Anonymous abuse now a federal crime - OS2

This is a discussion on Anonymous abuse now a federal crime - OS2 ; On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:58:21 UTC, "David T. Johnson" wrote: http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...2010-1028_3-60 22491.html > Interesting to see the comments on this. People see this as a way to > attack their enemy or as an example of ridiculous lawmaking but ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

  1. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:58:21 UTC, "David T. Johnson"
    wrote:

    http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...2010-1028_3-60
    22491.html

    > Interesting to see the comments on this. People see this as a way to
    > attack their enemy or as an example of ridiculous lawmaking but few seem
    > to realize just how WRONG this is. It is a major assault on the
    > foundation of free speech which is fundamental to democracy everywhere.


    There's no end to the tentacles of this piece of lawmaking. It's going
    to be pretty difficult to enforce as well. How exactly were they
    planning to prove that YOU wrote that annoying bit of text? On the
    other hand, if they do find out that you wrote it, it obviously wasn't
    anonymous enough.

    Obviously a bit of law that the authorities can get creative with if
    they want to. Mind you, I don't know if our recent developmen is much
    better - the one where they can throw you in jail for 28 days without
    charge if some Hofficer says he suspects you may have some ties with
    Al Quaeda.


    Verily are we crushed beneath the heel of the Oppressor.



    --
    ,--------------.
    /\(O_^)/\ .oO( Menno Willemse )
    / / < > \ \ `--------------'

  2. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    "Menno" said:

    >There's no end to the tentacles of this piece of lawmaking.


    Yeah!! What the heck do they want? "Responsible" speech????

    Come on. The original article was meant to keep the press free to watch
    the government, not to protect people hiding in the dark and yelling
    obscenities. Give us a break. Idiots demanding the "right" to harrass
    people anonymously. There is no such right. Geez.

    The whole thing must be unsettling to evolutionary specialists - seeing
    evolution changed to "survival of the most idiotic."

    Jim L via the eCS 1.15 version of OS/2

    --
    All Americans have the right to free speech. A few should even use it.

  3. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    David T. Johnson writes:

    > The original 1934 law
    > prohibited certain obscene or harassing telephone calls placed over a
    > private telephone line. As modified it now expands the prohibitions to
    > include the internet, which is a public forum.


    So? Still doesn't violate the first amendment.

    >> Does the first amendment guarantee anonymity?


    > No, but it does enjoin Congress from passing laws which abridge free
    > speech.


    Which Congress hasn't done.

    > The new law restricts 'abusive' or 'annoying' free speech if it
    > is made by someone who has not disclosed his identity.


    The key word here is "if". It doesn't remove the right to free specch.

    >> Now, what does that have to do with OS/2?


    > Nothing except that most of the people here seem to post anonymously.


    Does that annoy you?


  4. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    Menno wrote:
    > On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:58:21 UTC, "David T. Johnson"
    > wrote:
    >
    > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...2010-1028_3-60
    > 22491.html
    >
    >>Interesting to see the comments on this. People see this as a way to
    >>attack their enemy or as an example of ridiculous lawmaking but few seem
    >>to realize just how WRONG this is. It is a major assault on the
    >>foundation of free speech which is fundamental to democracy everywhere.

    >
    > There's no end to the tentacles of this piece of lawmaking. It's going
    > to be pretty difficult to enforce as well. How exactly were they
    > planning to prove that YOU wrote that annoying bit of text?


    I guess we'll have to pass a few more laws requiring all internet access
    logs to be registered against people and available to the appropriate
    governing body as requested. Won't that be nice?

    Hmm... and while these access logs are made available for criminal
    prosecution of these people who "annoy" anonymously, it looks like we'll
    finally have enough information to start prosecuting mom and pop for all
    of the software and music they've been borrowing over the years.
    Excellent! Win - win situation for Joe Internet-User.

    I'm certain the DCMA advocates had more to do with passing this than
    people who wanted to protect internet users from "annoyance".

    --
    [Reverse the parts of the e-mail address to reply.]

  5. Re: Specch Tholen (was: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime)

    tholen@antispam.ham tholed:

    > It doesn't remove the right to free specch.


    "Specch"? That's the feeling I have whenever I'm forced to behold one
    of your "postings". Kook, thy name is Tholen!

    Toodles!

  6. Re: Malloy digest, volume 2453748

    Joseph Malloy writes:

    > "Specch"?


    What does your question have to do with OS/2, Malloy?

    > That's the feeling I have whenever I'm forced to behold one
    > of your "postings".


    What does your feeling have to do with OS/2, Malloy?

    > Kook, thy name is Tholen!


    Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective,
    as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument,

    > Toodles!


    What does that have to do with OS/2, Malloy?


  7. Re: Malloy digest, volume 2453748


    tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
    > Joseph Malloy writes:
    >
    > > "Specch"?

    >
    > What does your question have to do with OS/2, Malloy?
    >


    How can he know until you answer it, Tholen?

    > > Toodles!

    >
    > What does that have to do with OS/2, Malloy?


    Thoodles!


  8. Re: Malloy digest, volume 2453748

    bs wrote:

    >tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
    >> Joseph Malloy writes:
    >>
    >> > "Specch"?

    >>
    >> What does your question have to do with OS/2, Malloy?
    >>

    >
    >How can he know until you answer it, Tholen?
    >
    >> > Toodles!

    >>
    >> What does that have to do with OS/2, Malloy?

    >
    >Thoodles!


    I see that once again I have been left out of a Classic Tholenator(tm)
    digest.

    --
    Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
    Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
    Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

    "Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
    renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
    -- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

    "Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
    and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
    disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
    family. Your time will come."
    -- Raymond Ronald Karczewskię, usenet "christ"

  9. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
    > David T. Johnson writes:
    >
    >
    >>The very ACT of making this 'law' is a direct violation of the US
    >>constitution's first amendment which states "Congress shall make no law
    >>respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
    >>exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,
    >>or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
    >>Government for a redress of grievances."

    >
    >
    > Where does the law violate the first amendment? I saw nothing that
    > abridges the freedom of speech. Does the first amendment guarantee
    > anonymity? Of course, with freedom comes responsibility. The classic
    > example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The first amendment
    > won't prevent you from getting in trouble with the law.


    I would say the law runs contrary to the 9th Amendment.

  10. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    Bennie Nelson writes:

    >> David T. Johnson wrote:


    >>> The very ACT of making this 'law' is a direct violation of the US
    >>> constitution's first amendment which states "Congress shall make no law
    >>> respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
    >>> exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,
    >>> or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
    >>> Government for a redress of grievances."


    >> Where does the law violate the first amendment? I saw nothing that
    >> abridges the freedom of speech. Does the first amendment guarantee
    >> anonymity? Of course, with freedom comes responsibility. The classic
    >> example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The first amendment
    >> won't prevent you from getting in trouble with the law.


    > I would say the law runs contrary to the 9th Amendment.


    Saying it and explaining it are two different things.


  11. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    Dickless Davie tholen@antispam.ham the irrelvant Ignoranus whined:
    > David T. Johnson writes:
    >
    > > The very ACT of making this 'law' is a direct violation of the US
    > > constitution's first amendment which states "Congress shall make no law
    > > respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
    > > exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,
    > > or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
    > > Government for a redress of grievances."

    >
    > Where does the law violate the first amendment? I saw nothing that
    > abridges the freedom of speech. Does the first amendment guarantee
    > anonymity? Of course, with freedom comes responsibility. The classic
    > example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The first amendment
    > won't prevent you from getting in trouble with the law.


    So you shouldn't poast anonymously, Dickless.

    > Now, what does that have to do with OS/2?


    STFU, Dickless.


  12. Re: Specch Tholen (was: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime)

    Bruce AKA the alleged Joe Malloy wrote:
    > tholen@antispam.ham tholed:
    >
    > > It doesn't remove the right to free specch.

    >
    > "Specch"? That's the feeling I have whenever I'm forced to behold one
    > of your "postings". Kook, thy name is Tholen!
    >
    > Toodles!


    Dickless is now in trouble for poasting anonymously and annoying
    people, Bruce.


  13. Re: Malloy digest, volume 2453748

    Dickless Davie tholen@antispam.ham the irrelevant Ignoranus whined:
    > Joseph Malloy writes:
    >
    > > "Specch"?

    >
    > What does your question have to do with OS/2, Malloy?


    STFU, Dickless.

    > > That's the feeling I have whenever I'm forced to behold one
    > > of your "postings".

    >
    > What does your feeling have to do with OS/2, Malloy?


    STFU, Dickless.

    > > Kook, thy name is Tholen!

    >
    > Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective,
    > as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument,


    STFU, Dickless.

    > > Toodles!

    >
    > What does that have to do with OS/2, Malloy?


    STFU, Dickless.


  14. Re: Malloy digest, volume 2453748

    Bruce AKA bs wrote:
    > tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
    > > Joseph Malloy writes:
    > >
    > > > "Specch"?

    > >
    > > What does your question have to do with OS/2, Malloy?

    >
    > How can he know until you answer it, Tholen?


    Good point, Bruce, and, as we all know, Dickless will never answer.

    > > > Toodles!

    > >
    > > What does that have to do with OS/2, Malloy?

    >
    > Thoodles!


    Thooldes?


  15. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    Dickless Davie tholen@antispam.ham the irrelevant Ignoranus whined:
    > Bennie Nelson writes:
    >
    > >> David T. Johnson wrote:

    >
    > >>> The very ACT of making this 'law' is a direct violation of the US
    > >>> constitution's first amendment which states "Congress shall make no law
    > >>> respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
    > >>> exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,
    > >>> or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
    > >>> Government for a redress of grievances."

    >
    > >> Where does the law violate the first amendment? I saw nothing that
    > >> abridges the freedom of speech. Does the first amendment guarantee
    > >> anonymity? Of course, with freedom comes responsibility. The classic
    > >> example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The first amendment
    > >> won't prevent you from getting in trouble with the law.

    >
    > > I would say the law runs contrary to the 9th Amendment.

    >
    > Saying it and explaining it are two different things.


    STFU, Dickless.


  16. Re: idiot rantings

    On 15 Jan 2006 00:58:24 -0800, "Michael Baldwin Bruce"
    wrote:

    >Dickless Davie tholen@antispam.ham the irrelevant Ignoranus whined:
    >> Joseph Malloy writes:
    >>
    >> > "Specch"?

    >>
    >> What does your question have to do with OS/2, Malloy?

    >
    >STFU, Dickless.
    >
    >> > That's the feeling I have whenever I'm forced to behold one
    >> > of your "postings".

    >>
    >> What does your feeling have to do with OS/2, Malloy?

    >
    >STFU, Dickless.
    >
    >> > Kook, thy name is Tholen!

    >>
    >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective,
    >> as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument,

    >
    >STFU, Dickless.
    >
    >> > Toodles!

    >>
    >> What does that have to do with OS/2, Malloy?

    >
    >STFU, Dickless.


    Guys,

    Take it to email.

    Joicks and woise, as we say in New York.

    Mike
    --
    http://www.corestore.org
    'As I walk along these shores
    I am the history within'

  17. Re: Mike Ross' idiot rantings

    Idiot Mike Ross wrote:
    > On 15 Jan 2006 00:58:24 -0800, "Michael Baldwin Bruce"
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Dickless Davie tholen@antispam.ham the irrelevant Ignoranus whined:
    > >> Joseph Malloy writes:
    > >>
    > >> > "Specch"?
    > >>
    > >> What does your question have to do with OS/2, Malloy?

    > >
    > >STFU, Dickless.
    > >
    > >> > That's the feeling I have whenever I'm forced to behold one
    > >> > of your "postings".
    > >>
    > >> What does your feeling have to do with OS/2, Malloy?

    > >
    > >STFU, Dickless.
    > >
    > >> > Kook, thy name is Tholen!
    > >>
    > >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective,
    > >> as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument,

    > >
    > >STFU, Dickless.
    > >
    > >> > Toodles!
    > >>
    > >> What does that have to do with OS/2, Malloy?

    > >
    > >STFU, Dickless.

    >
    > Guys,
    >
    > Take it to email.
    >
    > Joicks and woise, as we say in New York.


    You clowns always were an unintelligent lot.

    > Mike
    > --
    > http://www.corestore.org
    > 'As I walk along these shores
    > I am the history within'



+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2