posted
I am denouncing you to the government erosmniac, i'm tired of your revolutionary "logic and common sense" ideas. May the Empire that is Bush reign a thousand years over us all, may we all have the ability to tell people we don't even know what's right and wrong.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He signed it. He didn't write it, and he probably didn't catch the implications of the inflammatory wording. We don't have to lay EVERYTHING at Bush's door.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: He signed it. He didn't write it, and he probably didn't catch the implications of the inflammatory wording. We don't have to lay EVERYTHING at Bush's door.
posted
You know what really annoys me? When certain people do not spell check their posts, do not use proper grammar, and fail to follow standard rules of capitalization.
I'm thinking 3-5 years in minimum security plus community service ought to suffice.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one of the first problems of this article is the author. Declan McCullagh is savagely anti-Bush, anti -Republican and distorts virtually everything he says and writes. I can say this because I have met him and spoke with him on several occasions. He used to live here in Allentown and his parents fairly recently sold their home. The stories I could tell about him are very funny, especially about his longings to sue local restaurants. His article is completely misleading which is very typical for him. I would suggest actually reading the new law and you will find that there are a lot more conditions to it than just posting a single or even several annoying emails.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, unless I missed something, that is a really misleading article.
I'm pretty sure that this is the bill that the article is discussing.
First off, there is a section labelled Preventing cyberstalking, but it is section 509 rather than 113.
If the article was actually talking about section 509, then it is wrong about what is actually being ammended by this bill. The article says that it is this, but the bill says that it is this.
Edit:
Hmm... now that I look at it some more, I think that the author of the article was reading this bill, which was not actually passed. The one that actually passed had very different wording in it. As far as I can tell, the article got things backwards. The one which criminalized 'annoyance' was not passed, but the one without it did.
Of course, I could be reading things wrong, so it would probably be a good idea to doublecheck me on this.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the word "annoy" is problematic, but it could just refer to things like sending someone an email asking how they are every day long after they've told you to stop. That might not be abusive, but it's certainly something nobody should have to deal with.
I'm thinking (hoping!) that they'll apply this law exactly as they would apply a law about distributing anonymous printed materials. Surely if someone posts an anonymous paper message on a kiosk calling person X a bunch of ethnic slurs and saying he doesn't deserve to live in this town, the poster deserves at least to be warned about the possibility of being charged with harassment.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like you're right ricree. Phew. Don't scare me like that.
Though my god, could they make it ANY harder to dicern what those bills are actually saying? Reading those fracking things is a headache and a half. Its impossible to figure out what the actaul gorram law is.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's it! I'm turning this car right around!
ricree, here is bill HR 2402 with a section 113 on cyberstalking, passed by the house and senate--presumably that's the version signed by Bush. There are 5 other versions that were amended or did not pass both House and Senate.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. Does this law say you had to intend to annoy me. I know the word intent appears in the news article but I since your link doesn't work, I can't tell if its in the actual law or not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Look up HR 3402 at http://thomas.loc.gov/ --6 bills come up. I referred to the last version, passed by the House and Senate, and it has a section 113 on cyberstalking--though it's just legal jargon, replacing "and" with "wherefore", and other miscellania and whatnot.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
