[quote]BIGRAGOO wrote:
What dripping wet pussy of a bitch came up with this nonsense. How fucking insecure and babyfied can one be as to prompt such an action? [/quote]
On the other hand, what kind of pussy would harass someone on the internet? Thats the kind of loser who would date one of my ex’s for sure…and probably meet her on the internet, for sure!
Ultimately it’s not the person they’re after – it’s the INTERNET.
Slowly they’re trying to villify the internet as a place of evil and “misinformation” that needs to be censored and government controlled.
Spooky AOL Ad Says Big Brother Is Watching the Internet
Why is a company that profits from Internet use demonizing the Internet?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/030106aol.htm
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Well, there is your Republican “We of the small government” Party, now dictating what can be said on the internet. Fuck Bush.
Wait, so is it a crime if I say that, being as if he sees it he may be annoyed? Hold on, I hear a knocking at my door…
I didn’t see the Dems protesting it either.
[/quote]
yeah… unfortunately both parties seem to be about nothing but big government controlling almost all aspects of the citizens lives now…
except for maybe a handfull of issues …both the dems and repubs shit looks the same color brown…
[quote]DPH wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Well, there is your Republican “We of the small government” Party, now dictating what can be said on the internet. Fuck Bush.
Wait, so is it a crime if I say that, being as if he sees it he may be annoyed? Hold on, I hear a knocking at my door…
I didn’t see the Dems protesting it either.
yeah… unfortunately both parties seem to be about nothing but big government controlling almost all aspects of the citizens lives now…
except for maybe a handfull of issues …both the dems and repubs shit looks the same color brown…
[/quote]
Sad, isn’t it? Smaller government flew out the fucking window over the last 5 years or so.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
You sound like a girl I dated once.
[/quote]
That’s it. I am annoyed.
[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
BIGRAGOO wrote:
What dripping wet pussy of a bitch came up with this nonsense. How fucking insecure and babyfied can one be as to prompt such an action?
On the other hand, what kind of pussy would harass someone on the internet? Thats the kind of loser who would date one of my ex’s for sure…and probably meet her on the internet, for sure![/quote]
Still, harrassing or not, you have to be a pussy to file a complaint. How about just logging off or ignoring e-mail from that particular person, ya know? Unless it’s physically threatening stuff, why bother with it?
[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
BIGRAGOO wrote:
What dripping wet pussy of a bitch came up with this nonsense. How fucking insecure and babyfied can one be as to prompt such an action?
On the other hand, what kind of pussy would harass someone on the internet? Thats the kind of loser who would date one of my ex’s for sure…and probably meet her on the internet, for sure![/quote]
Dude, I still have private messages from both Oogy and Kim Jong-Il or whatever his name is that qualify as this. The kim guy was private messaging almost every other day or more for about a week there. I can only imagine that some people take it even farther than those two did to the point of true harrassment.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
BIGRAGOO wrote:
What dripping wet pussy of a bitch came up with this nonsense. How fucking insecure and babyfied can one be as to prompt such an action?
On the other hand, what kind of pussy would harass someone on the internet? Thats the kind of loser who would date one of my ex’s for sure…and probably meet her on the internet, for sure!
Dude, I still have private messages from both Oogy and Kim Jong-Il or whatever his name is that qualify as this. The kim guy was private messaging almost every other day or more for about a week there. I can only imagine that some people take it even farther than those two did to the point of true harrassment. [/quote]
Hey Prof. X,
The Kim guy is just jealous of you. This has been quite obvious from the very start of my joining T-Nation. When I saw your picture post, as well as your good advice, it is even more obvious why.
As to the new regulations – I agree with the view that both parties have really failed in limiting government. Limited government is what our Founders envisioned and it is what the Constitution requires. The problem is that nobody has yet told our elected officials of this.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
BIGRAGOO wrote:
What dripping wet pussy of a bitch came up with this nonsense. How fucking insecure and babyfied can one be as to prompt such an action?
On the other hand, what kind of pussy would harass someone on the internet? Thats the kind of loser who would date one of my ex’s for sure…and probably meet her on the internet, for sure!
Dude, I still have private messages from both Oogy and Kim Jong-Il or whatever his name is that qualify as this. The kim guy was private messaging almost every other day or more for about a week there. I can only imagine that some people take it even farther than those two did to the point of true harrassment. [/quote]
I dont know…the internet harassment thing wouldn’t bother me so much. Kim Jong is a tool, everyone knows it, and he has no credibility. Therfore, who gives a shit.
On the other hand, the internet is still a creepy place, with lots of psycho bastards who have too much time on their hands. This is why I don’t blame people who won’t put their names, hometowns, etc. on anything (as I don’t). It would even deter me from posting any progress pics on here; I know who has the valid opinions, so why not just PM them and say, “How am I doing?”. I don’t like having pictures of me on the internet…so its a double edged sword.
Now if I were you, Prof, I would start a thread with all of that tool’s PMs to you, just to show everyone how ridiculous he is (if they couldn’t tell already).
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Without drudging through the statutory text, if it’s as represented, the law would likely be ruled unconstitutionally void because the definition of the crime is too vague.[/quote]
You mean your coworkers won’t be getting people off of charges like ‘conspiracy to commit annoyance’ and ‘accessory to an annoyance’ or how about ‘annoying while intoxicated’?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I dont know…the internet harassment thing wouldn’t bother me so much. [/quote]
I am sure most people think this way because it doesn’t happen to most people. I can honestly say that having someone truly attempt to track down where you live, along with a log of when you post and how many times in a day, because of a discussion forum isn’t just retarded. It is also unsettling. Mind you, it is always the runts who seem to do this as if they are pissed at the hint of anyone doing better than they are. I know of a few people who can literally track down your home address based on your ip address. There was one forum I was a part of where one troll kept talking about how he was going to molest one of the poster’s children. The poster being threatened reported it to the authorities because it became excessive. I think if half of these fools thought for a second that they would have to face the person they were harassing, they would avoid doing it to begin with. You won’t ever get a pic of Kim Jong Il because he is probably one of the least developed people on this board.
While I think this “law” can be used in the wrong way, I have no doubt that the only way to truly deal with this is for people to eventually be forced to provide proof of their ID whenever they are on the internet. If these fools thought they would be held accountable for the nonsense they post, a lot less would actually be trolling to begin with.
A few of Kim Jong-Il’s pm’s to me (mind you, most of his attempts were through using the chat feature):
[quote]Interesting quote = interesting quote by ME.
this is the quote:
Professor X is a cock
IF you would like me to justify that statement then i hope the following sentence will answer all queries: you are a cock.
i do have real REAL reasons to hate you btw. Just so you know, i’d say you were the most hated person on here yet no one has much balls to say it even tho its an anonymous forum thingy ma jig.[/quote]
and this one pm’ed on December 29, 2005 after I didn’t respond to 5 different chat invitations of his:
[quote]you are a faggot
HAppy that you had a PM you sad faggot?
Well either way i’m here to waste your day… that even fucking rhymes… i just want to subconsciously negate your ego by saying you are a faggot.
This could all have been taken in by reading the title but just in case it didn’t: you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.you are a faggot.
[/quote]
Mind you, he was just irritating, but if punks like this are all over the net, obviously there are some who take it much further.
I can’t go into details, but there was one person on T-Nation who was getting some rather unwarranted threats through pm’s as well as posts that did not make it due to the mods. This person was actually a little afraid.
I would assume this is the true intent of the law. It is illegal to call someone up in the middle of the night and threaten his or her life. I believe this law was an attempt to extend that into the realm of the internet.
Now I cannot truly know how the law was written, or if they just got confused and wrote it wrong. What we are talking about here would never pass the constitutionality of freedom of speech.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
you are a faggot x 100
[/quote]
Do Mods look at PM’s? I don’t see how this could get through if they were.
Maybe he wanted to turn you gay so you would give him a good bumming?
I’ve got $50 that says KJI is Oogie.
I’m divided on this law.
One part of me applauds the fact that stupid little fuckers wont be able to
troll with impunity, harrassing at the drop of a hat and giggling into their jelly sandwiches.
The other half is appalled that Big Brother is making a move on the last public place on earth where there truly exists freedom of speech.
On second thought I am happy to tolerate the little trolls as long as our rights of free speech is left alone.
This reminds me of another terrorist scare tactic by the government.
“We will make your lives safe…just like sheep in their pens.”
No thank you.
While it is disappointing that people must run and hide behind the skirts of big brother to handle the e-differences, or that the government feels like it has a responsibility to protect the pussies of theis world from other pussies - I would just like to know what kind of nutless wonder would actually use this law to gain protection from the evil flamers out there.
On a related note: Please accept my resignation from T-Nation. If it is no longer legal for me to do what I do, I must find other activities to occupy my meaningless life.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
While it is disappointing that people must run and hide behind the skirts of big brother to handle the e-differences, or that the government feels like it has a responsibility to protect the pussies of theis world from other pussies - I would just like to know what kind of nutless wonder would actually use this law to gain protection from the evil flamers out there. [/quote]
I doubt this has anything to do with actually just flaming someone and is more related to “e-stalking”.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Ren wrote:
Nope, not a joke, read the article here:
k.elkouhen wrote:
I’m pretty sure that this law was misunderstood by news.com.com
You can’t put someone in jail because he’s is “annoying”.
Without drudging through the statutory text, if it’s as represented, the law would likely be ruled unconstitutionally void because the definition of the crime is too vague.[/quote]
It still means at least one person gets prosecuted for nothing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I doubt this has anything to do with actually just flaming someone and is more related to “e-stalking”.[/quote]
Never having experienced either of them to the point of litigation, how is “e-stalking” different than regular stalking? Not belittling any threats or serious situations or anything, just wondering because I think we have the stalking issue covered, legally. But I also think the ‘criminal element’ are a creative lot and ‘past performance is no indication of future results’.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Never having experienced either of them to the point of litigation, how is “e-stalking” different than regular stalking? [/quote]
In court, you would be looking at the effects that words have on the one making the claim. Unless it escalated to physical action, it is why Boston is saying it would be unconstitutional to prosecute. I personally think that it can actually be taken to the point of harrassment given the skills of some hackers, but again, you would have to prove that more was done besides just “talk”.
Or maybe not…
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_01_08-2006_01_14.shtml#1136873535
[Orin Kerr, January 10, 2006 at 1:12am]
A Skeptical Look at “Create an E-annoyance, Go to Jail”:
Declan McCullagh has penned a column that is custom-designed to race around the blogosphere ( http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news ). It begins:
[i] 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.
In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, 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.
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."[/i]
This is just the perfect blogosphere story, isn’t it? It combines threats to bloggers with government incompetence and Big Brother, all wrapped up and tied togther with a little bow. Unsurprisingly, a lot of bloggers are taking the bait ( http://technorati.com/search/declan ).
Skeptical readers will be shocked, shocked to know that the truth is quite different. First, a little background. The new law amends 47 U.S.C. 223 ( 47 U.S. Code § 223 - Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute ), the telecommunications harassment statute that goes back to the Communications Act of 1934. For a long time, Section 223 has had a provision prohibiting anonymous harassing speech using a telephone. 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C) states that
[whoever] 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 [punished].
Seems pretty broad, doesn’t it? Well, there’s a hook. It turns out that the statute can only be used when prohibiting the speech would not violate the First Amendment. If speech is protected by the First Amendment, the statute is unconstitutional as applied and the indictment must be dismissed. An example of this is United States v. Popa, 187 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In Popa, the defendant called the U.S. Attorney for D.C on the telephone several times, and each time would hurl insults at the U.S. Attorney without identifying himself. He was charged under 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C), and raised a First Amendment defense. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Ginsburg reversed the conviction: punishing the speech violated the Supreme Court’s First Amendment test in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), he reasoned, such that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to those facts.
Under cases like Popa, 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C) is broad on its face but narrow in practice. That is, the text looks really broad, but prosecutors know that they can’t bring a prosecution unless doing so would comply with the Supreme Court’s First Amendment cases.
That brings us to the new law. The new law simply expands the old law so that it applies to the Internet as well as the telephone network. It does this by taking the old definition of “telecommunications device” from 47 U.S.C. 223(h), which used to be telephone-specific, and expanding it in this context to include “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.”
Now I suppose you can criticize Congress for being lazy. They haven’t rewritten the old 1934 statute in light of the modern First Amendment, and that has resulted in a criminal statute that looks much broader than it actually is. The new law expands the preexisting law by amending the definition of “telecommunications device,” which maintains the same gap between the law on the books and the law in practice. The formulation is a bit awkward. But the key point for our purposes is that the law is not the “ridiculous” provision Declan imagines. It looks funny if you don’t know the relevant caselaw, but in practice it simply takes the telephone harassment statute we’ve had for decades and applies it to the Internet.
UPDATE: Cal Lanier takes a look ( http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/archives/001318.html ), and concludes that this is just about making sure the telephone harassment law applies to VOIP.