• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

These forums will most likely be shut down.

D

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
It appears that Congress passed (and the President signed) a provision in a recent Justice Department funding bill that says that if you "annoy" someone on the internet without disclosing your full identity, you could go to jail for up to two years.

What the hell does "annoy" mean? Who decides that? Why was this even put in the bill? Does the First Amendment even matter anymore?

Sure people sometimes annoy me in this forum and other forums, but damn. This is government gone absolutely wild. Unbelievable. More police state tactics.

Link

 
Can we send dubya to jail then? He annoys me every time he appears on any web page.

Edit: reread that, nm... the disclosing identity thing slipped by the first time.
 
Mr. Bush's decsion has annoyed me, over the internet. For full identity confirmation, I want to see his pretzel scar, his full Texas state driving record, and the hooks to which Cheyney attaches the strings that animate him.

 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
heck, if this law applies retroactively, Conjur would have to be locked up for life ...
Click to expand...

Yeah, you'd be right there with him, LOL, and you've only been here a month. 😉
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
heck, if this law applies retroactively, Conjur would have to be locked up for life ...
Click to expand...
Maybe, but you'd be a "done Tom Turkey"! (You'd fry)
 
All of our negative posts about Bush annoy him. They're going to put us all in jail. Some of us may then disappear without trace. He's taking this measure because he can't simply just have us all killed.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I am sure it has more to do with email spam than it does with visiting a privately run forum.
Click to expand...
That may be what the law was meant to do, but the loose wording imply that it is now illegal to criticize someone anonymously.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I am sure it has more to do with email spam than it does with visiting a privately run forum.
Click to expand...

Then it should just say emails.

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.
Click to expand...

Edit, if you don't like smoke then don't go into an establishment that allows smoking. If you don't want to be annoyed then don't go on message boards. It's just that simple.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I am sure it has more to do with email spam than it does with visiting a privately run forum.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
heck, if this law applies retroactively, Conjur would have to be locked up for life ...
Click to expand...

Who wouldn't be? I can't think of a single person on this forum who hasn't broken this "law".
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Genx87
I am sure it has more to do with email spam than it does with visiting a privately run forum.
Click to expand...

Then it should just say emails.

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.
Click to expand...

Edit, if you don't like smoke then don't go into an establishment that allows smoking. If you don't want to be annoyed then don't go on message boards. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...

If I can't handle being annoyed then I should just become a DICTATOR :Q
 
Well gee... I'm just shocked... Shocked I tell you about who wrote this bit of genius....

Sponsor: Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I am sure it has more to do with email spam than it does with visiting a privately run forum.
Click to expand...
That may be true but consider this.

All of us "anonymous" users can now be charged with "e-annoying" and be slapped with a fine/prison time all the while the courts and lawyers are busy arguing and defining "annoying"

Mr Bush can have people locked up for "e-annoying" These people would remain locked up while the courts argued the legitimacy of this law.

doesnt sound too far fetched. But as for me personally I am filing this under the, "another stupid law" file.
 
There is no right to privacy in the constitution ..... Now you see why privacy needs to be protected... all hail King George ...

I hope his apologists and supporters are the first to go to jail
 
Yeah but it would be nice to have the original text law available to see if this is something worth yapping about or just some guys paranoia.

Edit: Nevermind, the article provides it.

 
It will be interesting if anybody tries to use this law in the manner some fear. I wonder if the courts would look at a law regarding stalking and deem it applies to a privately held internet msgboard.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top