Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime

Started by Men's Rights Activist, Jan 09, 2006, 10:05 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

SecondToDie

Quote from: "Amendment I to the United States Constitution"

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.


There is no way any court will uphold this law.

Sir Jessy of Anti

It will be interesting to get the opinion of the organization known as the alleged ACLU on this, also I imagine the EFF will have something to say.
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />

TheManOnTheStreet

Quote from: "Stallywood"
This law, is a sub section of the VAWA, and will not most probably apply to women.
Stally


And there you have it folks..... add a little fat to the law.  I love when these azzhats (TM Gono) take an alledged good law and attach a totally idiotic statute to it to ensure that the indiotic part gets through....  Mainly because it could never ever ever stand on it's own.

In this case though, the whole thing is idiotic....


And as for the ACLU, if there is no money or PR to be had, they will miraculously overlook this piece of garbage.

Al
The Man On The Street is on the street for a reason.......
_________________________________
It's not illegal to be male.....yet.

TheManOnTheStreet

The Man On The Street is on the street for a reason.......
_________________________________
It's not illegal to be male.....yet.

FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR

I pray that Judges Alito and Roberts will nuke VAWA back to the stone age.  :evil:
What good fortune for government that people do not think."
                         Adolph Hitler

"Where madness rules the absurd is not far away."

We must not make the mistake of thinking that all those who eat the bread of dictatorship are evil from the first; but they must necessarily become evil....The curse of a system of terror is that there is no turning back; neither in the large realm of policies nor the 'smaller' realm of everyday human relationships is it possible for men to retrace their steps."
- Dr. Hans Bernd Gisevius
(1904-1974)

SecondToDie

Quote from: "FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR"
I pray that Judges Alito and Roberts will nuke VAWA back to the stone age.  :evil:


Actually, the original VAWA was partially nuked by the Rehnquist Court in United States v. Morrison (2000).  Unfortuately, the court only ruled on one provision.

neoteny

Quote from: "SecondToDie"
Actually, the original VAWA was partially nuked by the Rehnquist Court in United States v. Morrison (2000).  Unfortuately, the court only ruled on one provision.


Well, yes, because only that provision was brought before the SC. I think it is (way past) time to form the Men's Legal Defense Fund and start bringing lawsuits against unconstitutional laws.
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

contrarymary

Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to%20+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=602249%201&subj=news

Quote
"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. "


This is complete and utter bullshit.  To hell with it.
quot;I can resist anything but temptation."

 Oscar Wilde

contrarymary

Quote from: "jaketk"
so any random person could find what you're saying "annoying" and threaten you with federal jail time? brilliant...

i do have a sinking feeling that many ultra progessives, ultra conservatives and a ton of feminists are going to jump all over this law.


Your "sinking feeling" is correct.  I will jump all over this law.  Are we all such wusses that we have to be protected from ostensible slurs from anonymous persons?
quot;I can resist anything but temptation."

 Oscar Wilde

contrarymary

This country is getting downright scary.
quot;I can resist anything but temptation."

 Oscar Wilde

Beste

Quote from: "contrarymary"
This country is getting downright scary.


Can't disagree with you there, surely this law is  unconstitutional.

We Australians only have to put with dumb censorship laws and the new OFLCs  BIG, UGLY, CRAPPY, PATRONIZING RATINGS(No that's not a sticker) that ruin most DVD covers.

But stilll I rather live here than in the USA.

zarby

[/quote]A Statement by Patricia Ireland, President
National Organization for Women
March 19, 1998

... The number of hate sites on the Internet is proliferating....

Quote


Don't suppose the NOW cite would be considered a hate site?

I have seen a site that totally trashes all the standard men's rights leaders like Farrell, etc. Don't suppose those would be hate sites?

This type of litigation is in effect censorship. Somebody has decide what is and what is not appropriate to "print" (who's views are allowed.)

I am sure the censors will have no problem with "hatred" towards "deadbeat dads" or Bin Laden and any number of things.

If the "hate" is directed towards a mom or woman that is different.

The word "hate" itself is extremely ambiguous. I am sure criticism will be construed as "hate." Disagreement will be construed as "hate," etc.

The founding fathers are turning in their graves.

zarby

Let's try again

Quote
A Statement by Patricia Ireland, President
National Organization for Women
March 19, 1998

... The number of hate sites on the Internet is proliferating....


Don't suppose the NOW cite would be considered a hate site?

I have seen a site that totally trashes all the standard men's rights leaders like Farrell, etc. Don't suppose those would be hate sites?

This type of litigation is in effect censorship. Somebody has decide what is and what is not appropriate to "print" (who's views are allowed.)

I am sure the censors will have no problem with "hatred" towards "deadbeat dads" or Bin Laden and any number of things.

If the "hate" is directed towards a mom or woman that is different.

The word "hate" itself is extremely ambiguous. I am sure criticism will be construed as "hate." Disagreement will be construed as "hate," etc.

The founding fathers are turning in their graves.

gwallan

Quote from: "KellyMB"
I wonder how many years that Ginmar and NYMOM will get. There will be hundreds of people filing complaints. :mrgreen:

I know I could.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

TheManOnTheStreet

I would assume that it is indeed only illegal for men.  If you follow the letter of the law, the pronouns are HE/HIM/HIS...... so following the law, the a-typical perp is MEN.  So femikooks can have a field day.  Shutting down MRA sites while slandering at will.


BTW, They came out guns a-blazzin on Alito.  First question.... take a guess.... Second question.... take a guess......  Of course, they interrupt him no matter what he is saying.

Loved one of his answers though.  I paraphrase here:

"Public opinion and special interrest should never dictate to the SC.  The SC's job is to apply the letter of the law....reguardless of public opinion."
The Man On The Street is on the street for a reason.......
_________________________________
It's not illegal to be male.....yet.

Go Up