UC and Federal Law Violations

Hey Mikey, [aka Uranium Committee]

Here's something you really need to take note of. You can - already - be
found in violation of this new federal U.S. law. Man, all I could think
about since I read about it was how applicable to you this law is... Now, I
will NOT discuss the constitutionality of this law. Until it is deemed
unconstitutional, it IS the law. Wanna be the litmus test?


Jim Philopena


Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail By Declan McCullagh
Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST

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."
It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet,
you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes 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... without disclosing
his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any
person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18
or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called
"Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment
law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his
identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania
Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an
unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan:
to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by
voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House
approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable
by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer
service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely
annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write
something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors
wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring
pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to
send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying
about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed.
That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't
file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial
discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says
a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards
through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said.
He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post
Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that
outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the
courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com
didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday.
"I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple
point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something
that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995
case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous
political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government
(it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot
be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he
felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton
realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material
on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice
Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans'
personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's Washington, D.C., correspondent. He
chronicles the busy intersection between technology and politics. Before
that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired
News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine
and HotWired.
Tell us what you think about this storyTalkBack E-mail this story to a
friendE-mail View this story formatted for printingPrint See links from
elsewhere to this story (TrackBacks/Pingbacks)TrackBack

In article 8phxf.3347$rS4.2630@trndny05,
"James Philopena" wrote:

Hey Mikey, [aka Uranium Committee]

Here's something you really need to take note of. You can - already - be
found in violation of this new federal U.S. law. Man, all I could think
about since I read about it was how applicable to you this law is... Now, I
will NOT discuss the constitutionality of this law. Until it is deemed
unconstitutional, it IS the law. Wanna be the litmus test?


Jim Philopena

Hee hee, I posted the link yesterday on rec.LF
for the very same reason,....ain't GB-the prez great.

Well M.S. loves the prez so I guess he'll do what his man sez.


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

"James Philopena" wrote in message
news:8phxf.3347$rS4.2630@trndny05...
Hey Mikey, [aka Uranium Committee]

Here's something you really need to take note of. You can - already - be
found in violation of this new federal U.S. law. Man, all I could think
about since I read about it was how applicable to you this law is... Now,
I will NOT discuss the constitutionality of this law. Until it is deemed
unconstitutional, it IS the law. Wanna be the litmus test?

In that case I would support capital punishment. Or at least corporal
punishment.

Natural Light Black and White Photography
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze76ane/
-George-

"James Philopena" wrote in message
news:8phxf.3347$rS4.2630@trndny05...
Hey Mikey, [aka Uranium Committee]

Here's something you really need to take note of. You can - already - be
found in violation of this new federal U.S. law. Man, all I could think
about since I read about it was how applicable to you this law is... Now,
I will NOT discuss the constitutionality of this law. Until it is deemed
unconstitutional, it IS the law. Wanna be the litmus test?

In that case I would support capital punishment. Or at least corporal
punishment.

Natural Light Black and White Photography
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze76ane/
-George-

James Philopena wrote:
Hey Mikey, [aka Uranium Committee]

Here's something you really need to take note of. You can - already - be
found in violation of this new federal U.S. law. Man, all I could think
about since I read about it was how applicable to you this law is... Now, I
will NOT discuss the constitutionality of this law. Until it is deemed
unconstitutional, it IS the law. Wanna be the litmus test?



Annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy

The pleasure is all mine....


Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:
"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...

Annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy

[snip]

annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy

Excellent - really excellent - summation of the effect UC has on this
newsgroup !!

I never could have said it better myself. Wonderful to see it come from the
horse's mouth, as it were.

"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...

Annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy

[snip]

annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy

Excellent - really excellent - summation of the effect UC has on this
newsgroup !!

I never could have said it better myself. Wonderful to see it come from the
horse's mouth, as it were.

I have contributed more than many here, and certainly more than you.

I have NO tolerance for misinformation, ESPECIALLY zone system
bull****. Most of assorted half-wits who come here are clueless.

Photography seems to attract morons in disproportionally high numbers.


Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:
"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...

Annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy

[snip]

annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy
annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy

Excellent - really excellent - summation of the effect UC has on this
newsgroup !!

I never could have said it better myself. Wonderful to see it come from the
horse's mouth, as it were.

James Philopena wrote:

Hey Mikey, [aka Uranium Committee]

Here's something you really need to take note of. You can - already - be
found in violation of this new federal U.S. law. Man, all I could think
about since I read about it was how applicable to you this law is... Now, I
will NOT discuss the constitutionality of this law. Until it is deemed
unconstitutional, it IS the law. Wanna be the litmus test?


Jim Philopena


Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail By Declan McCullagh
Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST

big snip




First of all, here are the provisions of the existing law and the
amendment:

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

47 U.S. Code § 223 Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District
of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications

(a) Prohibited acts generally
Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications—
.. . .
(C) 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 fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or
both.


(h) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees
and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions
elsewhere in this chapter; and
(B) does not include an interactive computer service.


Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005


SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection
(a)(1), includes 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 (as such term is defined in
section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47
U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

This is an amendment to the federal law regarding interstate phone calls
to harass someone. It adds the internet as a mechanism. Now, what is the
scope of this law? The main objective is to criminalize the use of
phones or internet to threaten someone with sexual, physical or
psychological abuse. The word "annoy" was always there. It is the
internet that is the new mechanism that has been added. So, what new
meaning is added? None. Has it been interpreted before? Not directly.
But the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned prior attempts to crimiinalize
internet activity:

ASHCROFT v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 542 U.S. 656 (2004), holding the
Communications Decency Act, which attempted to regulate internet speech, unconstitutional.

If held constitutional, something that has not been determined, it would have to be so
interpreted as to not place an undue burden on free speech on the internet.


Francis A. Miniter

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
James Philopena wrote:

Hey Mikey, [aka Uranium Committee]

Here's something you really need to take note of. You can - already - be
found in violation of this new federal U.S. law. Man, all I could think
about since I read about it was how applicable to you this law is... Now, I
will NOT discuss the constitutionality of this law. Until it is deemed
unconstitutional, it IS the law. Wanna be the litmus test?


Jim Philopena


Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail By Declan McCullagh
Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST

big snip




First of all, here are the provisions of the existing law and the
amendment:

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

47 U.S. Code § 223 Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District
of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications

(a) Prohibited acts generally
Whoever-
(1) in interstate or foreign communications-
. . .
(C) 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 fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or
both.


(h) Definitions
For purposes of this section-
(1) The use of the term "telecommunications device" in this section-
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees
and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions
elsewhere in this chapter; and
(B) does not include an interactive computer service.


Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005


SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection
(a)(1), includes 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 (as such term is defined in
section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47
U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

This is an amendment to the federal law regarding interstate phone calls
to harass someone. It adds the internet as a mechanism. Now, what is the
scope of this law? The main objective is to criminalize the use of
phones or internet to threaten someone with sexual, physical or
psychological abuse. The word "annoy" was always there. It is the
internet that is the new mechanism that has been added. So, what new
meaning is added? None. Has it been interpreted before? Not directly.
But the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned prior attempts to crimiinalize
internet activity:

ASHCROFT v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 542 U.S. 656 (2004), holding the
Communications Decency Act, which attempted to regulate internet speech, unconstitutional.

If held constitutional, something that has not been determined, it would have to be so
interpreted as to not place an undue burden on free speech on the internet.


Francis A. Miniter

Frank:

I really was not worried.