User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:19:30 AM EDT
[#1]
+1  Oh, and IBTBPP (In Before The Banana Phone Post) 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:24:23 AM EDT
[#2]
anyone still beleive there is a "conservative" politician in office?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:28:01 AM EDT
[#3]
I don't know, but I saw a couple of "rinos" there a couple of weeks ago!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:28:19 AM EDT
[#4]
Most of them handed in their balls after the budget battle with Bill Clinton in 1995. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:29:06 AM EDT
[#5]
I believe that the point of the legislation was to eliminate forms of harassment that are now possible by the advent of the internet age.
As to how this law will be applied, one must examine the full legisltation and the definitions set out in the legislation to determine what "annoy" and the other terms mean, as those are usually spelled out within the law. Now when it comes to application of the language to real cases, that may be a completely different matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:33:02 AM EDT
[#6]
Which is why the Founders used names like "Centinal", "Brutus" and "Federal Farmer". Go back to school... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:33:44 AM EDT
[#7]
This is pretty much what I was talking about. The press is pretty bad at accurately reporting anything, much less the details of legislation. From reading the above the changes seem aimed at classifying the use of internet and computer resources for the sake of harassment and stalking as criminal just as using other methods. It looks to me like an attempt to patch a loophole in the law that stalkers and harassers use to their advantage. A similar situation existed with video cameras for a long time. For the longest time it was not illegal to videotape someone in their home without their knowledge according to the criminal code. Widely available video cameras weren't anticipated by the law and legislation had to be passed to adress the loophole. If a person used the mail to ship a dead animal head to an ex spouse or lover in an attempt to harass them and make them afraid, they would be guilty of a federal crime and could be locked up. The ammended legislation appears to create a similar situation if the person e-mails photographs and the like with the same intent. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:34:17 AM EDT
[#8]
[zzzzzzzlol] Yeah, but the beekeeper is still gonna' be in trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:34:39 AM EDT
[#9]
[/George Washington
If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.quote] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:37:50 AM EDT
[#10]
"3rdtk" is gonna be in a hell of a lot of trouble.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:38:10 AM EDT
[#11]
And who is going to enforce it? I think most federal agencies are tied up with the war on terrorism to dedicate serious manpower on Internet annoyance violations. And I know local agencies will not tie up units trying to enforce this BS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:39:58 AM EDT
[#12]
Way back in the sixties I remember grandpa saying we needed a few more necktie parties for the politicians. Being only 8 or 9 I didn't get. So mom told me what he meant.
You know, if grandpa was still around I do believe he would be gathering the rope by now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:41:54 AM EDT
[#13]
how would this affect toad at special widgets?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:04:11 AM EDT
[#14]
There will be plenty of federal employees to enforce it. Look at all the things various branches do that is worthless instead of their job, IE ICE not deporting or arresting illegal aliens and others. They will probably attach a special branch to the ATF or FBI just for "internet" crimes like this. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:07:42 AM EDT
[#15]
Read the legislation. There are already agencies tasked with investigating and prosecuting people who: `(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or `(2) with the intent-- `(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or `(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to-- `(i) that person; `(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 of that person; or `(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.'. (b) Enhanced Penalties for Stalking- Section 2261(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: It isn't what the original story made it out to be. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:09:49 AM EDT
[#16]
Can someone point me to the exact part of the law that says "annoy?"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:18:32 AM EDT
[#17]
Define "substantial emotional distress" and you have your answer... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:22:04 AM EDT
[#19]
At least half of you folks annoy me. Go turn yourselfs in to the po-po.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:22:42 AM EDT
[#20]
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:24:17 AM EDT
[#21]
Nah...I married an Italian boy...all set here  |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:29:02 AM EDT
[#22]
Go back to school? What are you talking about? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:29:06 AM EDT
[#23]
These are the times, when I hate to say, but the ACLU will deal with these, and see eye-to-eye with them too. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:49:41 AM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:52:46 AM EDT
[#25]
Several of the Founders wrote under assumed names to annonymize themselves. Saying that this is a Constitutional law is absurd. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:55:28 AM EDT
[#26]
Oh, I see. And yet here it is. (I'm not saying I like it) |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:58:52 AM EDT
[#27]
Since I'm annoyed by that law and it is now posted on the net without the names of the authors of the law does that mean those congress critters are going to jail?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:01:15 AM EDT
[#28]
This is the crime that the new statute is modifying:
That is pretty damned broad. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:08:06 AM EDT
[#29]
That annoys me you felons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:11:03 AM EDT
[#30]
+1. Stop "annoying" me, bastiat! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:12:04 AM EDT
[#31]
I hate to admit it but I'm starting to agree. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:13:09 AM EDT
[#32]
Someone must've warned him it was coming. He's on the payroll of the globalist moneyed elite who've run this country for years. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:15:17 AM EDT
[#33]
Actually the Federal Farmer series was published openly by Richard Henry Lee. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:15:21 AM EDT
[#34]
Guys, we can't get the gub'mint to prosecute felons for federal guns crimes...and thats under a conservative president...you think anyone but EXTREME examples will even be looked at?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:15:53 AM EDT
[#35]
It would have a "chilling effect" of free and open public discourse. Anything that causes that is contrary to the public interest. Ooh, except Campaign Finance Reform and a whole host of other shit.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:16:57 AM EDT
[#36]
That should cut down on the number of IMs I receive.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:18:15 AM EDT
[#37]
And actually, I think this case highlights where people completely misinterpret the Constitution.
The Constitution was not meant to enumerate the rights of the people. It was written to enumerate the powers of the government. It is ASSUMED that every power or right NOT given to the Federal government is reserved by the people. Nowhere does it give the Federal Government the power to regulate speech or communication over the internet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:22:36 AM EDT
[#38]
IF ONLY those guys were the actual Founders. The guys who wrote the Federalist Papers were the real muscle, not the guys you listed. To our detriment, in the long run.  The Antifederalist Papers should be required reading in high school, not "A Tale of Two Cities" or whatever's on the agenda these days. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:25:24 AM EDT
[#39]
Amen to that brother. Lee predicted so much of what is screwed up with the Fed gov today it's scary. Though I think Lee can safely be categorized as a founder. He was the first to call for a declaration of independence. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:29:10 AM EDT
[#40]
I was under the impression there was still debate as to whether it was Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:31:14 AM EDT
[#41]
Sorry Andy, what I meant to say is that the AP authors aren't commonly considered as Founders, at least not in the same vein as the FP authors.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:41:05 AM EDT
[#42]
Grammatik macht frei.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:42:10 AM EDT
[#43]
So it's a felony to troll. HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 12:29:16 PM EDT
[#44]
Actually, the entire Congressional record of the First Congress should be taught in US schools. While the Federalist/Anti-Federalist was a general debate, the minutes of the First Congress outline EVERY Federal power and it's scope. When they said "Shall not be infringed", they meant exactly that. When they said "Supreme law of the Land", they debated that language for an entire day and knew EXACTLY what it meant. That no mere State law could over turn a Constitutionally protected Right. Freedom of speech was brought up and they all agreed that what one person may consider vulgar may not be so to another. That erring on the side of too much freedom was better than restricting a Right. This was later stood on it's head by the courts and legislators looking to pad their own power base and protect their special interests. Anyone thinking this is going to change any time soon, or by working within the system, is deluding themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 12:46:41 PM EDT
[#45]
What he said. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 4:08:19 PM EDT
[#46]
Well, that must be how ARFCOM got to be the number 1 gun site... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 4:16:30 PM EDT
[#47]
If you make everyone a criminal, then getting them to be snitches is easy. Does this law apply to the Arock phenomena  
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 4:18:21 PM EDT
[#48]
tick tock tick tock tick tock.........
almost time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 4:30:40 PM EDT
[#49]
BATFEI
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 4:34:20 PM EDT
[#50]
Treason doth never prosper - what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
