Freedom of speech on the internet officially removed

S

SnakeEye

New member
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. This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of the internet 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.

its now a federal crime to send an anonymous letter via snail mail, forums ,usenet, chatrooms and im? this is just absurd.

users of these these forums for instance, as true identity is not required , will now be in violation of federal law if a flame war erupts!!
So be prepared to be cuffed stuffed, put on trial and encarcerated for two years with the lifetime revoction of your right to bear arms if you call someone something they find annoying on the forums :O

i shed a tear for the death of a once free America..

i should march right down to the police station and turn myself in :barf:

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-ann...3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news
 
My name is Michael, I live in Gurnee Illinois.
that should be good enough. now I'm free to annoy the snot out of y'all! :D


In all seriousness, this is utterly ridiculous. If this isn't free speech infringement I don't know what is.
 
Well, this may have foiled an imminent Al Qaeda attempt to "annoy" us into oblivion. Regardless, it's OK....no one intends to prosecute acts under this law; except, of course, the Really Bad People; the Enemies.

As many in the formerly Pro-Bill-of-Rights camp seem all too eager to point out, "If you have nothing to hide......". The world has changed forever and the Feds need new tools to keep up with the threats. After all, even the First Amendment doesn't allow you to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Rich
 
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3402:
version 6, section 113, adds 47 U.S.C. 223 (h)(1)(C), but...
(h)(1)(B) does not include an interactive computer service.
Click to expand...
47 U.S.C. 230
(f)(2)
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
Click to expand...
Looks to me like the new law is targetting one-to-one (private) internet communications, like IM and email. The use of "server" makes it unclear whether it applies to usenet. It doesn't look like it applies to public posts on forums like TFL.

Not that that makes it acceptable.
 
Thats annoying Rivers!!!
I am going to promptly turn you in to the proper authorities! It's my duties as a Patriot and American to do as such!
 
Looks to me like the new law is targetting one-to-one (private) internet communications, like IM and email. The use of "server" makes it unclear whether it applies to usenet. It doesn't look like it applies to public posts on forums like TFL.

Not that that makes it acceptable.
Click to expand...

Actually with that wording it makes it seem like this is unapplicable to just about anything. IMs and emails all have to go through a central server or more. Just connecting to the Internet requires you to go through multiple servers on your ISP as well as the national domain name servers to get where you want to go. Most IM services require central servers to at the very least keep track of the user database and even the most popular, AIM, requires connection through the central server until both parties initiate a direct connection...which is still going through the myriad of servers required for internet access.

Looks like the only way this could ever be applied is if the two computers in question are in direct connection with each other. Even then, if one has file sharing enabled it technically becomes a "server". :confused:
 
Redworm, they use servers but they aren't accessible to multiple users. I'm reading it as saying that the communication in question has to be accessible to multiple users, not just that the server itself has to be accessible to multiple users. What kind of server would they be thinking of that isn't accessible to multiple users? It would be redundant any other way, I think.

These things are so complicated. Nobody can really be blamed for getting it slightly wrong. I might be wrong. Declan McCullagh is usually really good at clearly outlining tech stuff like this, but I think he may have tripped up a little bit here.
 
What if it is on fire?

Quote from Rich: "After all, even the First Amendment doesn't allow you to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater."

Rich:
You say the document rules out yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. What if there is actually a fire? Would I be arrested for pointing it out?
 
Rich:
You say the document rules out yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. What if there is actually a fire? Would I be arrested for pointing it out?
Click to expand...

What do you think?

You wouldnt be arrested if you scream fire in a crowded place that is on fire, unless of course you are the reason for the fire.

But about the internet and freedom of speech...

The entire internet for the most part is corporately owned.
So even though you pay monthly for DSL use, you do not own your DSL service, they have rules that you MUST follow.

Rich sets the rules here, don't like them? move along, other internet forums available to you.

Just like Rich's ISP sets the rules for him, which he has to follow, or else, there goes TFL.

Freedom of speech? freedom to move on!
 
Any prosecution also has to prove intent to annoy.

I've never attempted to conceal my identity online, since I started on a dialup BBS at 300 baud in 1983 or thereabouts. It's not worth the effort, I figure, since it's so easy for anyone with a modicum of skill to pierce the flimsy cloak.
 
Any prosecution also has to prove intent to annoy.
Click to expand...
Of course, prosecutors get paid to play the game, win or loose.
A defendant has to prove (to his attorney) ability to pay.

Sounds like a level playing field to me. Most US citizens maintain legal slush funds in event of government funded over-reaching. I do. Don't you?
Rich
 
law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of the internet is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with telling people who you are? I already refuse to answer phone calls where the caller has his # blocked from my display. Most of my email I delete. The scammers have really hit the telephones and internet hard because there is no face to identify the scammer with. I have so many spy filters on my computer now that it even blocks some of the email I want.

I wish theyd start increasing prison terms for spammers, scammers, hacks and telemarketers. Bad bunch that lot is.
 
As if murder, rape, robbery, fraud, and any other real crime wasn't enough of a drain on our law enforcement agencies. You really think they are going to go through the trouble of tracking your ip address just cause you annoy joe blow?! C'mon, I don't know what this law actually says in lamen's terms, but it sounds like it just might be directed at spammers and advertisers. Which if that is the case great cause I can't stand that stuff. If not, I don't think the FBI is going to be knocking on my door cause I think some of you here are brilliant, and some of you here are morons (no offense).:barf: :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top