Anonymous abuse now a federal crime - OS2

This is a discussion on Anonymous abuse now a federal crime - OS2 ; According to a C/net article: "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." http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html -- Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52 and IBM Web Browser ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

  1. Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    According to a C/net article:

    "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."

    http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html


    --
    Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
    and IBM Web Browser v2.0.5

  2. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    David T. Johnson wrote:
    > According to a C/net article:
    >
    > "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."
    >
    > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html


    Even if someone tried to take advantage of such a ludicrous law the writer
    would be covered and protected by the First Amendment and the Constitution
    overall. Who determines annoying? The First Amendment protects our right
    to write something that annoys someone else even if it is done anonymously.

    The eCS Guy©


  3. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    In article <11s5bbalfnumq1e@corp.supernews.com>,
    "David T. Johnson" wrote:
    >According to a C/net article:
    >
    >"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."
    >
    >http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html


    Unfortunately, it doesn't help Tim / eCS Guy because I always disclose my
    true identity in my posts. Unlike "eCSGuy@Gmail.com", who doesn't disclose
    his true identity - so from now on, that makes him a criminal if he annoys
    me.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286

  4. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    The eCS Guy© wrote:
    > David T. Johnson wrote:
    >
    >> According to a C/net article:
    >>
    >> "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."
    >>
    >> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html

    >
    >
    >
    > Even if someone tried to take advantage of such a ludicrous law the writer
    > would be covered and protected by the First Amendment and the Constitution
    > overall. Who determines annoying? The First Amendment protects our right
    > to write something that annoys someone else even if it is done anonymously.


    Apparently, not. But perhaps you can be a test case.

    Regards,
    Bob St.John

  5. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    In article <11s6c8dkif0ta9b@news.supernews.com>,
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?The_eCS_Guy=A9?= wrote:
    >
    >Even if someone tried to take advantage of such a ludicrous law the writer
    >would be covered and protected by the First Amendment and the Constitution
    >overall. Who determines annoying? The First Amendment protects our right
    >to write something that annoys someone else even if it is done anonymously.


    Did you read right to the bottom of the article, and the feedback
    discussion? To be serious for a moment, I agree the new law does raise
    significant First Amendment issues - but so did the Patriot Act, and that is
    still on the books.

    Anyway, it's going to take one or more court cases to sort it out.
    Want to be one of the guinea pigs and have the FBI sniffing around you?
    Or worse, if it is eventually upheld, even in a modified form, it applies
    from last Thursday. You know what that would mean for you.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286

  6. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    Don Hills wrote:
    > In article <11s5bbalfnumq1e@corp.supernews.com>,
    > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
    >
    >>According to a C/net article:
    >>
    >>"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."
    >>
    >>http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html

    >
    >
    > Unfortunately, it doesn't help Tim / eCS Guy because I always disclose my
    > true identity in my posts. Unlike "eCSGuy@Gmail.com", who doesn't disclose
    > his true identity - so from now on, that makes him a criminal if he annoys
    > me.
    >


    I'm annoying you. Have me arrested. Come on .... I'm waiting ...
    Annoying, isn't it?

    --
    Dr. Timothy Martin, The Official and Only OS/2 Guy
    Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com
    email: OS2Guy@Gmail.com OR eCSGuy@Gmail.com

  7. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    Bob St.John wrote:
    > The eCS Guy© wrote:
    >
    >> David T. Johnson wrote:
    >>
    >>> According to a C/net article:
    >>>
    >>> "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."
    >>>
    >>> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Even if someone tried to take advantage of such a ludicrous law the
    >> writer
    >> would be covered and protected by the First Amendment and the
    >> Constitution
    >> overall. Who determines annoying? The First Amendment protects our
    >> right
    >> to write something that annoys someone else even if it is done
    >> anonymously.

    >
    >
    > Apparently, not. But perhaps you can be a test case.


    Well, give it a shot Boob - that is if you've got enough money to
    take the annoying action. I don't think anyone has anything to
    worry - you obviously have no money.

    --
    Dr. Timothy Martin, The Official and Only OS/2 Guy
    Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com
    email: OS2Guy@Gmail.com OR eCSGuy@Gmail.com

  8. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    The eCS Guy or The OS/2 Guy wrote:
    > In article <11s6c8dkif0ta9b@news.supernews.com>,
    > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?The_eCS_Guy=A9?= wrote:
    >
    >>Even if someone tried to take advantage of such a ludicrous law the writer
    >>would be covered and protected by the First Amendment and the Constitution
    >>overall. Who determines annoying? The First Amendment protects our right
    >>to write something that annoys someone else even if it is done anonymously.

    >
    >
    > Did you read right to the bottom of the article, and the feedback
    > discussion? To be serious for a moment, I agree the new law does raise
    > significant First Amendment issues - but so did the Patriot Act, and that is
    > still on the books.
    >
    > Anyway, it's going to take one or more court cases to sort it out.
    > Want to be one of the guinea pigs and have the FBI sniffing around you?
    > Or worse, if it is eventually upheld, even in a modified form, it applies
    > from last Thursday. You know what that would mean for you.
    >


    Do it Donnie, come on ... don't be the wimp we all know you to be.
    Let's put that annoying eCS Guy in jail! Do it today!

    You pompous annoying freak.

    --
    Dr. Timothy Martin, The Official and Only OS/2 Guy
    Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com
    email: OS2Guy@Gmail.com OR eCSGuy@Gmail.com

  9. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    The eCS Guy© wrote:
    > David T. Johnson wrote:
    >
    >> According to a C/net article:
    >>
    >> "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."
    >>
    >> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html

    >
    > Even if someone tried to take advantage of such a ludicrous law the writer
    > would be covered and protected by the First Amendment and the Constitution
    > overall. Who determines annoying? The First Amendment protects our right
    > to write something that annoys someone else even if it is done anonymously.


    That applies to citizens of the US, however, is a fictitious personna a
    citizen as well? You can't apply the first amendment to Daffy Duck, but
    you can apply it to Mel Blanc.

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

  10. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime [FUD4]

    © The OS/2 Guy © wrote:
    > Don Hills wrote:
    >> In article <11s5bbalfnumq1e@corp.supernews.com>,
    >> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
    >>
    >>> According to a C/net article:
    >>>
    >>> "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."
    >>>
    >>> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Unfortunately, it doesn't help Tim / eCS Guy because I always disclose my
    >> true identity in my posts. Unlike "eCSGuy@Gmail.com", who doesn't
    >> disclose
    >> his true identity - so from now on, that makes him a criminal if he
    >> annoys
    >> me.
    >>

    >
    > I'm annoying you. Have me arrested. Come on .... I'm waiting ...
    > Annoying, isn't it?


    Admitting that Tim Martin isn't your real name? :-D

  11. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    © The OS/2 Guy © wrote:

    > Well, give it a shot Boob - that is if you've got enough money to
    > take the annoying action. I don't think anyone has anything to worry
    > - you obviously have no money.


    There is no issue of money. Costs nothing to report a crime to the
    authorities. This is not a civil action. Even so, I think it would be
    poor use of resource. But there may be others who see it differently.


    Regards,
    Bob St.John
    Serenity Systems International

  12. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    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.
    Their is NOTHING in our constitution which requires someone to
    establish their identity before offering a comment, verbal, written,
    morse code, sign language, or smoke signals.

    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."

    Your congressman, senators, and president are well aware of the
    Constitution, and its meaning. They all have access to expert legal
    staff who can provide them with guidance on this. They KNOW it is
    wrong. They have all sworn to uphold the constitution when they took
    office. And yet they joined together, authored and passed this 'law'
    even though the constitution specifically enjoins them from doing so.
    Basically, they are watching to see if anyone notices or cares. Please
    call, write, or email your congressman, senators, and president today to
    let them know your feelings on this.


    David T. Johnson wrote:
    > According to a C/net article:
    >
    > "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."
    >
    > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html
    >
    >
    >



    --
    Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
    and IBM Web Browser v2.0.5

  13. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    David T. Johnson wrote:
    > 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.
    > Their is NOTHING in our constitution which requires someone to
    > establish their identity before offering a comment, verbal, written,
    > morse code, sign language, or smoke signals.
    >
    > 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."
    >
    > Your congressman, senators, and president are well aware of the
    > Constitution, and its meaning. They all have access to expert legal
    > staff who can provide them with guidance on this. They KNOW it is
    > wrong. They have all sworn to uphold the constitution when they took
    > office. And yet they joined together, authored and passed this 'law'
    > even though the constitution specifically enjoins them from doing so.
    > Basically, they are watching to see if anyone notices or cares. Please
    > call, write, or email your congressman, senators, and president today to
    > let them know your feelings on this.
    >


    I don't see anything in your quoting of the first ammendment which
    mentions anonymity. My take on the article, admittedly I just skimmed it
    and I'm no expert in the field, was the emphasis on anonymity, not the
    content of the message.

    Look at the first two words you selected as a subject. Is there a
    constitutional right to be anonymous while being abusive?

    FWIW, I'm opposed to "free speech zones". Areas designated for folks who
    want express a view in opposition to the administration, when a member
    of the administration is making a public appearance. This entire country
    is supposed to be a "free speech zone".

    And there have been cases when folks were turned away from political
    rallies because they were wearing tee shirts with a message in conflict
    with the theme of the rally. Those folks may have cause to feel their
    first amendment rights were abridged.

    But in those cases, the issue was the message. The content. In this
    case, the issue seems to be as you described it in your subject. Is
    there a legal right to be anonymous while being abusive? Apparently not.

    Regards,
    Bob St.John
    Serenity Systems International

  14. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    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.

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


  15. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    Bob St.John wrote:
    > David T. Johnson wrote:
    >
    >> 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. Their is NOTHING in our constitution which requires
    >> someone to establish their identity before offering a comment, verbal,
    >> written, morse code, sign language, or smoke signals.
    >>
    >> 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."
    >>
    >> Your congressman, senators, and president are well aware of the
    >> Constitution, and its meaning. They all have access to expert legal
    >> staff who can provide them with guidance on this. They KNOW it is
    >> wrong. They have all sworn to uphold the constitution when they took
    >> office. And yet they joined together, authored and passed this 'law'
    >> even though the constitution specifically enjoins them from doing so.
    >> Basically, they are watching to see if anyone notices or cares.
    >> Please call, write, or email your congressman, senators, and president
    >> today to let them know your feelings on this.
    >>

    >
    > I don't see anything in your quoting of the first ammendment which
    > mentions anonymity. My take on the article, admittedly I just skimmed it
    > and I'm no expert in the field, was the emphasis on anonymity, not the
    > content of the message.
    >
    > Look at the first two words you selected as a subject. Is there a
    > constitutional right to be anonymous while being abusive?


    The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy.
    However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that
    the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by
    virtue of the 9th Amendment. Moreover, 'abusive' is a test that should
    NEVER be applied by the government to any opinions expressed in a public
    forum, if the 1st amendment of the US Constitution is to be respected.
    The only limitations that the government may place on free speech are
    those that advocate 'imminent lawless action.'

    >
    > FWIW, I'm opposed to "free speech zones". Areas designated for folks who
    > want express a view in opposition to the administration, when a member
    > of the administration is making a public appearance. This entire country
    > is supposed to be a "free speech zone".
    >
    > And there have been cases when folks were turned away from political
    > rallies because they were wearing tee shirts with a message in conflict
    > with the theme of the rally. Those folks may have cause to feel their
    > first amendment rights were abridged.
    >
    > But in those cases, the issue was the message. The content.


    The 'message' is ALWAYS the issue wrt free speech.

    > In this
    > case, the issue seems to be as you described it in your subject. Is
    > there a legal right to be anonymous while being abusive? Apparently not.


    Your legal rights are not surrendered because someone determines you to
    be 'abusive' or 'annoying.'





    --
    Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
    and IBM Web Browser v2.0.5

  16. 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.


    The law expands the definition of 'telecommunications device' in the
    original 1934 law to now be any device or software that can be used to
    originate communications by the Internet. 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. As now written, it has
    criminalized communications made on the internet with intent to annoy,
    abuse, threaten, or harass the person who receives the 'communications.'

    > Does the first amendment guarantee
    > anonymity?


    No, but it does enjoin Congress from passing laws which abridge free
    speech. The new law restricts 'abusive' or 'annoying' free speech if it
    is made by someone who has not disclosed his identity. The Constitution
    does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court
    decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a
    basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment.

    > 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.


    Yes. Based on past Supreme Court decisions, the only limitations that
    the government may place on free speech is that which advocates
    'imminent lawless action.'

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


    Nothing except that most of the people here seem to post anonymously. I
    should have marked the original post, though, as off-topic and I've made
    my last comment on the subject in this newsgroup.

    >



    --
    Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
    and IBM Web Browser v2.0.5

  17. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    Bob St.John wrote:
    > David T. Johnson wrote:
    >
    >> 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. Their is NOTHING in our constitution which requires
    >> someone to establish their identity before offering a comment, verbal,
    >> written, morse code, sign language, or smoke signals.
    >>
    >> 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."
    >>
    >> Your congressman, senators, and president are well aware of the
    >> Constitution, and its meaning. They all have access to expert legal
    >> staff who can provide them with guidance on this. They KNOW it is
    >> wrong. They have all sworn to uphold the constitution when they took
    >> office. And yet they joined together, authored and passed this 'law'
    >> even though the constitution specifically enjoins them from doing so.
    >> Basically, they are watching to see if anyone notices or cares.
    >> Please call, write, or email your congressman, senators, and president
    >> today to let them know your feelings on this.

    >
    > I don't see anything in your quoting of the first ammendment which
    > mentions anonymity. My take on the article, admittedly I just skimmed it
    > and I'm no expert in the field, was the emphasis on anonymity, not the
    > content of the message.


    For the first time in many years, I'm in complete agreement with Johnson
    on this. One of the main purposes of the Bill of Rights and the
    Amendments were to prevent the government from stifling opposition. If
    you stop someone from expressing themselves verbally against the
    government, they're more likely to take more violent actions. If
    someone can only make free statements with a full identity attached to
    it, a theoretical oppressive government could track these comments and
    cause harm to the individual, or at least can threaten the individual
    into holding their peace. Whether or not this is the climate of our
    current government (and sadly, it looks to be leaning this way thanks to
    the Patriot Act), the intent of the laws on the books are to allow the
    people to bring the government back on track, no matter if mistakes were
    made along the way in giving up too much power. These things were
    written for worst case scenarios, to give the people a leg to stand on
    in the face of a dire situation, so that war would not be necessary. We
    need the right to anonymous free speech in order to keep our government
    in line.

    Unfortunately, we just can't selectively apply such concepts to get rid
    of a few jerks on USENET who habitually abuse people and companies for
    no gain. To put any limitation on this would allow a loophole that
    could be widened to overtake the spirit of the law. But remember
    another founding tenant of this country's law: it is better for a
    thousand guilty men to go free than it is for one innocent man to have
    his freedom taken away.

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

  18. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    "Bob St.John" said:

    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."
    >>
    >> Your congressman, senators, and president are well aware of the
    >> Constitution, and its meaning. They all have access to expert legal
    >> staff who can provide them with guidance on this. They KNOW it is
    >> wrong. They have all sworn to uphold the constitution when they took
    >> office. And yet they joined together, authored and passed this 'law'
    >> even though the constitution specifically enjoins them from doing so.
    >> Basically, they are watching to see if anyone notices or cares. Please
    >> call, write, or email your congressman, senators, and president today to
    >> let them know your feelings on this.
    >>


    >I don't see anything in your quoting of the first ammendment which
    >mentions anonymity.


    Are yuou blind? It says plain as the nose on your face, "Congress shall
    make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, and this especially
    means people are free to harass other people without being identified."
    Wow. How could you miss it?!

    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.

  19. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    "Bob St.John" said:

    >And there have been cases when folks were turned away from political
    >rallies because they were wearing tee shirts with a message in conflict
    > with the theme of the rally. Those folks may have cause to feel their
    >first amendment rights were abridged.


    A little common sense, maybe? The article guarantees free speech. It
    does not guarantee that I must listen to it.

    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.

  20. Re: Anonymous abuse now a federal crime

    tholen@antispam.ham said:

    >Of course, with freedom comes responsibility.


    Uh-oh. Now you done quit preaching and gone to meddlin'! ;-)

    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.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast