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

bukowski

Is it a crime to hate hate speech laws?

What about tyranny?  Can I hate that?

Can I hate the people who tell me what to think and do?

Can I hate straight white men?

Can I hate the people who scapegoat me for the absolution of their own sins?

Can I feel hate?  Is that all right?  Can I hate but just not speak about it?

Or is it wrong to feel like hating too?

I really want to know?  

Who can I hate?

Can I hate just a little bit?

What if hating just a little bit isn't enough?

Can I have detailed hate list?

What if the people who make that list love what I hate?  What if they hate me?

Because I want to be perfectly sure on who and what I can get away with hating.

Fidelbogen

If you are careful you can badmouth people to your heart's content. Just use certain rhetorical tricks like "disclaimers" and fulsome, ironic "praise" that isn't fooling anybody.... :wink:

Study Voltaire if you get a chance.

Mr. X

And again we have another fine example of government really causing the problems between men and women.
Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."

CaptDMO

Volokh Conspiracy
Has a few decent observations on both of  these issues!

Quote from: "FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR"
I pray that Judges Alito and Roberts will nuke VAWA back to the stone age. Evil or Very Mad
I wonder if the Pres. signed off on VAWA II just to expose the clear and present danger that will ensure an Alito seat?

zarby

I don't know if you'll have it right about Alito.

I read that he approves of almost all exercise of governmental power.

What I read indicated that he hardly ever voted against the government. If this is true, he is likely to approve the VAWA as an exercise of government power.

I do know that he has made at least one pro father ruling (relating to notification of husbands before abortions).

But, it is not evident to me at all that he will disapprove of VAWA.

VAWA at its core is use of government power when it should not be used (e.g. intervention in every dispute, jealousy, etc. between a man and a woman on behalf of the woman -- if requested by the woman).

We can hope, but I think we'll have to wait and see.

Sir Percy

Fidelbogen
Quote
If you are careful you can badmouth people to your heart's content. Just use certain rhetorical tricks like "disclaimers" and fulsome, ironic "praise" that isn't fooling anybody....


Such as.... 'With the greatest respect to my honourable friend, it appears he may have been refreshing his glass rather too frequently and has become tired and emotional or else someone has inserted some complete twaddle beneath his name'.
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.

TheManOnTheStreet

(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;
___________________

So, here is how you do it Sir Percy...

My real name is Al Martin and you are an asshole.

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

Sir Percy

How about.... Al, mate, your witticisms are as priceless as any anal tendancy you profess - which I do not disaprove of, of course, tolerant soul that I am. You are one at least who has somewhere to blow the smoke from your gentleman's cigars. :D
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.

TheManOnTheStreet

HEhehehehe Touche Sir Percy....

Of course you realise that I wasn't calling YOU an asshole.... Right?  It was more of a general statement.....as an example.

:-)

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

Sir Percy

Of course, matey. Banter will be a whole new area of law.

And what will Dr E have to do to sound un-threatening when he tells someone that they are to be banned. A line from Ghostbusters springs to mind. Something about talents better used in the fast-food or home-services industries.

Who knows. The standard of english expression may be about to take a quantum leap on the internet. Are typos a defence?
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.

napnip

It's pretty revealing that the very people who are so strongly against the Patriot Act for its violations of civil rights are strangely silent in regards to VAWA.  (No, not just this new incarnation of the law, but the original 1994 version also.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ACLU itself even had a section on their site devoted to Violence Against Women and was urging people to contact their representatives and tell them to vote for VAWA.  The very people who supposedly stand for civil liberties are some of the strongest supporters of a law which denies men their basic civil liberties.
i] We drank our toast to innocence,
We drank our toast to now.
We tried to reach beyond the emptiness,
But neither one knew how. [/i]

Lee R.

I suspect this is an hysterical mis-reading of VAWA 2005.

Nowhere in Section 113 can I find the word 'annoy'.

Still, VAWA as passed is still a nightmare, what with the IMBRA of 2005.

hurkle

No, it includes some changes to the telecommunications act of whenever. Basically, the annoy stuff was already there, i.e. you can't annoy someone over the phone without giving your real name.

Some tech-legal experts have already weighed in, and they so far seem to conclude that it is a "doom-and-gloom" reading of the changes, but that even if someone tries to push that part of the bill, it would be met with legal challenges.

No links, sorry.
: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

TheManOnTheStreet

Lee the above (and again below) came right from VAWA;

(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;


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

TheManOnTheStreet

I just thought of something though.... it says "or who receives the communications;"

Well, a site is NOT sending communications.  Right?  You are making a concious CHOICE to enter a sight that might offend you.  So I fail to see how SYG or any other site for that matter could be charged.  YOU (generic) are making the choice to enter a site.  There is no forcing involved.

I know... straw an but......

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

Go Up