OT: This is not a joke....

[DouginUtah]

Annoying someone (anonymously) via the Internet is now a federal crime.

out Stinky, they're coming to get you.

[1968.9.44.84]

Call your mother

[arf arf]

Looks like it's a two way street! Perhaps you should learn to curb your dog, then perhaps you wouldn't step in it or keep your mouth shut.... Either works!

[Mark & Juanita]

So what part of "the right to freedom of speech ... shall not be infringed" has Congress apparently failed to understand? Freedom from unreasonable search and siezure? check, that's in there, Appropriate exercise of eminent domain? check, that's in there, "Not having to quarter troops?, check, that's in there? Freedom to not be annoyed? Nope, can't find that one.

AAARGH!

Define "annoy". If somebody tells *me* that Craftsman is the apex of tool developement, that will annoy *me*. If I tell some people that Craftsman power tools are near the bottom of the heap, that will annoy some of those people.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[TBone]

Well, as far as freedom of speech, it would not be directly affected as the law does not effect that, only that you cannot say whatever you want without identifying yourself. I am not sure if it applies to Usenet as the article did only specify the web and email. You can thank some right wing butthead for this one. Oh, and BTW, Craftsman is the apex of tool development :-).

[Mark & Juanita]

Arlen Specter does *not* fit the definition of right-wing that you are trying to portray. He is a more problematic "moderate" or statist. Why he chose to change the wording and slip it into the bill referenced above is really quite beyond reason.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[squarei4dtoolguy]

Hee-Hee-heh-hoo!

Correct, Craftsman as a brand, is the apex of an arrow pointing downward toward the lowest quality tools on the planet. Harbor Freight tools and other flea market tools. Craftsman, just like Stanley, means less on the quality scale every year. Craftsman does have a few interesting tools. So does Stanley. NOT like they used to.

So, because of your opposing point of view and the rage caused in me by your annoying post,,PLONK!! and I'm reporting you to the feds tomorrow.

O.K. I like this. I never tried sky diving. Pretty funny,,UNPLONK!! I'll rescind my complaint to the feds immediately after filing it.

Seeya' later TBone!

Tom in KY, The only feds I know drive white vans and deliver packages.

[Pop]

Actually, in a way, it is a joke - because it's a seriously misinterpreted and incorrect statement of the "situation" by an uneducated and rather ignorant source, and no such thing was passed. Try going back and asking the OP for the bill numbes and such; or even research it on google. Don't believe everything you read.

: wrote: : : >Annoying someone (anonymously) via the Internet is now a federal crime. : >

: >

>

: >Look out Stinky, they're coming to get you. : >

: : So what part of "the right to freedom of speech ... shall not be : infringed" has Congress apparently failed to understand? Freedom from : unreasonable search and siezure? check, that's in there, Appropriate : exercise of eminent domain? check, that's in there, "Not having to quarter : troops?, check, that's in there? Freedom to not be annoyed? Nope, can't : find that one. : : AAARGH! : : Define "annoy". If somebody tells *me* that Craftsman is the apex of : tool developement, that will annoy *me*. If I tell some people that : Craftsman power tools are near the bottom of the heap, that will annoy some : of those people. : : :

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ : : If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough : : +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[DouginUtah]

Especially from ignorant people on Usenet....

"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."

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.

-----------

[Pop]

LOL! Absolutely, "Especially from ignorant people on Usenet...." but I'd have left out the "ignorant" part.

I ass-u-me you're familiar with the CFRs et al, apparently, or at least peripherally so. Your post is an excellent example of why one cannot take most ANY paragraph and expect to have it read by others for exactly what it means. Back in a previous life I was a compliance eng and as such at that time was managing a compliance lab so I managed to get pretty familiar with interpreting them, AND then working with Bill Von Alven to see what some of them REALLY meant! That's not a name-drop: If the name's meaningful to you without looking it up, then we're bretherin of a sort.

Pop

[DouginUtah]

--------- Pop,

Just to ensure that I'm not misunderstood....

When I use the word ignorant I do not equate it with the commonly held belief that it means something akin to stupid. It does not. If you call me ignorant you have not insulted me. You have just said there is something I don't know.

At least that's how I see it.

I have no knowledge of CFRs (Code of Rederal Regulations?). But with a handle of "Pop" I suspect we may still be "bretherin" of a sort.

-Doug

[Pop]

Yup, that's exactly what ignorant means, but on a group it's an invitation to others to feel they have to prove how smart they are, regardless. Without a solid context it's usually taken as a rebuff, unfortunately. Sort of, I know what it means, but what did the person who just called me or someone else that name think it meant? I don't really care what anyone not close to me thinks about me, but it makes my point I think, which is the same as yours.

Hmm, interesting: If you have no knowledge of CFRs (and I apologize for not spelling out what it stood for), where did you come across the quoted material? Just curious. Some of it was very close to what's in Title 47 of the CFRs as I recall it, so ... ? It's pretty raw text for cit'.gov or mygov and those kinds of places. I thought it made an excellent point, at any rate, though a little covert in nature.

Cheers,

Pop

: > Pop : :

[Dave Balderstone]

If you mean the Libranos, I heartily agree.

I think Harper's doing very well, and except for not cutting spending and taxes enough I largely like the Conservatives' platform.

[fredfighter]

Bullshit!

Today I really would not be afraid to stand on any street corner in America and say "The Ku Klux Klan sucks." Within my lifetime, however, men who wanted to say the same, and live to say it again, had to to do so anonymously.

The alternative to anonymous free speech was NO free speech and the same may still be true for a number of perfectly legal expressions of opinion.

[fredfighter]

Whatever he is, one might at first be inclined to attribute this to the same sort of incompetence that made it illegal for diabetics to inject themselves with insulin down in Georgia.

But as Heinlein observed, there are degrees of stupidity or incompetence so extreme as to be indistinguishable from malice.

[George]

Yes indeed, the problem with representative democracy is we don't elect our best and brightest. or even appoint them to the bench.

Of course, it was some legal-trained weenie that decided that self-injection should extend to the therapeutic rather than the merely recreational. Self-declared oligarch.