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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

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.





Poor dear sweet marg. And that horrid namehere! Look how he has upset her!

BTW hamburglar - saw your mwahaha - laughed out loud.

I can see we all are going to have some real fun with this one. [Rolls up sleeves.]




posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
What if you annoy people and you live outside America?

Or

Could you use a proxy to annoy someone so technically, your annoyance has been routed out of America and thus delivered to the recipient from another country where this law doesn't apply?

Bush is probably just get tired of being the number 1 butt of Internet jokes, he did after all say:




"There ought to be limits to freedom."

-- In reference to the parody site gwbush.com, May 21, 1999





[edit on 9-1-2006 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
TAKE NOTE ANNOYING AMERICANS

Anyone now annoying me on ATS is considered as breaking a federal law. Of course this will only apply to anyone in America.

So how do you prevent getting arrested for annoying me?

1. Stop babbling on about how great Bush is. We know he's an idiot you don't have to defend the indefensable.

2. Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed".

3. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf, stop annoying us with ut.

4. Look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary".

5. You should stop playing American football. There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American football is not a very good game

The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football.

Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005.

6 You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "sh*t".

7 All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

8 Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving me crazy.

SO PLEASE STOP ANNOYING ME!!!

(annoyances from here)



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
My view on this is if you are going to go down.... don't go down on a technicality.


These laws are becoming entirely too Nazi like. The people of this country really need to put their foot down and fast.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   


The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football.


Canadian Football League
NFL Europe

.............................................................................



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Note that the law requires the person who is annoyed to be the recipient of the message. So we can carry on and be annoying on newsites and open message boards since there is no intended recipient. It is up to the "viewer" if they wish to be offended. The law does mean no more SPAM emails for US citizens, you lucky bast*rds. See there's good in everything if you look hard enough ;-)



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I have read through this thread and I'd like to point a few things out. (Much is already posted here, but I'll save you time.)




(a) Prohibited acts generally

Whoever—
...

(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;

...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)).'.

...

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,

...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Here and here.



That is the correct text in the statute. (The first "HERE" link doesn't work for some reason, but it was the amendment to the existing law, which is the second "HERE" link.)

The language doesn't actually require you to give your "name"....just that you "disclose" your "identity." Of course, there is no way to know how it will be enforced, but a court could buy the argument that presentation of an IP address, which is traceable to your identity, materially meets the requirement that you have disclosed your identity.

The other issue is that the language requires "intent".

That has to be proved too... you must have intended to annoy...

Accordingly, I have decided upon the following disclaimer, which shall, henceforth, appear within my signature line:

Under Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I, Section 223(C), LOAM expressly denys and disclaims any and all intention to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person, during all written communications, in whole or in part, delivered by means of the Internet. ALL POSTINGS "AS IS".



In any event, feel free to use it... but I give no warranties of any kind for that either...




[edit on 10-1-2006 by loam]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   
If they will let me change my birth certificate to Skadi the Evil Elf, then I have no problem abiding by this law.

Bush annoys me by breathing my air and appearing on so many web pages. Can I start suing him?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Well, in order to effectively identify the offenders, they'll need authority to access, log and trace all relevant data, i.e. IPs as well as data from ISPs linking them to their users. In short, enforcing the law will require extended powers.

If these are granted, we know where this is going...



PS: "Intent"? Where's proof of intent for the Gitmo inmates?

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Lumos]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos
Well, in order to effectively identify the offenders, they'll need authority to access, log and trace all relevant data, i.e. IPs as well as data from ISPs linking them to their users. In short, enforcing the law will require extended powers.

If these are granted, we know where this is going...




1984 was a great book. Too bad the wrong people read it.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Namehere: That is an old law you are pointing out. They have not posted the text of the new law yet.

Notice that your's says "1 year", and the new law clearly states that you can get up to two (2) years.

Edit: I have found the text of the law:


(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;

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.


[edit on 10-1-2006 by elderban]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos

PS: "Intent"? Where's proof of intent for the Gitmo inmates?

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Lumos]


could have been that AK they were holding upon capture. just a guess though.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Yes, you said it: "could"..."guess"...proof???



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Not to go off subject, but the "enemy combatants" at Gitmo are not US citizens - as far as we know - so US laws do not apply to them.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos
Yes, you said it: "could"..."guess"...proof???


you should know better than this. there are several arguments you could have made, but the fact that they were captured while engaged in combat operations against american troops is proven fact.

amesty international

even amnesty international does not contest this. in fact, they use it as their argument for treating them as prisoners of war under the geneva convention.

i'll be more than happy to discuss this issue further on another thread if you'd like, but it's off topic for this one. just start another and u2u me with the thread link if you'd like to continue.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I would like to point out one more thing about this new law...


(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity


So, if I'm reading this correctly, if you "permit" any telecommunications as a second party, then you can be arrested as well...so this would affect the person "annoying" the person and possibly the person allowing the "annoyance" to happen, i.e. a forum or website.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I believe this is mainly to cover spam, and other annoying stuff like that.
In any case, federal law does not trump state laws, in most situations.
Not to worry....



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   


In any case, federal law does not trump state laws, in most situations.


I do not believe this is a correct statement. That was the whole outcome of the civil war...that federal laws trump the state's.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
The correct term is Preemption

The whole concept can get quite complicated.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
You're all annoying me with your comments, too much text to read *calls DHS*



new topics




 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join