No More Trolls?

Well, that was a disturbing story...

I suppose Homeland Security will be used to enforce this little law. :rolleyes:
 
I guess we all need to start signing our full names and listing our home addresses here on MartialTalk, just in case someone disagrees with one of our posts. Lord knows, that would never happen here!
 
Bob is probably going to have to institute some sort of Rep system that reports directly to the feds...
 
Perhaps we should be forced to list our cell #s, places of employment, and work schedules as well.
Quite frankly, I find the legislature annoying.
 
While I agree that cyberstalking is a concern (having been the victim of a stalker who included in the internet in various forms, mostly email, in the stalking), I have to say I am also concerned about the use of such a subjectively vague word as "annoy" in this type of legislation. This type of unclear and judgement-based terminology will cause more problems than the problem it purports to fix, and that is a decided problem, as nice as it would be if this worked in the way it is intended to.
 
arnisador said:
But Mr. Spock is the very prototype of a NSA employee!
Click to expand...
Indeed, but at least he wasn't an *******!

Sorry to say but the real people that are going to blamed is us. John Q. Taxpayer/Public whomever! We're the ones that keep voting these guys into office and just ***** and moan without voting them OUT of office. If I'm not mistaken we DO have the power (enmassed of course) to vote a particular piece of crap legislation right off the bills. We DO have the power as taxpaying citizens of these UNITED States to vote the moron right out of his cooshy office, D.C./Georgetown townhouse/limo-riding ***, and see to it they don't hold a public (trust) office again.
But do we?
No we just talk on the internet about how annoying all of this is.
 
Define annoying.
You can't. This is simply another example of polititions burying something into a law, not reading or understanding it, etc.
 
Ridiculous! Must the government interfere on every little issue? It should be left up to the people to solve problems. Although I'm against trolls and those who flame, it should be the job of Bob Hubbard's job to keep the peace in this forum for example not the government ;).
 
Kane said:
Ridiculous! Must the government interfere on every little issue? It should be left up to the people to solve problems. Although I'm against trolls and those who flame, it should be the job of Bob Hubbard's job to keep the peace in this forum for example not the government ;).
Click to expand...
That's exactly right. Quite frankly this is among the most asinine pieces of legislation i've ever seen. Moreover, it's unenforceable....unless you want to reallocate valuable federal resources to prosecute trolls, in which case it becomes even MORE asinine.
 
sgtmac_46 said:
That's exactly right. Quite frankly this is among the most asinine pieces of legislation i've ever seen. Moreover, it's unenforceable....unless you want to reallocate valuable federal resources to prosecute trolls, in which case it becomes even MORE asinine.
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever thought that this may be nothing more then an excuse to monitor things on the internet? Their may not be enough resources to enforce this thing, but I can imagine that resources can be found to watch.
 
Just to show you all that you can't believe everything you read, here's the full text of the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-3402

Now, try to look up the word "annoy". Find it? Didn't think so. Now let's see? The only part of section 113 (which is the so-called "annoy" legislation) that deals with computers is this:

`(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 subpara-
graph (B);
shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.''. Does that sound like what that article said? Guess not. Now that we are clear that we all have the right to annoy people on the internet:

Your political party sucks.
 
deadhand31 said:
Just to show you all that you can't believe everything you read, here's the full text of the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-3402

Now, try to look up the word "annoy". Find it? Didn't think so. Now let's see? The only part of section 113 (which is the so-called "annoy" legislation) that deals with computers is this:

`(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 subpara-
graph (B);
shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.''. Does that sound like what that article said? Guess not. Now that we are clear that we all have the right to annoy people on the internet:

Your political party sucks.
Click to expand...

Here is what sec 113 actually says...

SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Commu-
nications 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 commu-
nications 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)).''.
(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--This section and the amendment
made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning
given the term ``telecommunications device'' in section 223(h)(1)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date
of the enactment of this section.
Click to expand...

Here is the law that it was amending...

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000223----000-.html

I have no clue where you got the information that you posted...

upnorthkyosa

ps - your counterspin sucks...;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Death Penalty DNA testing

Previous Thread

Young Sociopaths

Next Thread

Similar threads

Bob Hubbard
Crank Blogging, Like Phone Calling, Now Illegal
Replies
19
Views
2K
Bob Hubbard
Bob Hubbard
A
Cranky old people rejoice!
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
RandomPhantom700
R
A
X-ray specs in Airports!
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
arnisador
A
A
Windows "Longhorn" details released
Replies
7
Views
1K
Andrew Green
A
Bob Hubbard
Politics: Patriot Act to be Expanded
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
sgtmac_46
sgtmac_46

Latest Discussions

Back
Top