Annoying someone on the web Anonymously -is now illegal - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Astrocloud · 01-09-2006, 01:18 PM

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...2491&subj=news

Quote:

Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

By Declan McCullagh

Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST

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."

Quote:

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.

I really hope that you don't find this posting annoying.

Charlatan · 01-09-2006, 01:20 PM

That's it! I had enough of your annoying posts Astrocloud... I really hope that isn't your real name, 'cause I wanna see you feel the pain.

Fly · 01-09-2006, 01:21 PM

shit...........i just finished buggin' mal with pm's all morning.

*i knew i shouldn't of taken pics of my barn........now i'm screwed....she can track me down*

maleficent · 01-09-2006, 01:24 PM

Damn... I annoy people all the time...

on any given day - people annoy me all the time...

Though the definition of annoying is kinda like going to be like trying to define pornography - i don't know whata it is but i'll know it when i see it...

Hey WAIT-- does this mean the little twits that annoy me in AIM i can have arrested? OoOOOH COOL!!!

maleficent · 01-09-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyman

shit...........i just finished buggin' mal with pm's all morning.

*i knew i shouldn't of taken pics of my barn........now i'm screwed....she can track me down*

ummm... you aren't exactly anonymous... we've seen your bum - not sure you can be anonymous when displaying your bum..

Glory's Sun · 01-09-2006, 01:36 PM

Congress/Bush/whoever is supposedly in charge should be passing bills against spyware and spammers and the such instead of some teenager who asl?'s you to death.

snowy · 01-09-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

ummm... you aren't exactly anonymous... we've seen your bum - not sure you can be anonymous when displaying your bum..

Give me a lineup of five male behinds and I'll be able to pick out fly's, no problem...

Between your butt and the barn, my friend, you have basically eliminated any chance at anonymity...therefore you are exempt.

Tachion · 01-09-2006, 01:38 PM

Bush annoys the hell out of me.

I'm going to try and get him to send me an email.
I understand he is on this forum.

Anyone know who he is?

Poppinjay · 01-09-2006, 01:40 PM

fly is fine. He's not anonymous. He posted a pic of his bum.

So, in the interest of full disclosure and being able to be annoying on the internet, here is a picture of MY bum:

<img src="http://www.jjjasper.com/ce/images/theroad/bolivia/homeless_man.jpg"</IMG>

maleficent · 01-09-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

Congress/Bush/whoever is supposedly in charge should be passing bills against spyware and spammers and the such instead of some teenager who asl?'s you to death.

Rules are set up so i never see spam -- ASLers are just flat out annoying... while fun to toy with for about 2 1/2 seconds-- having them and their pea sized iq removed from the internet would be a blessing...

Fly · 01-09-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

Give me a lineup of five male behinds and I'll be able to pick out fly's, no problem...

Between your butt and the barn, my friend, you have basically eliminated any chance at anonymity...therefore you are exempt.

damn............

Glory's Sun · 01-09-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

Rules are set up so i never see spam -- ASLers are just flat out annoying... while fun to toy with for about 2 1/2 seconds-- having them and their pea sized iq removed from the internet would be a blessing...

ok.. there are rules so you and I don't see spam.. but what about people too dumb to set up email rules?? What about the people behind all the spyware that causes massive data theft? Actually.. on second thought, let the spyware people go free.. it'll keep my tech's in business which brings me even more cash.

Fly · 01-09-2006, 01:49 PM

it'd be nice if those fuckin' telemarketers would get nailed too.

but then again.........it is kinda fun to turn it around on them and try to sell them something.

"yes mr.fly,we were wondering if you like to be interested in......."
"no thanks but....i do have this great pair of rollerskates from the 80"s i was lookin' to get rid of"
"i have 3 spare tires too......and a pail"

they usually hang up.

*bastards*

maleficent · 01-09-2006, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

it'll keep my tech's in business which brings me even more cash.

Win Win situation... I get rid of the idiots who have no business being on the web to begin with -- and you get money in your pocket -- What's not to love

Glory's Sun · 01-09-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

Win Win situation... I get rid of the idiots who have no business being on the web to begin with -- and you get money in your pocket -- What's not to love

ok works for me

except for the fact that now we'll see tons of frivolous (sp?) lawsuits over "annoying".

maleficent · 01-09-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

except for the fact that now we'll see tons of frivolous (sp?) lawsuits over "annoying".

My dad is a lawyer - and can be quite annoying-- he can specialize in this -- so add in one more win...

there's really no downside to this...

(Waits for Gucci's head to explode and call me an idiot in the process cause he doesn't realize that I'm giggling as I type this)

Willravel · 01-09-2006, 02:03 PM

My name is Will, and despite my annoyance at 14 year olds posting and saying what they want online, this is really ridiculous.

Glory's Sun · 01-09-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

My dad is a lawyer - and can be quite annoying-- he can specialize in this -- so add in one more win...

there's really no downside to this...

(Waits for Gucci's head to explode and call me an idiot in the process cause he doesn't realize that I'm giggling as I type this)

you're starting to annoy me!!

Elphaba · 01-09-2006, 04:03 PM

Does this mean I can't post in Politics anymore?

ShaniFaye · 01-09-2006, 05:50 PM

ok ok ok im not shanifaye Im Shannon Fey

oops, now I cant be annoying anymore can I?

please forgive any past transgressions

Grasshopper Green · 01-09-2006, 06:26 PM

My secret method of revenge has been foiled!! Damnation!

On a more serious note...this definitely would have been better aimed towards spyware makers and such.

analog · 01-09-2006, 09:52 PM

This new law reminds me of someone's sig here, which is from the book "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand...

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."

cyrnel · 01-09-2006, 09:58 PM

So is anyone going to be annoyed if I say I'm disgusted? If they are then I won't say it.

Is that a loophole?

shakran · 01-09-2006, 10:01 PM

So. . . let's see. If a moderator edits my post. . . .And that annoys me. . . I can have the moderator jailed?

*evil grin*

Stiltzkin · 01-10-2006, 02:14 AM

Quote:

"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."

Apparently women got off scott free. It's just us guys who have to stop being annoying.

Martian · 01-10-2006, 02:39 AM

And the award for the most pointless law goes to....

Seriously, this is stupid beyond belief. The nature of the internet is that it's anonymous. If I so choose to annoy someone without disclosing my identity, I am in violation of this law (forgetting for the sake of argument that I am Canadian and therefore the law isn't applicable). However, if I choose not to reveal my identity than it can't be enforced. It's nearly impossible to track someone down, unless one gets the ISP's to co-operate and even that's assuming that they keep their logs longer than the minimum time required, which many don't (I think it's a month, but I'm not current on these things so that could be wrong). By the time you file, track down the ISP and get a writ, the logs may well be purged.

So, let's say I annoy someone, then later choose to reveal my identity. In that case the law is void. It states very clearly that it's only applicable to those who harass anonymously, with no time limits stipulating when such a revelation needs to occur in order to circumvent prosecution.

The whole thing is utterly worthless. Anyone who's kept track of the RIAA's ongoing efforts to prosecute file sharers knows this; they've managed a handful of settlements out of literally thousands of individuals named in their suits. It's just not all that feasible to track someone down unless they make themselves known.

hulk · 01-10-2006, 03:13 AM

Precedents have been set, I think. Mentioned in that article;

Quote:

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.

I wouldn't be too fussed about this, even if anything came to light. Can't a court somewhere overturn it, or is the Prez signing something akin to absolute rule?

shakran · 01-10-2006, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulk

Precedents have been set, I think. Mentioned in that article;

I wouldn't be too fussed about this, even if anything came to light. Can't a court somewhere overturn it, or is the Prez signing something akin to absolute rule?

The president / congress cannot make an absolute rule. The courts always have the authority to overturn the law on constitutional grounds

CSflim · 01-10-2006, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

The courts always have the authority to overturn the law on constitutional grounds

Do they have the authority to overturn a law on the grounds that it is fucking moronic?

Jinn · 01-10-2006, 07:18 AM

FUCK YOU ALL!!!

Signed,
Jinn Kai

Seriously.. it'll take one high profile case on this law for the Supreme Court to notice and declare it unconstitutional. I'd just hate to be the poor sap who has to pay the lawyer's fees until that DOES happen.

Rodney · 01-10-2006, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

FUCK YOU ALL!!!

Signed,
Jinn Kai

Seriously.. it'll take one high profile case on this law for the Supreme Court to notice and declare it unconstitutional. I'd just hate to be the poor sap who has to pay the lawyer's fees until that DOES happen.

He'll have help. There'll be so many "friends of the court" along with him (ACLU and other interested parties) they'll have to charter a bus to get them all there every day. This is one arena where _true_ conservatives and liberals join hands to fight the statists.

Gatorade Frost · 01-10-2006, 12:12 PM

I read that this law is intended to reinforce phone laws that make calls like that illegal; it basically goes along with VoIP.

shakran · 01-10-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSflim

Do they have the authority to overturn a law on the grounds that it is fucking moronic?

Unfortunately no. If they did, most speed limits would be repealed

asaris · 01-11-2006, 08:20 AM

This law is identical to a 1934 law that makes annonying people anonymously over the phone illegal; based on Supreme Court precedent, this doesn't apply to speech protected by the first amendment. So sure, Congress was lazy in passing this law without explicitly making it comply with the first amendment, but since it implicitly complies, it's not going to be overturned.

Information from The Volokh Conspiracy, http://volokh.com

SecretMethod70 · 01-12-2006, 04:11 AM

Asaris is right, but that doesn't change that this law is stupid IMO. It's much more difficult to avoid someone harassing you by phone than it is to avoid someone harassing you over the internet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Medusa99

My secret method of revenge has been foiled!! Damnation!

Indeed, I have, but I don't think it's a good idea to start admitting to people that I'm a robot controlled by you just yet....there's still hope!

MSD · 01-16-2006, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

This new law reminds me of someone's sig here, which is from the book "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand...

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."

Hellooooooo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

So. . . let's see. If a moderator edits my post. . . .And that annoys me. . . I can have the moderator jailed?

*evil grin*

Not me, I'm exempt under the photo-of-ass clause.

pattycakes · 01-18-2006, 04:33 AM

asl?.... lol

pan6467 · 01-22-2006, 11:32 PM

I wonder what the law is concerning someone cutting parts of a post from one message board and shipping it to another with the original posters e-mail address is?

Grasshopper Green · 01-24-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Indeed, I have, but I don't think it's a good idea to start admitting to people that I'm a robot controlled by you just yet....there's still hope!

Way to let the cat out of the bag!!

I bet onodrim was surprised!

Gilda · 01-27-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

ok.. there are rules so you and I don't see spam.. but what about people too dumb to set up email rules??

[Gilda raises her hand]

I'm too dumb to set up e-mail rules so I don't see spam. I didn't even understand Mal's post, because I didn't know there was such a thing as e-mail rules. Since we got our new internet connection, my new address has managed to accumulate 14 messages from someone I actually want contact with, and 251 spam. It's pathetic, because the come in threes--three identical mortgage spam or overseas prescription drug spam arriving at the same time. Sometimes six of each. Each one with a string of random words in the message title. It's dismaying to check in and find 30 new messages, all spam.

Can we include the death penalty for spammers? I already get more telemarketing calls than from people I know, and more direct mail advertising than real mail. You know what's pathetic? A day after getting our new phone service, we get a flyer in the mail detailing our new personalized voice mail, and I sign on to set up the answer and the mail boxes . . . and there are alread six telemarketing messages. [sigh]

Gilda

01-09-2006, 01:20 PM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	That's it! I had enough of your annoying posts Astrocloud... I really hope that isn't your real name, 'cause I wanna see you feel the pain. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-09-2006, 01:21 PM	#3 (permalink)
Fly see the links to my music? Location: Beautiful British Columbia	shit...........i just finished buggin' mal with pm's all morning. i knew i shouldn't of taken pics of my barn........now i'm screwed....she can track me down __________________ BASTARD SterlingStudios

01-09-2006, 01:24 PM	#4 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	Damn... I annoy people all the time... on any given day - people annoy me all the time... Though the definition of annoying is kinda like going to be like trying to define pornography - i don't know whata it is but i'll know it when i see it... Hey WAIT-- does this mean the little twits that annoy me in AIM i can have arrested? OoOOOH COOL!!! __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

01-09-2006, 01:40 PM	#9 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	fly is fine. He's not anonymous. He posted a pic of his bum. So, in the interest of full disclosure and being able to be annoying on the internet, here is a picture of MY bum: <img src="http://www.jjjasper.com/ce/images/theroad/bolivia/homeless_man.jpg"</IMG> __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

01-09-2006, 01:49 PM	#13 (permalink)
Fly see the links to my music? Location: Beautiful British Columbia	it'd be nice if those fuckin' telemarketers would get nailed too. but then again.........it is kinda fun to turn it around on them and try to sell them something. "yes mr.fly,we were wondering if you like to be interested in......." "no thanks but....i do have this great pair of rollerskates from the 80"s i was lookin' to get rid of" "i have 3 spare tires too......and a pail" they usually hang up. bastards __________________ BASTARD SterlingStudios

01-09-2006, 01:36 PM	#6 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	Congress/Bush/whoever is supposedly in charge should be passing bills against spyware and spammers and the such instead of some teenager who asl?'s you to death.

01-09-2006, 01:38 PM	#8 (permalink)
Tachion Crazy	Bush annoys the hell out of me. I'm going to try and get him to send me an email. I understand he is on this forum. Anyone know who he is?

01-09-2006, 02:03 PM	#17 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	My name is Will, and despite my annoyance at 14 year olds posting and saying what they want online, this is really ridiculous.

01-09-2006, 04:03 PM	#19 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Does this mean I can't post in Politics anymore?

01-09-2006, 05:50 PM	#20 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	ok ok ok im not shanifaye Im Shannon Fey oops, now I cant be annoying anymore can I? please forgive any past transgressions __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

01-09-2006, 06:26 PM	#21 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	My secret method of revenge has been foiled!! Damnation! On a more serious note...this definitely would have been better aimed towards spyware makers and such. __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa

01-09-2006, 09:52 PM	#22 (permalink)
analog Banned	This new law reminds me of someone's sig here, which is from the book "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand... "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."

01-09-2006, 09:58 PM	#23 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	So is anyone going to be annoyed if I say I'm disgusted? If they are then I won't say it. Is that a loophole? __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

01-09-2006, 10:01 PM	#24 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	So. . . let's see. If a moderator edits my post. . . .And that annoys me. . . I can have the moderator jailed? evil grin

01-10-2006, 02:39 AM	#26 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	And the award for the most pointless law goes to.... Seriously, this is stupid beyond belief. The nature of the internet is that it's anonymous. If I so choose to annoy someone without disclosing my identity, I am in violation of this law (forgetting for the sake of argument that I am Canadian and therefore the law isn't applicable). However, if I choose not to reveal my identity than it can't be enforced. It's nearly impossible to track someone down, unless one gets the ISP's to co-operate and even that's assuming that they keep their logs longer than the minimum time required, which many don't (I think it's a month, but I'm not current on these things so that could be wrong). By the time you file, track down the ISP and get a writ, the logs may well be purged. So, let's say I annoy someone, then later choose to reveal my identity. In that case the law is void. It states very clearly that it's only applicable to those who harass anonymously, with no time limits stipulating when such a revelation needs to occur in order to circumvent prosecution. The whole thing is utterly worthless. Anyone who's kept track of the RIAA's ongoing efforts to prosecute file sharers knows this; they've managed a handful of settlements out of literally thousands of individuals named in their suits. It's just not all that feasible to track someone down unless they make themselves known. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

01-10-2006, 07:18 AM	#30 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	FUCK YOU ALL!!! Signed, Jinn Kai Seriously.. it'll take one high profile case on this law for the Supreme Court to notice and declare it unconstitutional. I'd just hate to be the poor sap who has to pay the lawyer's fees until that DOES happen. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

01-10-2006, 12:12 PM	#32 (permalink)
Gatorade Frost Rookie	I read that this law is intended to reinforce phone laws that make calls like that illegal; it basically goes along with VoIP. __________________ I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well." Emo Philips

01-11-2006, 08:20 AM	#34 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	This law is identical to a 1934 law that makes annonying people anonymously over the phone illegal; based on Supreme Court precedent, this doesn't apply to speech protected by the first amendment. So sure, Congress was lazy in passing this law without explicitly making it comply with the first amendment, but since it implicitly complies, it's not going to be overturned. Information from The Volokh Conspiracy, http://volokh.com __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

01-22-2006, 11:32 PM	#38 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I wonder what the law is concerning someone cutting parts of a post from one message board and shipping it to another with the original posters e-mail address is? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"