Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

1. 

   CB Pascal, 9 Feb 2006 @ 3:40pm

   
   

   That's the problem with the majority of

   laws. They're not clearly written enough for a layman to read. Obfuscating the point with double talk just makes it so that more people break laws unknowingly since they didn't understand what they just read.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2006 @ 4:43pm

   
   

   Re: That's the problem with the majority of

   Hah. You said Obfuscating.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

3. 

   The Doorman, 9 Feb 2006 @ 5:51pm

   
   

   Re: That's the problem with the majority of

   Ha. So did you. And you seem to have a proclivity for being pedantic and abstrusively tenebrous.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

4. 

   Christopher, 9 Feb 2006 @ 5:53pm

   
   

   Not so unclear really...

   "any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person"

   
   also/or
   

   "which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age"

   
   and/or
   

   "repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication;"

   
   
   Not altogether unclear... it is only criminal if the intent is to annoy (abuse threaten or harass)...
   
   The part that amuses me with getting up at arms is that it ALREADY included text messaging, paging, email, newsgroups... etc...
   
   Doing any of the above (and MORE) over a "telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device" is a violation.
   
   I would have considered an internet connected PC to be a "telecommunications device" all along... and so would you...
   
   This law was ALREADY there, they just clarified it...
   
   Spammers are just about the only people SAFE from this, because their intent is (cough) pure... They ONLY want to advertise, possibly cheat you, possibly offer you fake rolex's... They are never actively trying to annoy you... the rest of us... eh... we tend to have other things in mind.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

5. 

   Seth Finkelstein, 9 Feb 2006 @ 6:36pm

   
   

   Crying Wolf, again

   The "interpretation" is a fiction concocted by the same guy who fabricated the Al Gore / Internet story (and for a time, was proud of that).

   For the debunking, read: http://volokh .com/posts/1136873535.shtml

   [Orin Kerr, January 10, 2006 at 1:12am]
   A Skeptical Look at "Create an E-annoyance, Go to Jail":

   Declan McCullagh has penned a column that is custom-designed to race around the blogosphere. It begins:

   "Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. ... [ed: snip]"

   This is just the perfect blogosphere story, isn't it? It combines threats to bloggers with government incompetence and Big Brother, all wrapped up and tied togther with a little bow. Unsurprisingly, a lot of bloggers are taking the bait.

   Skeptical readers will be shocked, shocked to know that the truth is quite different. ...

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

6. 

   susan, 26 Aug 2010 @ 3:08am

   
   

   i need mailer

   i need mailer

   [ link to this | view in thread ]