Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

News.com ^ | 1/9/06 | Declan McCullagh

[Lathspell]

LOL

[A. Pole]

Admin Moderator: Please delete this duplicate posting, thanks.

By all means, it is very annoying.

[thoughtomator]

I'd rather give up chatting on the Internet than be in Canada.

[Lathspell]

I've notified Arlen Specter that you want me punished to the maximum extent of the new law!

Ha! That dumb RINO could NEVER figure out who I am in a million years (and I don't care if that annoys him).

[rogue yam]

Jeeze, there goes my whole M.O.

[neutrino]

Thanks for the ping.

The sad reality is that there is no standard for "annoy". Were I to write that a poster is a fine fellow, and the poster happened to be female, then - arguably - I might have annoyed her. Surely no jury would vote to convict - but the cost of mounting a defense against a federal charge could be high.

This new law is, in my opinion, one of the worst pieces of legislation to become law ever.

[Freedom of Speech Wins]

It was through anonymous writings that freedom and liberty were obtained.

Between this and the telephone law Bush is creating communist style censorship.

At least with communism people have guaranteed income though.

Worst of both systems is what we are getting here.

[Freedom of Speech Wins]

Any posting on Free Republic now can net two years in jail I guess.

Welcome to America!

[Freedom of Speech Wins]

That is your interpretation only. It could be interepreted as broadly as those who wish to come after you want to.

[Aliska]

My logic doesn't always work like others think, but I would think if you slandered someone or posted false information about them, the law would hold up, screen name or no screen name, public figures exempted (I'm not real clear on the delineation).

If you are telling the truth, it should not matter, same as if you are just blowing off steam. There are already laws that cover threats and possibly cyberstalking.

There isn't enough jail space to hold all the nasty people who say Bush is a moron and worse on the internet. Presumably they are exempt.

It was sleazy to slip this one in as a rider, and it should be rewritten as a single piece of legislation or stricken down. Better Congress take care of it rather than having it arbitrated in court which is an unnecessary waste of resources. Law or not law, it is my feeling that Hillary would try to shut down opposition sites if she ever manages to become president. I think Kerry would have done the same. FR would be one of the first to be targeted.

[ArmstedFragg]

Take a look at yesterday's Instapundit. Glenn links to a discussion that pretty thoroughly refutes this author's interpretation of the act. The section in question is an extension to an anti-stalking law that's been on the books for years. That section's been pretty thoroughly reviewed and interpreted by the courts, so there's a limited amount of room for prosecutorial exuberance.

[Freedom of Speech Wins]

Can you post this here for me? Would like to see it. Hope you are right. One problem though could be people who claim they are being stalked in order to try to prevent the truth from coming out.

[John Filson]

This is big news. Too bad so few people realize it.