I hope this post doesn't cause substantial emotional distress!

[PurgedVoter]

Because it is now illegal to do it on a blog.

Below is the entire pertinent section of the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act" that Bush just signed
Sec. 2261A. Stalking

`Whoever--

`(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

`(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.'.

SEC. 115. REPEAT OFFENDER PROVISION.

Chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 2265 the following:

`Sec. 2265A. Repeat offenders

`(a) Maximum Term of Imprisonment- The maximum term of imprisonment for a violation of this chapter after a prior domestic violence or stalking offense shall be twice the term otherwise provided under this chapter.

`(b) Definition- For purposes of this section--

`(1) the term `prior domestic violence or stalking offense' means a conviction for an offense--

`(A) under section 2261, 2261A, or 2262 of this chapter; or

`(B) under State law for an offense consisting of conduct that would have been an offense under a section referred to in subparagraph (A) if the conduct had occurred within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or in interstate or foreign commerce; and

`(2) the term `State' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.'.

[bpilgrim]

1. substantial emotional distress

more...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/images/me

peace

[lvx35]

2. That doesn't sound as bad...

Now that I see emotional distress in the same sentence as "reasonable fear of death". But isn't this the same thing that bans "annoying"? I don't see that here.

[PurgedVoter]

3. This is the version passed by the House and Senate

Here are the listings in the Thomas Registry;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3402:


The annoying line I cannot find yet. Still if you look, it says "or" when it mentions "reasonable fear of death."

[punpirate]

4. Out of curiosity...

... have you looked at the beginning of the bill to see if it defines terms, or if it refers to another statute for definitions of terms such as "substantial emotional distress." Seems odd to me that the ACLU would use that specific word ("annoying"). Yeah, they can goof, but that seems like a fairly obvious goof for a legal type.

Cheers.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

5. to me...

It just reads like the spin-tyrant is breaking that law too, by "harassing" me with eavesdropping and causing me personal distress by secretly stalking me but I'm no lawyer.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. I read elsewhere...

That they've expanded the law by including e-communications to the section that was previously addressed phone harassment.

The poster noted that it was already illegal to "annoy" (in the context of harassment) people via phone, now it's illegal via the internet, too.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

7. if this is the Kings new clothes...

Let me be the first to scream, "HE'S NAKED!"

[sandnsea]

8. Is this the hoopla???

Good grief. I thought they passed some new internet bill or something. Stalking and domestic violence legislation is some of the best work that has been done in the last 10 years. If the ACLU is fighting it, they they are really getting out there.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

9. Here's what the ACLU does by defending scoundrels

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H.L. Mencken

[sandnsea]

10. This isn't defending scoundrels

When a scoundrels legitimate constitutional rights are violated, I'm all for defending them. But whipping people into a frenzy by characterizing a bill focused on violence against women and children as a bill against annoying email is disingenuous, petty and stupid.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

11. i agree

It's also business as usual for the spin-tyrant. He believes in equality: He enjoys distorting laws and truth in an equal measure.

[onenote]

12. in fact the ACLU strongly endorsed this legislation

The VAWA bill (with cyberstalking language) was introduced in June/July 2005 and the ACLU sent a letter to the Hill endorsing it (and not mentioning anything about the cyberstalking provision). The VAWA bill had over 60 co-sponsors in the Senate, including 40 Democrats, and over 100 co-sponsors in the House, a majority of them Democrats.

Its a confusing provision. I suspect it is well-intentioned, but any time Congress tries to legislate regarding new technology there is a chance they'll screw it up. That may have happened here, or maybe not.

onenote