I'm annoyed

[roguebanshee]

Link to article

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.

It doesn't even limit itself to the intended recipient. It'll be interesting to see what happens to that law in the future.

[jahcs]

Open ended verbage, especially in our sue-happy society, is not welcome :angry:

[--Pete]

Hi,

It doesn't even limit itself to the intended recipient. It'll be interesting to see what happens to that law in the future.
[right][snapback]99235[/snapback][/right]

Finally, we grammar nazis have teeth. Leet speak is now a federal crime since it annoys us ;)

The question is, "Will the USA foot the bill to extradite all those annoying foreigners who use 'our' Internet?" Or possibly, a better question is, "How did we ever end up with such a bunch of idiots in government?"

The population of the Senate and House has increased greatly since colonial times. The total intelligence, apparently, has stayed the same.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Link to article

It doesn't even limit itself to the intended recipient. It'll be interesting to see what happens to that law in the future.
[right][snapback]99235[/snapback][/right]

Hopefully, annoying speech is protected by the 1st amendment, and even when it is anonymous. It will probably not be too long before a case is made and the law is struck down as unconstitutional.

MARGARET McINTYRE, PETITIONER v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION

I bet the founding fathers early anonymous writings were very annoying to the colonial rulers such as with Silence Dogood.

[Roland]

Link to article

It doesn't even limit itself to the intended recipient. It'll be interesting to see what happens to that law in the future.
[right][snapback]99235[/snapback][/right]

You were saying?

[GenericKen]

You were saying?
[right][snapback]99276[/snapback][/right]

I'd hate to be contrarian (that's a lie, I love being contrarian <no it's not [yes it is {oh shut up you (you shut up! <<hay guys, I got here late, what'd I miss?>>)}]>), but that guy sounds like he may have a moderately legitimate harassment case there. It's being filed all wrong, of course, and he'll lose, but still.

[Archon_Wing]

You were saying?
[right][snapback]99276[/snapback][/right]

Wow, more people to be added to the list of "people who should be eliminated from society. "

-Halbert Ma (Yea, so just put my name here, and I'm fine right? :P)

Battle.net will never be the same.

Random guy: Y0u sux0r n00b!!!111
Another Guy: I'm suing you! LolZ pwned!

That leaves anoter note. Not everyone who uses the internet lives in the United States. ;p

[jahcs]

Battle.net will never be the same.

Random guy: Y0u sux0r n00b!!!111
Another Guy: I'm suing you! LolZ pwned!
[right][snapback]99282[/snapback][/right]

:D :D :D

I'll sue 'em both for the 13375p3ak.

Then someone can sue me for overuse of smilies.

[Archon_Wing]

Link to article

It doesn't even limit itself to the intended recipient. It'll be interesting to see what happens to that law in the future.
[right][snapback]99235[/snapback][/right]

This response to the article seems intresting. I wonder if it will hold.

Nevertheless, I'll just be safe and include my real name everytime I call someone an idiot. ;p

Here is a possble reassurance

[kandrathe]

Wow, more people to be added to the list of "people who should be eliminated from society. "

-Halbert Ma (Yea, so just put my name here, and I'm fine right? :P)

Battle.net will never be the same.

Random guy: Y0u sux0r n00b!!!111
Another Guy: I'm suing you! LolZ pwned!

That leaves anoter note. Not everyone who uses the internet lives in the United States. ;p
[right][snapback]99282[/snapback][/right]

Hmmm, "Romance - Older Men" chat room brawl over a bad blind date. I think they should ask the offenders to move the squabble to "Petty - Adolescent Brats".

[Jarulf]

Link to article

It doesn't even limit itself to the intended recipient. It'll be interesting to see what happens to that law in the future.
[right][snapback]99235[/snapback][/right]

So, how easy is it to show an *intent* in these cases? It is a criminal case after all so can be hard in many cases, no?

I agree though, it is a horribly stupid proposal.

[roguebanshee]

I agree though, it is a horribly stupid proposal.
[right][snapback]99310[/snapback][/right]

It's not a proposal, it was signed by Bush before the article in the OP was posted.

[kandrathe]

...it was signed by Bush...
[right][snapback]99312[/snapback][/right]

Why are the real culprits ignored, and all kneejerk blame falls on the President signing a huge important DOJ appropriations bill.

H.R. 3402, the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005," which reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act for FYs 2007-2011, makes amendments to criminal and immigration law, consolidates major law enforcement grant programs and authorizes appropriations for the Department of Justice for FYs 2006-2009.

Imagine the political fallout if this bill was vetoed. The president gets a Yes/No decision, so the work to make this bill right should have been done in Congress.

The amendment S.AMDT.2681 was crafted by Arlen Spectre, and co-sponsored by Sen Joseph R. Biden, Jr. [DE], Sen Patrick J. Leahy [VT] and Sen Edward Kennedy [MA], and by all looks of it was crafted by Senatorial staff of those senators on some committee. S.AMDT.2681 was the Senate's comprehensive set of changes to hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages of law and in one place (section 113) of page S13876 they wrote things a bit too vague.

But, that must be Bush's fault for signing it.

As if, he read the entire H.R.3402 and when he saw Title I, Section 113, he stopped, jumped up and shouted "Eureka! Now I can get all those SOB's sending me annoying hate mail."

The law being amended is 47 U.S.C. 223 (a )(1 )(C ) ;

(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;

The wording change in the amendment is;

SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (a ) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (1 ) in subparagraph (A ), by striking `and' at the end;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (2 ) in subparagraph (B ), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (3 ) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ` 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)).'.

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (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.

I think it must be clunky to try to update the Telecommunications Act of 1934 to fit the concerns of 2006. I'm sure the thought was to extend to other forms of communication devices the same protections afforded to telephone users. Mostly this is an awkward attempt to cover VOIP within other telecommunication law.

So, it's been against the law to make anonymous harrassing/annoying phone calls for quite some time, but now that protection is extended to internet communication. My question is why wasn't the original law restricting speech over the phone challenged on 1st amendment grounds? Those same arguments should apply now then.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Imagine the political fallout if this bill was vetoed.  The president gets a Yes/No decision, so the work to make this bill right should have been done in Congress.
[right][snapback]99324[/snapback][/right]

And therein lies the problem, a lack of line item veto power. But then again, a line item veto gives the executive branch *too* much power. If there were a good solution to this problem, then the founding fathers apparently did not know of it, and two centuries later, neither do I.

Since Shrub has admitted to being aliterate, we can all rest assured that he did not read the bill. Just like we can be fairly certain that the sponsors of the bill and of the changes to the bill probably read very little besides their own contributions (if those). However, the staff principle applies. The elected leaders (more correctly, figureheads) of the assigned and appointed underlings are responsible for what their underlings do. Thus, Shrub *is* responsible for his actions on the basis of the recommendations of his staff. He is, in effect, their representative to his boss, the American public. Unless, of course, you feel (as I sometimes do) that representative government has become as much a fiction as state's rights has been since the second half of the nineteenth century.

To be fair, Shrub is simply following long established presidential custom of signing a bill without questioning extraneous riders to that bill. That custom subverts representative government in that it gives special interest legislation, especially pork, a way of slipping through the process without ever being directly voted on. Had every president from Washington down simply returned to Congress any and all bills with extraneous riders, that extra-legal process would probably be extinct instead of being the *primary* process by which crap gets done.

So, yeah, it is Shrub's fault. And Clinton's. And Bush's. And Regan's. . . . And, most probably, Washington's.

And ours, if indeed 'we the people' are sovereign, for failing to exercise *our* sovereignty and kicking unscrupulous bastards that fail to do our bidding. "We have met the enemy, and they is us." -- Kelly.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

...if indeed 'we the people' are sovereign, for failing to exercise *our* sovereignty and kicking unscrupulous bastards that fail to do our bidding. ...

Agreed. In a way we do have some say, but usually after the fact. From these legislative "mistakes" people suffer, injustice occurs, and a furor ensues resulting in more work for Congress next session. But, it would be nice if Congress could get it right more often than they get it wrong.

For example, clarifying what wire tapping, or torture is, and when and how it may be used and by whom.

[Walkiry]

Why are the real culprits ignored, and all kneejerk blame falls on the President signing a huge important DOJ appropriations bill.
[right][snapback]99324[/snapback][/right]

Well, looking at the full quote you were replying to:

It's not a proposal, it was signed by Bush before the article in the OP was posted.

It reads to me more like "it's done, it's passed through every step up to and including Bush signing it, it's official now," not "it's Bush's fault for signing it." *shrug*

[kandrathe]

Well, looking at the full quote you were replying to:
It reads to me more like "it's done, it's passed through every step up to and including Bush signing it, it's official now," not "it's Bush's fault for signing it." *shrug*
[right][snapback]99329[/snapback][/right]

If it had been written that the "House and Senate passed the law, and the President signed it", then I would have no issues. The way it was written indicated to me a bias of the author.

[--Pete]

Hi,

IF it had been written that the "House and Senate passed the law, and the President signed it", then I would have no issues.&nbsp; The way it was written indicated to me a bias of the author.
[right][snapback]99331[/snapback][/right]

Granted.

--Pete

[Walkiry]

IF it had been written that the "House and Senate passed the law, and the President signed it", then I would have no issues.&nbsp; The way it was written indicated to me a bias of the author.
[right][snapback]99331[/snapback][/right]

Perhaps, guess we have different point of view (until rogue clarifies at least). I don't particularly feel that the first part is necessary if you're being brief, since laws become so the second the president signs it.

On a sidenote, and tacking a bit on these ammends:

Imagine the political fallout if this bill was vetoed.

Do you think it'd fall only on the prez for vetoing it? After all, if he is the one who raises a big enough stink over the ammends that are being tacked to the original bill, wouldn't it be possible for the fallout to drop over the House and/or Senate?

Or is it too late for any president to do so?

[kandrathe]

Perhaps, guess we have different point of view (until rogue clarifies at least). I don't particularly feel that the first part is necessary if you're being brief, since laws become so the second the president signs it.

On a sidenote, and tacking a bit on these ammends:
Do you think it'd fall only on the prez for vetoing it? After all, if he is the one who raises a big enough stink over the ammends that are being tacked to the original bill, wouldn't it be possible for the fallout to drop over the House and/or Senate?
[right][snapback]99334[/snapback][/right]

To me, a veto indicates a failure of the party in power to get their ducks in a row. Certainly now since the ruling party has a majority in the House and the Senate, the legislation put before the President should have all the nits removed by his friends in Congress. Imagine the headlines though, "President vetos reauthorization of Violence Against Women Prevention Act".

No. I would rather two things. Smarter people write the language to be clear, and that bills are made smaller. That way even our literacy challenged public servants can read and comprehend them.

Or is it too late for any president to do so?

Once it is crafted and passed by Congress, and signed by the President it is the law until the same process amends or revokes the law, or the law or parts of it are struck down by the Judiciary.