Bush criminalizes cyber-''harassment''

[Gabi Hayes]

including the "intent to annoy"!!!!!!

haven't been around much....has this been discussed? heard it on the radio the other day

if you haven't seen this, you'll be blown away

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2148324/flame-wars-criminalised

A US legal amendment has made it an offence to annoy anyone anonymously over the internet.

President Bush signed the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, which includes a clause on 'cyber-stalking'.

This amends existing telephone harassment laws and extends them to the internet, providing a maximum two-year jail sentence for anyone using use the web "without disclosing identity and with intent to annoy".

[Stephanie]

1. It has been discussed - and I know that's not your real name, "Gabi"

I find your post very annoying. You're under arrest!

[Gabi Hayes]

3. No....YOU're under surveillance, soon to be arrested!

I could only find one story about it today.

are there any links/discusssions you're aware of?

this is amazing stuff; how can they get away with this? do dems ever read any of this legislation. how can NOBODY have made a gigantic stink over this

I thought I was having a nightmare when I heard about it......

[Stephanie]

5. some threads >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=91724

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=91943


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=89213

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=87438

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=87288

[Gabi Hayes]

7. thnx....now, back to work

they'll be very annoyed at me

[onenote]

2. its been discussed out the wazoo

Although it appears likely that a lot of the commentary is overblown. After all, the ACLU endorsed the legislation, which suggests that just maybe its not as dangerous as some people are assuming.

onenote


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2030893#2030904

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2358616

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2359242

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2358170

[Gabi Hayes]

6. thanks....interesting that ACLU accepts it, but the LANGUAGE

in the bill is very clear, it would seem, from what I heard, and from the quoted section. seems as ripe for abuse as anything I've seen out of the kleptocracy

guess I'll read those links, though

[onenote]

9. not really so clear

See, for example, the following post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2030893&mesg_id=2031572

onenote

[marmar]

4. Kind of like Hitler outlawing "obscene" art...

The irony is deep enough to swim in.

:think:

[txindy]

8. I'm rather annoyed with the daily "Dems took from Abramoff" threads

So, I may just have to act on that annoyance.

:rofl:

[Boojatta]

10. Directed vs. Public Messages

Are they really not making a distinction between emails -- which are deliberately transmitted to particular email accounts -- and mere message posting? Will it also become illegal to publish a physical book that was allegedly published with the intent to annoy?