Congress passes law to ban anonymous speech in the Internet

The destruction of freedom and liberty continues under the guidance of the Bush administration. Several bloggers, including Atrios, are covering a news article in C/Net that explain this new assault on our rights.

In order to ban free anonymous speech in the Internet, the Bush administration will classify certain "annoying posts or emails" by anonymous users as "illegal." If discovered, the original anonymous user could be fined or receive jail sentences.

Yes, the Bush administration is very, very afraid of FREE SPEECH, and they are passing this law "for your own protection." This is just the beginning:


Thank your Republican representatives for this monstrosity, and your Democratic representatives for following like sheep and voting with the Repugs. Just like they did in the nasty credit card bill.



(Edited to correct title)

in the past six months.

Will all those bogus spams that I receive EACH AND EVERY DAY now be illegal? Or will they just be using this to round up political dissidents? :shurg:

I think we all know the answer to that. :-(

This is not about protecting people from spam, but about banning "anonymous speech" that can be deemed "annoying" to someone. You can see thousands of freepholes filing bogus lawsuits against bloggers, anonymous forum users, and the entire left side of the internet. This is what they want.

I am, but I rarely annoy people here. Besides, I've given money to DU using my credit card, which links my real name to my pseudonym, so I'm covered, I guess. Anyone who can get a lawful court order can find out who "trogdor" is. Furthermore, getting anyone's identity based on IP addresses is easy enough, so is anyone really anonymous here?

I suggest Skinner start making a list of "tombstoned" people and filing as many FBI complaints as possible. Inundating the FBI with such complaints is the only way we will be getting our point across.

If you are not identified in the message you send then you are probably at risk of breaking the law. I doubt that your name is 'trogdor' just as my name is not 'endarkenment'. If I find your message annoying, then it seems that I can go to the police and have you packed off to gitmo.

Great law. I hope they let us play volleyball when they aren't beating us with rubber hoses.

That does it...an imposter too using an alias. When I find our who you really are, I will send all of my kittens to annoy youin retaliation for annoying me. And they have claws.
:sarcasm:

there are some folks here who have made honest mistakes, violated some rule of DU inadvertently, and got tombstoned. It's happened to a few friends of mine, who are no more troublemakers or harrassers or right-wingers than, say, Michael Moore! Michael, by the way, as I full well know...is no right-winger.

You'd be victimizing again, plenty of good people who'd made a bad mistake, for which they are sorry. Many of these people have come back, under different names, and behave perfectly fine now.

Why penalize people AGAIN...when they already got penalized for an honest mistake, misunderstanding, or accidental overstep of the rules?

Unless you are talking about only making a list of people who've been tombstoned MULTIPLE TIMES...then, I might agree with this idea...because now you are more likely to be getting actual people with intent to harass.

Even so...lists of people who WERE tombstoned..???
Filing complaints about these people with the FBI??

Well, unless the constitution has been COMPLETELY trashed, I think there is still something in there about ex-post-facto laws...and thus, people who were tombstoned before this law came to pass...would not be in violation of the law, and thus, such a complaint would be summarily dismissed by a court of law.

You can't, in this country, pass a law, and then charge someone for violating it ex-post-facto. If it was not illegal at the time it was done, it cannot be considered a crime at a later date.

Example: I was 19 years old, in Texas, when the drinking age was raised to 21...and they did not grandfather people.

In other words, my right to drink was taken away from me, after I'd earned it. And I couldn't legally drink again till I was 21. But all those legal drinks I had between 18 and 19...you could not come back later and then charge me with "minor in possession" because, at the time I had possessed that alcohol, and drank those drinks...IT WAS LEGAL for me to do so.

But if I had possessed, or drank, between the time of the passage of the new age law, and my 21st birthday, you could nail me for THAT. But not for the past.

You are actually suggesting we clog the system with a bunch of cases that would be dismissed as ex-post-facto. Nice try.

the last weeks of his life no?

The Internet is Broken
<snip>
Patchwork Problem
The Internet's original protocols, forged in the late 1960s, were designed to do one thing very well: facilitate communication between a few hundred academic and government users.....The system assumed that all users on the network could be trusted and that the computers linked by the Internet were mostly fixed objects.

Article includes proposals - new architecture for internet
http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_16055,258,p1.html#
.

claim they are the party that is not in our business? Soon we will have to report when we are going to take a shit!Everyday they are messing with something that effects our personal lives,by the time the sleepers awaken it will be to late!


They are using anything they can find to pretend that they are fighting terrorism,I don't think this is going to keep on going on for too much longer...

PLEASE, someone, tell me this isn't a joke or an urban legend. A link to Snopes would be very, very much appreciated.

PLEASE!


(Oh, and President Shrub: I'm anonymous and I think you are a pompous jerk. Did that annoy you, or do I need to go on?)

Seriously. You have Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Some Cave In Wisconsin) to thank for this.

In my previous post, I suggested that the site administrators collect the names of tombstoned individuals as defendants in FBI complaints. I now suggest we give special priority to trolls who reside in Sensenbrenner's district.

That is called ex-post-facto use of law, and is illegal. Read the Bill of Rights sometime...while we still have it.

ay?

or Narcotics Anonymous etc?

Yet another example of stinking thinking from this fetid dry drunk.

they will just keep going.

Seriously, where are the Democrats? Anyone has seen them recently? (with the honorable exception of Dean, who still rules)

From what I have heard he has been doing it all along.

Shortens the research required by those sifting through our email, they want to easily identify the perp by looking at the sig line.

GOP getting SCARED of the amount of REAL opposition to their deeds in the Internet. Anonymous speech has been protected by the Constitution since the times of the American Revolution.
Not that this bunch care much about that old paper...

:eyes:

scares the current White House to death.

It's those pesky bloggers and forum users that continue to speak truth to power.

Can't have that, of course.

I just don't see how that's what this law does. Speech intended to annoy rather than harass? I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds very iffy. Constitutionally iffy at that.

I am breaking the law? Anyone could claim I am annoying them, and not only would they have my name, every nutjob in cyborspace would.

If I don't disclose my name I could be sent to a secret jail for voicing my absolute disgust at the abomination of an administration that is currently occupying OUR White House?

lovely.

the new Amerika

:wow:

The law is slightly ambiguous.

without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person

Intent is often hard to prove. So unless you are blatantly offensive, or repeatedly harassing someone it'll be difficult to enforce this law.

I'm sorry but 'intent to annoy' is as simple as posting right here "all freepers are fucking assholes". There that was 'intent to annoy' or perhaps abuse and/or harass every poster on free republic. This is not a slightly ambiguous law, this is a pile of shit 40 miles high ambiguous law.

90% of usenet traffic and probably 50% here on DU (and I think I am being generous) could be construed as 'intending to annoy'. Heck I think your post was intended to annoy those of us who think this law is YET ANOTHER OUTRAGE.

.. an attempt to define a circle of ideas: a pattern of abusive threats will be covered by the law; a post that someone simply finds annoying won't.

It will after the spin-tyrant loads up the high court. This is really spooky... When will Rod Serling offer his oratory in this bazaar show of the Twilight of Freedom Zone?

Alito believes women do now own their uteri, immigrants should have NO rights at all, and the president should be an emperor above the law. If Alito gets in, America becomes Falwell's paradise for the next 30 years.

If Smirk likes the law, you can bet it will turn out to be "Constitutional"

Those clowns on the so called supreme court will march right in lockstep--
oh no, did I just call them clowns?

I guess that makes me subject to a two year vaca in gitmo...I may have *annoyed* a lurking freeper somewhere.

My name is Mike Camann. I have no fear of posting my opinions over my personal signature.

on edit-- now that I think about it, my DU moniker is still my real name.

;)

:hi:

Anonymously yours,

Behnurst

:hi:

And I thought I was being so clever.

:hide:

to either "John Jones" or "Mary Jones". (And I don't care if some of you men want to choose "Mary" or some of you women want to choose "John".)

Hurry up. It's neither hard nor costly to change your name.

I want to see 250,000,000 people named either John or Mary Jones.

Then we can all sign our real name to all internet communications. That way, this new law will not apply to what we say--no matter how "annoying" it is.

(As an added bonus, congress will now be able to personalize all laws they pass. They can specify that the laws they pass apply to John Jones and Mary Jones--while exempting themselves from the laws, as is their usual habit.)

George W. Bush needn't change his name, of course, since all laws are optional for him.

On the justice department from this one bill could make it completely ineffective.

There are hundereds of millions of people posting annonymously on the internet. American and not. So if two annyoying twits get in a fight on the internet are they gonna call in the DOJ?

This is laughable. It's intended from the government to crack down on speech. Period.

rules. FIGHT ALITO!

here - "your post was stupid".

My claim is that any such statement in an anonymous post can readily be shown to have an 'intent to annoy'.

Since when did being intentionally annoying become illegal? Shit my wife, kids, and pets all need to go to jail.

in my gut that it is intentional! HELP! POLICE! SARCASM!

The Bush Cabal could form an internet Sarcasm Squad. They could use the NSA's echelon system to detect all abusive and annoying sarcasm, ferret out the felonious anonymous posters, and send them off to gitmo for a proper rendering. The DHS SS could also work on Abusive Misspellers and Grammar Idiots!


We need the SS. We will be much safer.

posters like me. Actually, I was being sarcastic. I would rather go after all ..............(fill in the blanks).

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

CYVTCY RPVA, GHAP, OTH MAAPTKY!!

Go ahead, try to break the code....

law needs to demand a trial. A trial: with a jury, discovery, pretrial motion hearings, subpoenas, and the whole nine yards. IOW, NO PLEA BARGAINS. Make the Government TRY every prosecution brought under this pathetically unconstitutional law. Every single one.

Lawyers know they can't take all their cases to trial, or they'd be in court 24/7, every day of the year.

And lawyers don't WANT to try all their cases. Especially government lawyers, who are on a salary and hence don't get paid more if they have more cases.

Now THAT will be your bottleneck. Let's do it!

Vote it for the main page. Tell everyone you know about this outrage. This needs to be spread far and wide.

Basically, if two of us get into an argument right here in the forums, that could be considered by some Bushie to be sufficient grounds to investigate party A and/or B. What about goading User X into being "annoying"? How many users would they be interested in doing that to, I wonder? This is very, very bad news.

Please recommend!

Congress did. 415 - 4 in the House and unanimously in the Senate. And to clarify exactly what it did ... it took an existing provision that applies to anonymous harrassing, annoying etc. telephone calls and expanded it to any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communicatiosn transmitted on the Internet.

Frankly, if all they had done was expand the law to cover phone calls made via VOiP, it wouldn't be a big deal. But it seems to reach beyond that.

Nonetheless, this was about as bi-partisan a provision as you find and we look rather silly trying to characterize this as a "bush-passed" piece of legislation.

onenote

No surprise at all.

Could someone be a dear and point out the differences between the Democrats and Republicans again? I seem to have lost my program; I can't tell the players without a program.

This was slipped into a justice department appropriations bill. It is the only way W and friends can get their agenda advanced. Sneak it into a spending bill. They tried the same thing with ANWAR, they tied it to a military appropriations bill. Any democrat that voted against it could then be besmirched for not supporting the troops. We actually needed to increase the funding for the DOJ just so they could keep up with all of the unethical abuses of our system under this Repuke admin.
:puke:

The cyberstalking provision was part of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act as originally introduced in June 2005. In the House, the bill (with the cyberstalking provision) more than half of the 108 co-sponsors were Democrats (including Conyers and Frank). In the Senate, there were nearly 60 co-sponsors, 40 of them Democrats.

Put another way -- it was politically infeasible for politicians to oppose this measure when it was introduced, as reflected by the fact that it had more than half of Senate as co-sponsors and almost every Democratic senator.

The bill wasn't "slipped" into the DOJ bill as much as the DOJ bill was used as a vehicle to get this legislation, which was considered important legislation by an overwhelming majority of the Democrats in the House and Senate, enacted at the end of the session. Actually, getting a bill from introduction in June to passage at the end of the year is a fast-track.

I'm not passing any judgment on the merits of the provision, just correcting the record. Arguing that this was some sort of repub plot is easily disproved and will only make us look foolish.


onenote

That it was a repub plot but a disingenous way to advance legislation. This may have merits in protecting people from cyberstalkers but it should be open to debate not tacked on to other legislation.

I believe this is how it played out.
Legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act was introduced in the House and Senate in June/July 2005. Those bills included the cyberstalking provision. In September, the DOJ appropriations bill came before the House and the decision was made to amend the approps bill to include the VAWA provision in order to move it along. That bill, with VAWA, was passed by a vote of 415-4. Meanwhile, around the same time,the Senate took up consideration of the VAWA bill as a separate measure and passed it (in early October) as a stand alone measure by unanimous consent. Of course, the Senate still had to take up the DOJ approps bill, which had come over from the House with the VAWA language included. The Senate didn't get around to dealing with the approps bill until December, as the session was winding down. They passed the approps bill (including the previously approved VAWA language) by unanimous consent. Then the bill went back over to the House because there were some differences between the original House version and the Senate passed version (I don't know what those differences were or if they had anything to do with VAWA). In any event, the House then passed the Senate revised version by unanimous consent.

In other words, as goofy as the process was, the VAWA provision was open to debate. In the Senate it was considered and passed as a separate bill in early October. In the House, it was considered as an amendment to the approps bill in late September. It was duly noted during the approps bill debate that the VAWA language was being added by amendment. Nothing hidden.

onenote

They advocate violence and hatred. They should be the first test cases of this new fascism!

That is now a Federal Crime!
"To the Stocks with them ALL!!!"

:patriot:

Even if Alito gets in. WTF does "annoying" mean? Can I now have every spammer who sends me an e-mail arrested? Does it have to be direct communication, or does posting on a message board count?

Why too broad of a law -- and too easy to abuse with subjective prosecution.

I find this; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060105-3.html

But I can't find the bill that includes the text the author cites.

Sounds like it was written to be used briefly to harass this election cycle but not for actual convictions. Maybe it is intended to tie up ACLU lawyers so that they wont have time for other cases. The ACLU will probably have fun with it, but I hope they dont get too excited by it.

They think they can sneak this shit by us and then just throw us in jail. They really hate free speech.

Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act, HR 3402. The relevant section of the bill is Section 509 "PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING" which amends Section 2261A of title 18, United States Code.

Bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3402
Section 2261A, as it was: http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=82801618257+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Section 2261A, as now amended. Text marked with {+ +} was added to the existing statute; text marked with {- -} was removed.



It would seem that the intent is honorable: extend the federal laws against interstate stalking to include things such as slander on an internet message board and defamatory websites. It is no great stretch to see how the Current Regime will delightedly abuse this law to shut up dissent. After all, someone who bad-mouths * or Rove or Abramoff must be stalking them, right?

Am I missing it?

The changes are in existing anti-stalking law and are necessary to plug a huge loophole regarding current technology. I would say the brouhaha is seriously overblown.

Basically, the changes were made to include the internet as part of the anti-stalking law.

The original reads:

(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;

from a 2005 release:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000223----000-.html

To be clear: ANNOY is NOT new. Explicitly extending standing law to include the internet is.

The cnet writer is being a wee bit of a chicken little about this, IMO.

I guess you will just have to send it to someone over the border by snail mail and they can publish it anonymously. That is until the US annexes Canada.

the identy (verifiable) of the source of every piece of email I get, every website I visit, and anybody who connects to my server.

I just read a book about the life of Benjamin Franklin. He wrote many, many, many articles throughout his lifetime using pseudonyms to get across his political ideas. I bet people knew who it really was by the manner of his writing. Back in those days were the people more tolerant than the current time?

is compromised by malicious people, I won't be able to read it, will I? I'll be staying up until all hours of the night fixing bugs.

Your security is not threatened by anonymous postings. Would you care to explain what you are talking about?

:rofl:

Take heart, though! I'm just as "hostile." I had the nerve to say that email and message boards are two different issues. Bad me. Baaaaaaad me! :spank:

:rofl:

Off to gitmo with you.

Two entirely different issues.

Computers talk to each other approximately the same way (while using different protocols) for many different applications. Eg, client -> server -> router -> server -> client. You are not annonymous if your computer can be traced. Privacy vs security is a large debate on the internet - message board postings are a subset, but the same issue. You were apparently reacting to my preference for security over privacy. I'd be happy to discuss the issue with a reasonable person but am not interested in communicating with hostile people.

My entire message consisted of: "We're talking about board postings like here at DU, not email. Two entirely different issues." And that's "hostile?"

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"We're talking about board postings like here at DU, not email. Two entirely different issues."

Which one(s)? Because you're not conveying whatever it is you're talking about in these accusations of hostility you seem intent on making. Do, please, point out the offending word(s) so that I may discover the problem. Otherwise your intent is simply provocation and that is offensive - which, ironically enough, goes to the original topic. If you're having a simple misunderstanding, that is understandable, however, but you need to convey your point.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Well?

Had problem with the preview screen.

with all his revolutionary ideas, his agnosticism, his pseudonymous writings, and his wacky inventions. Probably a terrist as well!

Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Robert Novak. I was angry at him and wanted to see if I could rattle his cage.
:rant:

In lieu of flowers, please send acerbic letters to Republicans. Published in the Chicago Tribune on 10/10/2005

It was the line in the bold letters that caught my attention. I appreciate the sentiment. Below is the letter that I sent to Robert Novak. Unfortunately I received no reply. If you feel inclined to abuse the blowhards I have included a list of links and phone numbers at the end. Pick a topic and unleash a torrent on the overpaid hacks of the Republican Party.
Mr. Novak,
I read your column from Monday March 21st where you lament the undisciplined defections of the Republican Party on budget issues. You labor the fact that they were not strong enough to gut Medicaid spending. The points that you made are facetious. If we really wanted to control spending we could eliminate wasteful pentagon programs that are not working. The missile shield has failed every major test yet still we fund that instead of providing medical care for the poorest among us. The administration continues to pour money down the rat hole of star wars even though the threat from ICBMs has diminished over the last decade. Any other CEO would have slashed the budget for this boondoggle years ago. Another hypocrisy of this administration is the championing of Life. The late hour intercession of the legislative branch in the fight to pull the feeding tube of Mrs. Schiavo has been billed as supporting life. If this administration truly valued life they would value the quality of life. Not just the quality of life for America's most well off. I applaud the republicans who voted there conscious. They showed that not all of the GOP is out of touch with the values of America's mainstream. Stop your strident whining. Your foe
Terry Reed
PS. I think that you are despicable. I hope that you are incarcerated for your refusal to give up the name in the Valerie Plame case.

P P S. DROP DEAD

Of course I did use my real name. For months on my blog I have been encouraging people to harass their elected officials and the msm. Please start collecting money for my bail.
Thanks all.

Well, at least until the Dems rescind it, we'll be able to see the freeps names coming over here and trying to flame us!

CITIZEN's ARREST on all the posters who are annoying me!!

Off with your head!

There is no way that they have the manpower, resources and time to follow up on every instance of. say, me writing that Karl Rove is a tub of lard and would be better off if he resigned from the human race. greiner3

:)

they won't need to pry it from your hands, it will be totally broken.

This doesn't even pass the laugh test.. Is this an attempt to top me for my Alito headline?

Anyone ever hear these words before:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You can't threaten someone but that's it folks. The gov't can't stop you from being annoying on the internet. We all have the right to be a jack*ss as long as we haven't threatened someone.

Nobody can rob you at gunpoint through the mail or over the phone nor can they do it through the internet.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

I'm an information security consultant, speak at conferences, and used to host a victims' advocacy forum, so I'm willing to sign anything I write.

I've had more harassment when people knew who I was than when I post under a psudeonym...but nothing beyond the pale. And, it is the whole phenomenon of web identity is fascinating to me anyway.

Happy to tell Bush that he's gaining on Hitler in the "law writin' hard werk bidness."

And proud to sign my opinions.

But this looks like a law designed only to be useful if it's used selectively.

And this is a very, very dangerous piece of progress down the slippery fascist slope.

:shrug:

but NOT this vaguely worded. It started, at least on the non-Republican side, as a way to stop 1)our inboxes from filling with ads for medications, herbal viagra, porn and mortgages and 2) stalking via e-mail. I have no problem with either of those! But, "annoy"....WTF? We all annoy someone - no one will be on the internet any more!

They play with you. Oh here, isn't junk mail annoying? We will pass a law and make it all better. Only the law doesn' make it better at all because it has a huge loophole of some sort that allows the spammers to keep right on trying to enlarge both your breasts and your penis and marry you off to some girl in russia who finds you fascinating and fix your unexpected account problem on ebay. The law does somehow make everything you do - little old you at your keyboard - subject to monitoring and scrutiny, or even better it makes you pay for a service (email) that used to be free. Or they blast HORROR stories in the media about INTERNET STALKERS and scare you with some new bogeyman and lo and behold you are signing on to some new law that is making it illegal for you to post anything without clearing it with DHS first.

But we are much safer now and that is what is important. Think of the children!

What if instead they required all e-mails to have a VALID return e-mail address in them, which only the e-mails offering me free viagra or porn don't have, and some sort of database like the No Call list. I'm no computer expert so I don't know exactly how this would work, but there must be some way to stop the 80+ graphic spam messages I get each day - and that's just at work!

(As for internet stalkers, that is a problem. I've never heard anyone say it's a huge problem, but it is just another recourse for a stalker and one that's not covered yet by any laws.)

This bunch in charge is fascist. They are dangerous.

The language is hopelessly broad and cannot stand. Even Scalia might have a problem with it.

Wow.

It's not a law that can be easily enforced, as you well, said. This is only a LEGAL EXCUSE to shut up specific cases of anonymous speech on the basis that it is "annoying" someone. It's not practical, it's difficult to enforce, but being the "law of the land," it can be used to justify shutting dissent. Easily!

What I find most outrageous is that, as usual, this is a last minute addition to a legislation destined originally to help women and defend them from domestic abuse or harassment. The GOP has mastered the art of sneaking controversial clauses in otherwise popular (or populist) legislation.

Cyberstalking language was in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization bill from the moment it was introduced. I'm troubled by the provision not because it clearly impinges on free speech, but rather because it is so unclear that I don't know what the heck it really does and that's a recipe for abuse. But my suspicion is that it wasn't intended to be a big deal, but when Congress dips its toe into technology areas it usually screws up.

onenote

why dont we just turn this country into one big fucking prison and get it over with.
this is absurd. :nuke:

The cyberstalking provision was included in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act from the get-go. The ACLU sent a letter strongly endorsing the bill, not offering a peep of concern about the cyberstalking language.

Now I've read the thing a half dozen times and I can't begin to be certain what it really does. That, of course, is reason to be concerned since an ambiguous statute is subject to abuse. But I have to wonder whether we're all getting hot and bothered over something that isn't really such a big deal.


http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/19921leg20050727.html

onenote

Get RID of States Secrets Privilege! ANOTHER victim by the Supreme Court today!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2031015&mesg_id=2031015

How can they make any law regarding the Internet without infringing upon other world citizens?

LOL !!!

Freepers --->

Freeper pets -->

Did they cite cases where people were annoyed? What was the argument in Congress for this law? Unbelievable. When do the lawsuits begin? That could be interesting. It would get lots of repubs hostile since they are so offensive in their writings.

:sarcasm:

whom the Bush administration decides to use the Justice Department to annoy, abuse, threaten, and otherwise harrass. It will be directed not at most of us but could be aimed at some of us. If we are deemed a threat to Bushco.

IMO, this is talking about email, not a posting on a message board. I'm not sending someone a communication with the intent to annoy them (At least, that's what my lawyer will argue!)

If so, I am gonna be sending a hundred people A DAY to jail!! :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

Is this the Meehan/Shays bill?

Then we should have the right to read all e-mails of those we elect to office and who get paid with taxpayer money. That right should not only be available to corporations and CORRUPT REPUBLICANS.

If there isn't any language that clarifies this as applying to victims of domestic abuse (which does not have to include physical violence) then we're cooked.

I have just one question: if this is adding the internet to existing prohibitions on voice communication, then it's inherently limited. After all, a whole load of folks were annoyed by robo calls by the Republicans.

This is of concern and I look forward to the rain of angry emails congress and the WH get if this is for real. Nice hat trick--ban political speech unless you're willing to f' yourself over by risking an indictment.

Just remember, some recent FCC objections to language or whatever, the breast exposure at the Super Bowl, were filed by just two or three people.

Thanks Arlen, you'll probably support Alito too!

Unless this statute has specific language setting a higher standard of proof, the general legal principle is that an intent requirement is satisfied by purpose or knowledge. Obviously, if your purpose in the communication was to annoy someone, that's intentional. Beyond that, however, if you knew that that person would be annoyed, then intent was present, whether you welcomed the annoyance, regretted it, or were completely indifferent to it.

As to what would happen in a court test, one strong possibility is that the courts would read it narrowly so that it would be constitutional. The legal principle here is that, if a vague statute might be unconstitutional, but there's a reasonable interpretation of it that doesn't raise any constitutionality problem, then that's the interpretation that should be favored.

I don't know how the predecessor provision has been interpreted with regard to phone calls. I'd have to guess that telemarketers weren't covered, no matter how many people found them annoying. The courts would probably want to say that spam email isn't covered, expression of strong opinions about Bush (pro or con) isn't covered even if it annoys some people, misusing "it's" for "its" isn't covered even though it annoys the hell out of me, etc. On the other hand, it might be a violation to send an anonymous email like: "You a*****e, I thought about coming to kill you but maybe I'll just wait for you to die of AIDS."

..."intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person" I wonder?



Just askin'.

interesting...

In posting on a message board I am not sending it to a person, nor do I know the identy of the person who put up the post that I might be responding to.

However, if I PM that person, then the law may govern that.

and I've decided that this is essentially a fascism-enabling clause, and an important step and milestone on the road to fascism. It must be stopped -- and both "left" and "right" must come to see this -- and see SCOTUS as where to do so.

The internet has become an effective tool against the global* ruling class and the domestic powers-that-be, and they're determined to muzzle it.

Now, the currents of free speech presently flowing on the internet (here) are too strong for them to shut these down immediately and all at once. But this act will allow them to start tightening things down, and at appropriate times in the future to set a few examples that will start to send a chill throughout the internet -- a chill that eventually turns these currents of free speech into ice (or drives them into a secretive form like that in China). And while this weapon may be first used against those on the "left", it will inevitably be turned against those on the "right".

Moreover, Scalito is just the sort of judge who will find that this is all fine and dandy -- through some twisted chain of reasoning that's no more than a rationalization that serves the global masters.

And while I'm on a rant, let me say that much of this nonsense talk about "originalism" and "strict constitutionalism" coming from "experts" and "scholars" is just so much crap -- and covert attempts to restrict our freedoms.

Returning to the issue at hand, that the founding fathers omitted the word "anonymous" in referring to free speech in the Bill of Rights did not mean that they did not believe in anonymous free speech. Indeed, anonymous "broadsides" and things of this nature were a commonplace, expected practice in those days -- and it did not occur to them that this practice would ever be threatened such a scale -- or that by not further expanding and qualifying their description of this "freedom of speech" (like to add "anonymous or open"), that they were leaving it open to narrowed interpretation. (Sure there was the Sedition Act, but this was temporary measure, narrow in scope, widely recognized as a monstrosity, a heat-of-the-moment thing, and a political weapon -- and it was allowed to expire. And sure there have been various wartime restrictions, but these were temporary measures, more narrow in scope (than this clause) -- and the wars entailed had foreseeable ends. Besides, many or all of these laws and acts may have all been unconstitutional, at least in part. And that the Sedition Acts were "overturned", and not reinstated, clearly indicates the intent of the founders.)

Indeed, there were those who argued that having a Bill of Rights was a bad idea because no words could fully encompass (through abstraction and generalization) the existing practices -- and the ideals behind these practices. However, more thoughtful and foresightful minds prevailed (or by now we would probably have lost all of our "birthrights"), and certain of the existing rights were spelled out in the Bill of Rights... no matter how poorly -- and no matter how limiting of our rights (against the founders' intentions) that these particular words have turned out in practice to be.

And if those on the right, blinded as they are by whipped-up hatred, cannot see that we are casting aside the jewels that the forefathers fashioned, fought and died for -- in order that that we might have and treasure them, then the "right" (and others) cannot say that they were not warned -- if only by a private, unknown and anonymous citizen (who seeks nothing more), using the only practical vehicle available to him to speak his mind to his fellow citizens.

This clause is an abomination; it is a direct assault on freedom of speech; and since it is signed into law, our only hope is to overturn it in the Supreme Court.

And if Scalito is added to this court, then I think that the odds of this happening are sadly diminished.

...

*: As little as I like the idea of a ruling class, in my opinion, there will always be one. However, I object to the current American instantiation of this class because it has become internationalist, not nationalist -- and because they have also become overly greedy, short-sighted and lacking in understanding, much less foresight -- grabbing with both hands instead of one, and giving no thought to the future or to the consequences of their acts -- or to the wellbeing of our nation, much less other peoples -- or the planet. Internationalism is all fine and dandy, but the ordinary people are divided and weak -- and subject to increasingly powerful and universal manipulation -- and the powerful are (increasingly) unified and strong. So who is likely to win this contest?

Of course, this may not be a popular opinion here, and I'd prefer real egalitarianism and international cooperation of mutual benefit, but the demands that this would place on the (world and national) citizenry are great -- and I see little hope that peoples will rise to this challenge.

And "OUR DEMS" voted for this?! :wtf:

No doubt the founding fathers of this country are rolling over in their graves!!! :grr:

Its a poorly drafted provision(as are most provisions that attempt to regulate technology), but the idea that its an assault on the first amendment has apparently been debunked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2030893#2032675

onenote

Now, if Dumbya reads here, I will be shocked. I have no reasonable expectation that anyone I complain about will be bright enough to read DU.

I would think the law applies to e-mails and blogs that the intended target would have a reasonable expectation of reading, no?

WHAT?

This is absurd.

Utterly unconsitutional. ANYONE who voted in favor of this should be looking for a new job. :mad: