UC and Federal Law Violations

UC wrote:

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
groups.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.





Now you know what the other end of the horse sounds like.

Patrick, go back to reading something that makes you think you know
something about argument and philosophy.

The amount of hot air expended on the part of zonazis and their
followers dwarfs my much more modest contributions to aerial heating.

My battle against nonsense will not stop.

PATRICK GAINER wrote:
UC wrote:

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
groups.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.





Now you know what the other end of the horse sounds like.

"UC" wrote in message
ups.com...

Patrick, go back to reading something that makes you think you know
something about argument and philosophy.

The amount of hot air expended on the part of zonazis and their
followers dwarfs my much more modest contributions to aerial heating.

My battle against nonsense will not stop.



Does that mean suicide is in your immediate future?

"Francis A. Miniter" wrote in message
news:43c6c73a@kcnews01...


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

[snip-o-doodle]

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,

Like I said in the original post, I won't argue the constitutionality of
the new 'law'. That's because I agree with any intelligent being on it's
constitutionality. However, it hasn't been struck down - yet.

Jim

UC wrote:

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.


Hi Michael,

I know, but I just don't like the wrong interpretation of the law to be
propagated. It does no good for the law or for the people. The article quoted
by the original poster was a perverse exaggeration of what the statute actually
says, and yet it was published.


Francis A. Miniter

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:47:07 -0500, G- Blank
wrote:

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

Dubya sux.

JD

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 05:28:54 GMT, "seog" wrote:

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

I'm all for a good old fashioned flogging !

JD

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:15:45 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
wrote:

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

Now what doesn't it surprise me that Ashcroft would try to do
something un-Constitutional ?????

Yeah, the same guy that said

"The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight
and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical
areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of
war."

In way of criticizing the the American judicial system for not holding
with Dubya who wanted to avoid "constitutional complications" by
holding prisoners at Gitmo vs. here on American soild where
accountability would be less avoidable.

JD

Those people are NOT POWs. They are terrorists.

They were not captured on American soil. They have NO rights under our
constitution, and the Geneva Convention does not protect them, either,
because those rules protect SOLDIERS that are part of a nation's armed
forces.

The terrorists are neither.



John wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:15:45 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
wrote:

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

Now what doesn't it surprise me that Ashcroft would try to do
something un-Constitutional ?????

Yeah, the same guy that said

"The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight
and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical
areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of
war."

In way of criticizing the the American judicial system for not holding
with Dubya who wanted to avoid "constitutional complications" by
holding prisoners at Gitmo vs. here on American soild where
accountability would be less avoidable.

JD

"John" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:47:07 -0500, G- Blank
wrote:

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

Dubya sux.

JD

I'm with you brother, we need to surrender, raise taxes, abort more babies
and get more welfare! We need a fine Democrat like Teddy Kenedy to lead
us...just don't make me get in his car.