I'm annoyed

[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.

      (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.

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.