OT: Is Cyber Annoying Now Against The Law??



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.
 
"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")
 
"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.
 
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).
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ******* 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 ******** to
keep people from speaking their opinions.

Dally
 
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 ******* 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 ******** 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.
 
"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.
 
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/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back