usually two rather different things.


"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."

sm
January 11, 2006, 12:36 AM
One has to do what they have to do.

I find it interesting how "the more things change - the more they remain the same", how history has the ability to repeat itself.

In reading the above article - please note : 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."

Society just keeps "allowing" themselves to give away Liberties to gain Freedom.
I wonder if TPTB just did not assist in driving folks nuts with telephone harrassment to get legislation passed so easy to open the door to such laws as this Internet Harrassment law.

What next? Books? I recall in various histories books were burned, media censored, travel limited, ID papers required for most anything.

I have a number of favorite books I read again from time to time. These are special to me for various reasons. I'll just name four.

Civil Disobedience-Thoreau
1984 and Animal Farm-Orwell
Atlas Shrugged-Ayn Rand

Perhaps if a person were to send a copy of favorite works to TPTB this flooding of mail might send a message. Then again they would not understand these works anymore than the COTUS and BoR.

Well there could be worse ways to be become a felon I suppose.


Post 'em if ya got 'em

Forefathers did. Many since have continued to fight Tyranny all these decades.
All over the world folks have fought to keep Freedoms and fight Tyranny, I respect this, I respect the fallen in the process of fighting.

People are still fighting in various ways.

Two pieces of works penned by our very own come to mind:

"Metal and Wood"
by Dennis Bateman

http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/Metal_and_Wood.html

and

A Declaration of Civil Disobedience
by Marko Kloos

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34976&highlight=Civil+Disobedience

Substitute "Internet" if you wish.

There is more to Responsible Firearm Ownership than Firearms

Regards,

Steve.

TIMC
January 11, 2006, 12:49 AM
Well I aint askeerd! Nothing has stopped the telemarketers or email spammers yet. I doubt the powers that be would waste their time on little old me.

Phyphor
January 11, 2006, 12:53 AM
Good Lord, I'm probably a triple quadruple ubar felon.
:uhoh:

Due to my past posts on alt.flame years ago, I'm probably under multiple death sentences. :what: :evil:

50caliber123
January 11, 2006, 01:52 AM
I have a computer in my room. In a siege to take me away from posting (and I try to not offend anyone) I will still be able to get online. I even have a laptop, so if the power goes out....:cool:

Fat_46
January 11, 2006, 01:56 AM
"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 key words here are with intent

If you don't intend to annoy...you have broken no laws.

Remember the rule - what a reasonable person would believe...

BsChoy
January 11, 2006, 01:57 AM
I'd like to see that law challenged...Im a cop in NY and they changed the law for Aggravated Harrassment here recently as "annoying" someone was to subjective and not truly a fact that could be proven...you actually have to say I want to hurt or kill you in an email or phone conversation for it to be a crime

sm
January 11, 2006, 02:12 AM
The key words here are with intent

.gov cannot properly interpret the COTUS or BoR.

So how in hell can I be assured .gov knows how to "define" anything? I cannot.
How in the hell do I know what .gov's definition of with intent is? I don't.

Screw 'em, feed 'em fish heads and rice.

.gov, I am a 50 y/o male and I have fired my family. So you see - I do not care.
Unlike many - I have nobody but me to be concerned about. Friends? Fired many of those as well.

My TRUE friends understand my Core, My Code, Moral Law.
There are those that deserve some more years of Freedom, be it kids, or those raising them. Me- I have had a helluva run thus far.

My friggin intent?

Defend against all enemies Foreign and Domestic.

This is what drives me and keeps me driven taken some CIS/IT classes.

I know the history of the Internet. I continue to learn about TCP/IP .

Short version of history - Internet started out as a tool for Communications to preserve Freedoms in the Fight against Tyranny.

bigun15
January 11, 2006, 02:17 AM
This law offends me heavily. Send the government to prison.

kjeff50cal
January 11, 2006, 02:32 AM
It reminds me of the Senator investigating p0rn and censorship in the 1970s... When the media asked him what his definition of p0rn he says I don't know how to define it but I know it when I see it.

kjeff50cal

Taurus 66
January 11, 2006, 03:05 AM
Short version of history - Internet started out as a tool for Communications to preserve Freedoms in the Fight against Tyranny.


Uh huh, and wasn't the internet supposed to be a free enterprise? ... once upon a time that is. But of course wherever big government (AKA DC mafiosos) can get a better hold on money and/or power over people, they will just make up more bull$%!t laws to give them just what they're seeking. These sickos constantly bend, twist, & wring out through and through constitutional amendments in order to gain more and more control.

When is this federal government ever going to stop with all the 'senseless' law making??? It's like they will never stop until they reach their final solution - communism!

QUIT MAKING NEW LAWS DAMNIT!!! ESPECIALLY RETARDED ONES!!! And enforce what's currently on the books. YOU - THE RED WHITE & BLUE UNCLE SAM, HAVE STEPPED OVER THE LINE!!! WORK ON WHAT'S IN PLACE!!! ... maybe we can even work together on eliminating a few unnecessary laws in the meantime!

Ehh, maybe not! Let's just close an eye, drink that next beer, and watch the world end together. ;)

3/4 the way to the abyss ... so many deny ... a quarter the way to go. Then it'll be over.

SilentStalker
January 11, 2006, 03:12 AM
Quick, someone e-mail the president with an annoying message that also reads, "I am sending you this e-mail with an intent to piss you off so that you will realize that this new law about anonymous internet posting is ludicrous." :neener: :) :cool: :evil:

P.S. Does my grammar annoy you?

Gordy Wesen
January 11, 2006, 04:32 AM
have you noticed how PC makes a person intolerant?

Cosmoline
January 11, 2006, 04:47 AM
Oh come on. The ACLU and several dozen lawyers would take your case if the feds tried to punish you for annoying someone on a forum. This is yet another in a very long string of laws passed by the blue hairs in Congress that keep getting smacked down in court. Annoying people is well protected by the First Amendment.

McCall911
January 11, 2006, 05:27 AM
I don't want to give in. I won't give up. They haven't broken my spirit. Within each one of us there is a inch of integrity, of hope, of will. We must NEVER lose that inch. Within it, we are free.

"Hey, I'm 53 and already don't care!"

I've still got 35 years left till then.

That was where I was hoping you were coming from, V4V.

You're wiser for your age than I usually am for my age. Good for you! So let's take heart for the future, old timers!

^5, V4V!!!

UWstudent
January 11, 2006, 05:28 AM
i think taliv is crazy. he apparrently wants attention. i can put a hundred internet regulations on these threads and tell everyone that what they're doing is illegal.

first of all, how can the federal government regulate this sort of law?
do you have any idea how many people go on the internet?
do you know there are chat rooms on yahoo that are called "fight rooms" and all you do is talk crap about each other? go on there jack, it's under voice chats.

well, if this law actually worked.. it would call up yahoo and tell 'em to take that chatroom offline.

Coronach
January 11, 2006, 05:38 AM
It is merely an extension of telecommunications harassment laws, the same laws that do not allow you to make harassing phone calls to your ex girlfriend. In order to prosecute they must prove that your intent was to harass or annoy the other people and you must be using an assumed name.

The latter part is standard in online communication, but the former part is going to be hard to establish except in the most clear-cut cases. Posting to a message board ostensibly to communicate with other people will not cut it, methinks. Sending an email to a certain person saying "YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM TALKING TO YOU, SARAH!" will, but probably only after Sarah has made it very clear that she does not ever plan on taking you back and never wants to hear from you again, even after you learn how to shut off your capslock. In other words, Hardin is probably safe, and so is everyone else here.

I think we're correct to be a little leery of this, but I really don't see the Supreme Court allowing an abuse of this to stand, because it affects the 1st Amendment, which they protect to a fault as long as campaign finance is not involved.

Mike

UWstudent
January 11, 2006, 06:03 AM
I agree

mbs357
January 11, 2006, 07:29 AM
It is specifically aimed at those who INTENTIONALLY harass someone else, it has nothing to do with airing valid opinions that HAPPEN to annoy someone.
Looks like I'm in the clear.
*WHEW*

1911Tuner
January 11, 2006, 07:47 AM
Well I aint askeerd! Nothing has stopped the telemarketers or email spammers yet. I doubt the powers that be would waste their time on little old me.

That's probably what the law was aimed at, since the spammers are claiming
First Amendment. It's a way around it. To prevent prosecution, the annoying party has to reveal his/her true identity. The problem is, that the law is subject to abuse by people who just have it in for somebody. The other problem is that a constitutional right can be so easily circumvented by another law. Don't have a problem findin' a way to stop the spammers, but it opens the door for more abuse of the lawmaking process.

Byron Quick
January 11, 2006, 07:51 AM
Can I intentionally annoy and harass people legally since I'm not using an assumed name?:D

1911Tuner
January 11, 2006, 08:10 AM
Can I intentionally annoy and harass people legally since I'm not using an assumed name?:D

I suppose...:D

Hope the law ain't retroactive. I'm in deep dookey if it is!:uhoh: :D

Janitor
January 11, 2006, 08:26 AM
Uh huh, and wasn't the internet supposed to be a free enterprise?
Actually, not at all. In fact, commercial/enterprise type facilities weren't even allowed to connect to the Internet till the late '80s, early 90's. (I believe it was in '91 or so when the web first became self aware.)

The Internet was originally supposed to be a way for research and .gov facilities to share information.
-

joab
January 11, 2006, 08:29 AM
What is really annoying is that people are relying on the press to give them an accurate breakdown of the law instead of actually researching and finding out for themselves that it has nothing to do with interative computer servic4es

It's the press, people.
The same people that have our kids running around with automatic revolver SKS assault weapons shooting tourists in Fla for driving slow in the fast lane

Working Man
January 11, 2006, 08:54 AM
I know the history of the Internet. I continue to learn about TCP/IP .

Short version of history - Internet started out as a tool for Communications to preserve Freedoms in the Fight against Tyranny.

Quick question... I had thought the internet was setup as an intranet for
communication between scientific agencies then slowly expanded to include
various universities then the general public as a source of information.
...am I incorrect?

Janitor
January 11, 2006, 09:08 AM
Quick question... I had thought the internet was setup as an intranet for
communication between scientific agencies then slowly expanded to include
various universities then the general public as a source of information.
...am I incorrect?
Yup. You basically have it right. DOD started the DARPA net project to connect all the .mil and .gov defense research sights. It slowly morphed into the Internet as University and commercial (network) research facilities were brought online.

Then, the greencard lawyers Kanter & Siegal invented SPAM on Usenet in the late '80s and things started to go all to he11 here.
-

dracphelan
January 11, 2006, 09:39 AM
I like my solution. Look at my signature. If someone does manage to track me down and come to my home adress, Texas law is very clear on the subject. As a lawyer friend has advised me to say to the cops ( if ever needed) "Officer, I was afraid for my family and my life. I now need to speak to my attorney." :neener:

V4Vendetta
January 11, 2006, 10:00 AM
" I don't want to give in. I won't give up. They haven't broken my spirit. Within each one of us there is a inch of integrity, of hope, of will. We must NEVER lose that inch. Within it, we are free."

As much as I believe in that post of mine, it's not a saying that I came up with on my own. I took it from a graphic novel called "V for Vendetta". It's a book that everyone who posts here would be interested in. You should be able to find a copy online or at your local bookstore. They are also making a movie about it. Go to the official website here and watch the trailers especially the second one:

www.vforvendetta.com

NavajoNPaleFace
January 11, 2006, 10:33 AM
I've still got 35 years left till then.

Now, that annoys me!

Who do I call? :D

dpesec
January 11, 2006, 10:38 AM
Now, that annoys me!

Who do I call? :D

The Netbusters :D

USNCHIEF
January 11, 2006, 10:38 AM
I AGREE WITH "AXEMAN"....***....BUT I MIGHT SAY WTFUB. WHICH CAN BE INTERPERTED AS "WHERE THE _____ U...BEEN?"

scout26
January 11, 2006, 10:49 AM
I've been offended since the 80's . . . .


I was annoyed BY the 80's....

In fact I know that my purpose on this planet is to simply annoy as many poeple as possible.

My goal is to annoy everyone on this planet. (Then move onto the next one.....) :neener:

NineseveN
January 11, 2006, 10:53 AM
The latter part is standard in online communication, but the former part is going to be hard to establish except in the most clear-cut cases. Posting to a message board ostensibly to communicate with other people will not cut it, methinks. Sending an email to a certain person saying "YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM TALKING TO YOU, SARAH!" will, but probably only after Sarah has made it very clear that she does not ever plan on taking you back and never wants to hear from you again, even after you learn how to shut off your capslock. In other words, Hardin is probably safe, and so is everyone else here.


The only problem with that is PFA's and Restraining Orders already cover e-mail, so what's this law really for then?


I think we're correct to be a little leery of this, but I really don't see the Supreme Court allowing an abuse of this to stand, because it affects the 1st Amendment, which they protect to a fault as long as campaign finance is not involved.

Mike

I pretty much agree, and I hope we're correct.

Working Man
January 11, 2006, 11:03 AM
Yup. You basically have it right. DOD started the DARPA net project to connect all the .mil and .gov defense research sights. It slowly morphed into the Internet as University and commercial (network) research facilities were brought online.

Then, the greencard lawyers Kanter & Siegal invented SPAM on Usenet in the late '80s and things started to go all to he11 here.
-

Thanks.

TheEgg
January 11, 2006, 11:10 AM
Like many laws that ANNOY me, I shall simply ignore it.

Otony
January 11, 2006, 11:34 AM
Too late, V4Vendetta, too late.

Your willingness to compromise has offended me.

Who do I call to complain?

V4Vendetta
January 11, 2006, 11:59 AM
"Too late, V4Vendetta, too late.

Your willingness to compromise has offended me"

I'm not compromising. I've decided to stay. After reading my own post on page 2 about "the one inch", I've realiazed that to not stay would be giving up. THAT, I won't do.

P.S. If I go down you all go with me:evil: .

P.P.S. Not really. I'll go down alone. :(

Lupinus
January 11, 2006, 12:06 PM
Ven, your changing of your mind has offended me. You'll be hearing from my lawyer :neener:

MAUSER88
January 11, 2006, 12:18 PM
I guess we have the wonderful Patriot Act to thank for this law??:barf:

lbmii
January 11, 2006, 12:53 PM
Lupinus by being offended by V4Vendetta for now not taking actions to protect himself from offending me has now offended me!

outofbattery
January 11, 2006, 01:59 PM
Far be it from me to tell you what to read and who to listen to but there are better sources of information than Alex Jones.He takes a kernel of truth,smothers it in paranoia and wraps it up in a tortilla of hysteria -served hot and fresh to you.

The point of this isn't so that it's illegal to engage in reasonable discourse,up to and including questioning someone's gender identity for owning a 9mm on THR but rather it's aimed against the PEN15 GROW spam emails sent to you from Jimmy P Rockbottom with a message header of Hey,great news!

There's still time to build a bunker in the hills and get off the grid but pretty soon the JBT's will start monitoring semaphore and smoke signals so no communication at all will be safe.:fire:

V4Vendetta
January 11, 2006, 02:27 PM
"There's still time to build a bunker in the hills "

How do you do that? Is there a special company for that? :confused:

Skeptic
January 11, 2006, 02:37 PM
I'm vaguely offended by the offense committed by the offending offenders.

Coronach
January 11, 2006, 03:54 PM
The only problem with that is PFA's and Restraining Orders already cover e-mail, so what's this law really for then?They're probably after spammers who have been told that their communication annoys the people they are spamming. Also, some telecommunications harassment statutes are written in ways that email is not covered. Restrining orders are, obviously, more flexible.

I dunno how successful they'll be at getting spammers with this, though...the intent angle is the problematic one, and I don't see any appellate court allowing the gov't to prosecute communication that just HAPPENS to offend. I mean, really. When I send out my mass emailings about enlarging your penis, I know that I am just trying to provide a product to the masses. Same with my communications about busty lesbian sorority girls gone wild. I dunno about anyone else.

Mike ;)

Lupinus
January 11, 2006, 07:57 PM
Lupinus by being offended by V4Vendetta for now not taking actions to protect himself from offending me has now offended me!
I have no clue what that means. Therefor it has offended me and you will be Vens co-defendant :D

hso
January 12, 2006, 02:30 AM
How absurd!

If you enjoyed reading about "Goodbye. I'll miss you." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!