It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: "Annoying" Someone is Now A Federal Crime

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Inmate A: So what are you guys in for?
Inmate B: I killed my wife
Inmate C: I like to drown kittens
Inmate D: Rape and murder
Inmate E: Tax evasion.
Inmate A: *sigh* I was a troll on abovetopsecret and I called Skeptic a wussy.




posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
You know is very funny specially when you are in these boards I can tell how many people get annoyed easily when threads do not go their way.

I can imagine all the ones that can seek revenge now.


[edit on 9-1-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Oh my, my wife's going to jail for sure.


I'm not laughing at the author of the thread, it's good to put out there how ridiculous this is. I'm laughing at the ineptitude of this administration. There are WAY bigger issues than this and this is what they're focussing on? Again



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
heres the text of this law, i see nothing about annoying or anonymous emailing.

Whoever--

`(2) with the intent--
`(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or
`(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--

`(i) that person;
`(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 of that person; or
`(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;

uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B);

shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.'.
(b) Enhanced Penalties for Stalking- Section 2261(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
(6) Whoever commits the crime of stalking in violation of a temporary or permanent civil or criminal injunction, restraining order, no-contact order, or other order described in section 2266 of title 18, United States Code, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 1 year.'.



[edit on 9-1-2006 by namehere]

[edit on 9-1-2006 by namehere]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

They'll have to prove intent. If you post something that annoys someone but the message was not sent to that person directly and the post was not intended to annoy the recipient then you're fine.


Yes, but in the United States, laws tend to get subverted. I could probably cite a few hundred (thousand) examples where laws are twisted to fit the definition of those who use them in this country.

And whether or not there was intent has to be determined by the courts which can be a long and expensive process...for all parties involved. The only ones that would really benefit from this law would be the lawyers.

The courts should start charging the losing parties for the cost of the Judges instead of laying their pay on the backs of every American citizen. But that's another rant (and, no, a judges pay doesn't fall under "court costs").



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
elderban read the post above yours....



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Namehere if that is the provisions of the new law, I imagine that it fits very well with some of the things that goes on in chat rooms and public boards.

You know how many people opinions can be so direct and abusive that the person in the other side feels threatened?

I have seen that here in ATS but we all worked out together.

And anyway is also of personal opinion how much I may feel annoyed or insulted and stress out by somebody worlds directed at me in a post.

This going to be very widely interpreted.

And like everything abuses will come from it also I wonder what our government officials are thinking when they give away to frivolous laws like this.

I bet somebody got tired of been the center of jokes and name calling in the INTERNET that it seems necessary to pass something so ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
marg its about reasonable fear and threats, not just hurtful or mean words, it clearly says this.

in violation of a temporary or permanent civil or criminal injunction, restraining order, no-contact order, or other order

is this not clear to you?



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
theres suchs things called paranoia and over-reacting. this is beyond me of how this could even get in there. further more why they address non issues like this compared to the important issues we should be drawing our main focuses to.

if my opinion causes any extent of emotional distress to any of you then i would have to say.....get a therapist.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
there was an earlier version, I think that is the one posted above...
--------------------------

"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."

news.com.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
namehere i have no problem with laws against death threats and such threats as to physical harm. other then that just deal with it jeez, if someone is harrassing you internet report them and have their IP banned from the program they are using, its not a big deal as long as it doesnt become physical. just deal with it, wow.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
What is the big deal here? All they have done is incorporate newer technologies nothing more.

Read this it has the original law Source which by the way is also in almost every telephone book you might pick up. Not by statue mind you but the wording is there, so essentially nothing has changed other then to include newer technologies.

Looks around for chicken little then ducks



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Thank god I'm in Australia.

Could you imagine going to Jail for it?
Guy 1: So, what are you in for?
Guy 2: I killed a family of 4. You?
Guy 1: Oh, I annoyed someone on the internet.

EDIT: Someone already beat me to it.


[edit on 9/1/06 by Nventual]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
dawnstar its not much different than the latest version..

(1) in paragaph (1)--

(A) by inserting after `intimidate' the following: `, or places under surveillance with the intent to kill, injure, haras, or intimidate,'; and

(B) by inserting after `or serious bodily injury to,' the following: `or causes substantial emotional harm to,';

(2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking `to kill or injure' and inserting `to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or places under surveillance with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or to cause substantial emtional harm to,'; and

(3) in paragraph (2), in the matter following clause (iii) of subparagraph (B)--

(A) by inserting after `uses the mail' the following: `, any interactive computer service,'; and

(B) by inserting after `course of conduct that' the following: `causes substantial emotional harm to that person or'.




[edit on 9-1-2006 by namehere]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
well, all the politically correct and "hate speech" folks should be happy. This is where we told you things would go.

But you wanted to protect your own little power groups. Your own "special" people. Self described "minorities" have been using "hate speech" verbage to silence critics of politicians who happen to also have some "minority" ancestry. The corrupt, the crooked, and the dangerous have used such to protect themselves while hiding under dubious "lifestyle choices".

Once Liberals made "hate" a crime-once feelings were made criminal and thought control limited, it was only a matter of time until everyone found a way to use such legislation to subvert free speech and protect the guilty.

Congratulations on the final result. This is where all the vacuous "feel good legislation" takes us all. When variations on the AWB leave you disarmed, and the "hate speech" you used against a sitting President has the SWAT team at your door, grab your prozac and your legalized pot and think happy thoughts.

*rant *rant*

Okay, where are the cops? I was hoping they'd bring donuts..


[edit on 9-1-2006 by Phugedaboudet]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797 its not a big deal as long as it doesnt become physical. just deal with it, wow.


grim it applies to someone with legal orders of no contact due to previous legal action, not everyone who happens to harrass you.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
*sighs* i wish some of you actually read what youre condemning before you condemn it....



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
"Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications—
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication; "

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

has this little section here been extended over to internet use? if so, what has been altered in it...because, well, it seems to say that if you call someone with the intention of annoying them, it's illegal...

trying to prove or disprove intention on when it comes to forums and such, well, I think would be more difficult than when dealing with phone usage.


[edit on 9-1-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Would this include those annoying email messages I get from people every day hoping to help me add inches and firmness to a sexual organ that I don't even have?


...if you used them you would though.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

is this not clear to you?


You know what I am starting to get annoyed by you, I think that I am stressing and also I feel threatened.

How about that.
will that be suficient to get the law envolve.

Like everything in our country is always people that will abuse to their own benefits.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join