OT: Is Cyber Annoying Now Against The Law??

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Lee Michaels, Jan 12, 2006.



  1. JRH

    JRH Guest

  2. TBR

    TBR Guest

  3. TBR

    TBR Guest

    On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:57:48 +0000, JRH <[email protected]> wrote:

    >You're way behind the times you silly old bugger!
    >
    >See:
    >Message-ID: <[email protected]>
    >
    >Do try and keep up Lee! ;o)


    I think it's that one dead eye he's got that causes that.
     
  4. Hugh Beyer

    Hugh Beyer Guest

    "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491
    > .html


    Just want to point out it's thanks to the Republicans that we have this
    mommy-knows-best infringement of civil liberties foisted on us. Could you
    guys at least offer us a conservative in the next election?

    Hugh



    --
    Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
    chocolate. ("Ladi")
     
  5. JMW

    JMW Guest

    "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html


    Let's clear up what we're *really* talking about here ...

    McCullagh complains about the word "annoy" in 47 USC 223(a)(1)(C).
    The truth is that the word "annoy," in the context of that
    subparagraph, and with regard to "telecommunications device," has
    existed since 1996, which, if I recall correctly, was during the
    Clinton administration. NOTHING in that subparagraph changes under
    the new act. In relevant part, it reads:

    "Whoever in interstate or foreign communications ... 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 ... shall be fined
    under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
    47 USC 223(a)(1)(C).

    http://tinyurl.com/8ropv

    That has been the law for about a decade and will continue to be so
    under the new law.

    The only real difference is the definition of the term
    "telecommunications device" for that specific subparagraph. Under the
    existing 47 USC 223(h)(1), the definition of "telecommunications
    device" specifically excludes an "interactive computer service" for
    all purposes under that section. The new provision expands the
    definition of "telecommunications device" specifically for the purpose
    of the subparagraph quoted above. The existing law states:

    "For purposes of this section [t]he use of the term
    'telecommunications device' in this section shall not impose new
    obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators
    covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this
    chapter; and does not include an interactive computer service."

    http://tinyurl.com/8ropv

    The new law, under Section 113 (Preventing Cyberstalking) amends that
    provision to state:

    "For purposes of this section [t]he use of the term
    'telecommunications device' in this section shall not impose new
    obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators
    covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this
    chapter; does not include an interactive computer service; and 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[.]"

    http://tinyurl.com/bx64u

    So basically, the new law adds the Internet to the existing definition
    of telecommunications devices for the purpose of that subsection.
    Nothing more. The prohibited acts in question were already illegal to
    commit on the telephone, the fax machine, or any other
    telecommunications device.
     
  6. John Hanson

    John Hanson Guest

    On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:12:50 -0500, JMW <[email protected]> wrote in
    misc.fitness.weights:

    >"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

    >
    >Let's clear up what we're *really* talking about here ...
    >
    >McCullagh complains about the word "annoy" in 47 USC 223(a)(1)(C).
    >The truth is that the word "annoy," in the context of that
    >subparagraph, and with regard to "telecommunications device," has
    >existed since 1996, which, if I recall correctly, was during the
    >Clinton administration. NOTHING in that subparagraph changes under
    >the new act. In relevant part, it reads:
    >
    >"Whoever in interstate or foreign communications ... 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 ... shall be fined
    >under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
    >47 USC 223(a)(1)(C).
    >
    >http://tinyurl.com/8ropv
    >
    >That has been the law for about a decade and will continue to be so
    >under the new law.
    >
    >The only real difference is the definition of the term
    >"telecommunications device" for that specific subparagraph. Under the
    >existing 47 USC 223(h)(1), the definition of "telecommunications
    >device" specifically excludes an "interactive computer service" for
    >all purposes under that section. The new provision expands the
    >definition of "telecommunications device" specifically for the purpose
    >of the subparagraph quoted above. The existing law states:
    >
    >"For purposes of this section [t]he use of the term
    >'telecommunications device' in this section shall not impose new
    >obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators
    >covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this
    >chapter; and does not include an interactive computer service."
    >
    >http://tinyurl.com/8ropv
    >
    >The new law, under Section 113 (Preventing Cyberstalking) amends that
    >provision to state:
    >
    >"For purposes of this section [t]he use of the term
    >'telecommunications device' in this section shall not impose new
    >obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators
    >covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this
    >chapter; does not include an interactive computer service; and 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[.]"
    >
    >http://tinyurl.com/bx64u
    >
    >So basically, the new law adds the Internet to the existing definition
    >of telecommunications devices for the purpose of that subsection.
    >Nothing more. The prohibited acts in question were already illegal to
    >commit on the telephone, the fax machine, or any other
    >telecommunications device.


    And no matter what your connection to the Internet, be it satellite,
    cable or Wifi, it's backbone is POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service).
     
  7. JRH

    JRH Guest

    On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:12:50 -0500, JMW <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

    >
    >Let's clear up what we're *really* talking about here ...


    [...] Snipped excessive amount of useless verbiage...

    >
    >So basically, the new law adds the Internet to the existing definition
    >of telecommunications devices for the purpose of that subsection.
    >Nothing more. The prohibited acts in question were already illegal to
    >commit on the telephone, the fax machine, or any other
    >telecommunications device.


    That really was the point of drawing it to the attention of those that
    use the Internet - which is *all* of us dopey!

    I sometimes despair of you John Williams and the poor professional
    level of your legal skills. I can see why at age 51 you are still only
    a lowly assistant county prosecutor in Outer Spaceville, Ohio.;o)
     
  8. TBR

    TBR Guest

    On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:12:50 -0500, JMW <[email protected]> wrote:

    >So basically, the new law adds the Internet to the existing definition
    >of telecommunications devices for the purpose of that subsection.
    >Nothing more. The prohibited acts in question were already illegal to
    >commit on the telephone, the fax machine, or any other
    >telecommunications device.


    You're still blowing hot air, because we all know nobody will ever be
    prosecuted under this statute.
     
  9. TBR

    TBR Guest

    On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:55:57 +0000, JRH <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I sometimes despair of you John Williams and the poor professional
    >level of your legal skills. I can see why at age 51 you are still only
    >a lowly assistant county prosecutor in Outer Spaceville, Ohio.;o)


    I said it before, and I'll say it again. He's a "wannabe lawyer" who
    someday hopes to be a REAL lawyer.
     
  10. Dally

    Dally Guest

    Hugh Beyer wrote:
    > "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    >
    >>http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491
    >>.html

    >
    >
    > Just want to point out it's thanks to the Republicans that we have this
    > mommy-knows-best infringement of civil liberties foisted on us. Could you
    > guys at least offer us a conservative in the next election?


    I think it's really interesting that it stops at ANONYMOUS annoyances.
    If you know exactly who the bastard is then it's not illegal.

    It feels like they're trying to outlaw blogs that slam a product or a
    candidate without rising to the legal definition of slander.

    And they couch it as if they're trying to protect women. Jeessh, women
    KNOW who their stalkers are. This is just pure invasive bullshit to
    keep people from speaking their opinions.

    Dally
     
  11. JRH

    JRH Guest

    On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:30:47 -0500, Dally <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Hugh Beyer wrote:
    >> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in
    >> news:[email protected]:
    >>
    >>
    >>>http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491
    >>>.html

    >>
    >>
    >> Just want to point out it's thanks to the Republicans that we have this
    >> mommy-knows-best infringement of civil liberties foisted on us. Could you
    >> guys at least offer us a conservative in the next election?

    >
    >I think it's really interesting that it stops at ANONYMOUS annoyances.
    >If you know exactly who the bastard is then it's not illegal.


    It is clear that if we know each other then we need to be somewhat
    circumspect, knowing that we are liable for what we say.

    >
    >It feels like they're trying to outlaw blogs that slam a product or a
    >candidate without rising to the legal definition of slander.
    >
    >And they couch it as if they're trying to protect women. Jeessh, women
    >KNOW who their stalkers are. This is just pure invasive bullshit to
    >keep people from speaking their opinions.


    I don't think so, it just makes sure that if you are rude to people,
    and they are rude and tiresome by way of response, that you don't have
    much of a leg to stand on legally.
     
  12. TBR

    TBR Guest

    On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:30:47 -0500, Dally <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Jeessh, women
    >KNOW who their stalkers are.


    Interesting. So how do YOU tell?
     
  13. ATP*

    ATP* Guest

    "John Hanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > And no matter what your connection to the Internet, be it satellite,
    > cable or Wifi, it's backbone is POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service).


    Really? Please edumacate us on the network infrastructure of the internet.
     
  14. Curt James

    Curt James Guest

    ATP* <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"John Hanson" <[email protected]> wrote
    >>
    >> And no matter what your connection to the Internet, be it satellite,
    >> cable or Wifi, it's backbone is POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service).

    >
    >Really? Please edumacate us on the network infrastructure of the internet.


    Now how in hell is he gonna do THAT when he can't even figure out it's
    versus its? Be reasonable, ATP*. Your expectations are obviously far
    too high.

    Oh, yeah, and was it Hanny or another patron who criticized me for
    using "Hip-Hop" or "trendy" words when I wrote *Howzzat?* in an
    earlier post to MFW?

    | Powell startled into alertness, "Howzzat?"

    That's from Isaac Asimov's _I, Robot_.

    From 1950.

    Pretty trendy there.

    Anywhoooo.

    --
    Curt
    http://curtjames.com/
     
Loading...
Loading...