These forums will most likely be shut down.

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
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

 
Sheik Yerbouti

Sheik Yerbouti

Lifer
Feb 16, 2005
14,080
5,453
136
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.
 
Perknose

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,892
10,713
147
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.

 
palehorse

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
heck, if this law applies retroactively, Conjur would have to be locked up for life ...
 
1

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
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. ;)
 
C

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
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)
 
C

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,569
901
126
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.
 
G

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I am sure it has more to do with email spam than it does with visiting a privately run forum.

 
M

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
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.
 
1

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
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.
 
D

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
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.
 
K

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
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".
 
D

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: kogase
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".
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
dahunan

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
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
 
D

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Well gee... I'm just shocked... Shocked I tell you about who wrote this bit of genius....

Sponsor: Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr.
 
OrByte

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
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.
 
dahunan

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
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
 
G

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
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.

 
G

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
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

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom