Honda Car Forum

While I am sure that the courts will toss this, I don't have deep
enough pockets
to even think about risking mere arrest. The court costs would destroy
me. Call
me a coward, but this group is at best "fun".

At the very least I am sure my mispellings will "annoy" someone.

I don't know exactly when this law takes effect, most laws become
effective
45 days after the POTUS signs them.

Have fun, keep safe and I have enjoyed my time here.
I have learned a lot and hope that my comments hav helped at least a
few people
solve thier particular nightmare.

Terry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog
as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small
favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet,
is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and
two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv
Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
"What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

<http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news>

Problem with this is that you and I are in Canada. The law does not cover
us. We can annoy anyone we want anytime.

I think I'll start right away: Hey Terry, your shoes look funny. Are they
hand-me-downs from Ronald McDonald?




r2000swler@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1136886689.326258.78040@g43g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com:

> While I am sure that the courts will toss this, I don't have deep
> enough pockets
> to even think about risking mere arrest. The court costs would destroy
> me. Call
> me a coward, but this group is at best "fun".
>
> At the very least I am sure my mispellings will "annoy" someone.
>
> I don't know exactly when this law takes effect, most laws become
> effective
> 45 days after the POTUS signs them.
>
> Have fun, keep safe and I have enjoyed my time here.
> I have learned a lot and hope that my comments hav helped at least a
> few people
> solve thier particular nightmare.
>
> Terry
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- 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.
>
> In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a
> blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for
> small favors, I guess.
>
> This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of
> Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and
> Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include
> stiff fines and two years in prison.
>
> "The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv
> Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
> "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
>
> <http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...10-1028_3-6022
> 491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news>
>
>

TeGGeR® wrote:
> Problem with this is that you and I are in Canada. The law does not cover
> us. We can annoy anyone we want anytime.
>
> I think I'll start right away: Hey Terry, your shoes look funny. Are they
> hand-me-downs from Ronald McDonald?
--------------------------
I live in Lexington Kentucky, USA, in what used to be known as the land
of the.
Ourr staff lawyer thinks this will be struck down, but that the PC
crowd is looking
for someone to hang. Given some of my posts in other groups could be
considered
objectionable, and are certain to "annoy" someone, and the fact I am
trying to get
the finances organised to the point wehre I can do a early, if 57 or so
is early,
retirement.

Given the flame war I started in rec.radio.sw 3 years ago with a
suggestion for a simple antennas, and the resulting cyber stalking that
nearly got me fired when a goon crashed our mail server, I have
debating bailing from NGs since early September last fall. If you want
the long boring details just google my posts in RRS from mid Aug
through the end
of Sept.

Keep up the good work and thanks for all the pointers on Civics.

When and if this silly law is struck down, I may be back.

Terry

TeGGeR® wrote:
> Problem with this is that you and I are in Canada. The law does not cover
> us. We can annoy anyone we want anytime.
>
> I think I'll start right away: Hey Terry, your shoes look funny. Are they
> hand-me-downs from Ronald McDonald?
>
>

I've never seen Terry and Ronald McDonald at the same time -- maybe it
is one of those Superman things...

Annoying can mean too many things, imo. Life's too short so I'm not
gonna worry about it.

(If this becomes law I think I'm going after all the other users of my
service provider, since they are annoying me when my connection becomes
slow when they start using their internet connection....

Remco (ehhh.. - I mean John)




>
>
> r2000swler@hotmail.com wrote in
> news:1136886689.326258.78040@g43g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com:
>
> > While I am sure that the courts will toss this, I don't have deep
> > enough pockets
> > to even think about risking mere arrest. The court costs would destroy
> > me. Call
> > me a coward, but this group is at best "fun".
> >
> > At the very least I am sure my mispellings will "annoy" someone.
> >
> > I don't know exactly when this law takes effect, most laws become
> > effective
> > 45 days after the POTUS signs them.
> >
> > Have fun, keep safe and I have enjoyed my time here.
> > I have learned a lot and hope that my comments hav helped at least a
> > few people
> > solve thier particular nightmare.
> >
> > Terry
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -- 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.
> >
> > In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a
> > blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for
> > small favors, I guess.
> >
> > This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of
> > Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and
> > Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include
> > stiff fines and two years in prison.
> >
> > "The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv
> > Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
> > "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
> >
> > <http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...10-1028_3-6022
> > 491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news>
> >
> >

<r2000swler@hotmail.com> wrote
> When and if this silly law is struck down, I may be back.

Terry,

For one thing, the law applies only to those who post
without revealing their identity. This means one can demand
prosecution of the authors of any political web site,
including the National Democratic Party's and the National
Republican Party's. One way or another, their web sites
annoy and harass someone, somewhere. Same for anyone who
posts anonymously any political speech.

According to the courts, "political speech" is pretty wide
ranging. The point of the First Amendment is, among other
things and according to the courts, to promote a free
exchange of ideas in the "marketplace," to get to the "best
solution," be it fixing one's car, or fixing a broken health
care system. Of course there are limits, like posting a
physical threat to a person's health. But giving your
assessment of a car or radio or whatever problem most
certainly is an important idea that belongs in the
marketplace.

In addition, you indicate you're Terry from Lexington,
Kentucky, and you're a guru on many aspects of Hondas. You
have in my estimation posted your identity.

(Never mind that the right to publish speech anonymously has
also been well-established, though again, within the
aforementioned limits. The Federalist Papers were first
published anonymously, so pointed out one court not long
ago, in protecting a certain person's right to publish
anonymously.)

Once this law is challenged in the courts, it will be struck
down quicker than you or I can do an oil change. And I'm
sure you're plenty fast at this.

You are in no danger. I hope you have been posting to this
thread tongue-in-cheek!

Elle wrote:
> <r2000swler@hotmail.com> wrote
> > When and if this silly law is struck down, I may be back.
>
> Terry,
>
> For one thing, the law applies only to those who post
> without revealing their identity. This means one can demand
> prosecution of the authors of any political web site,
> including the National Democratic Party's and the National
> Republican Party's. One way or another, their web sites
> annoy and harass someone, somewhere. Same for anyone who
> posts anonymously any political speech.
>
> According to the courts, "political speech" is pretty wide
> ranging. The point of the First Amendment is, among other
> things and according to the courts, to promote a free
> exchange of ideas in the "marketplace," to get to the "best
> solution," be it fixing one's car, or fixing a broken health
> care system. Of course there are limits, like posting a
> physical threat to a person's health. But giving your
> assessment of a car or radio or whatever problem most
> certainly is an important idea that belongs in the
> marketplace.
>
> In addition, you indicate you're Terry from Lexington,
> Kentucky, and you're a guru on many aspects of Hondas. You
> have in my estimation posted your identity.
>
> (Never mind that the right to publish speech anonymously has
> also been well-established, though again, within the
> aforementioned limits. The Federalist Papers were first
> published anonymously, so pointed out one court not long
> ago, in protecting a certain person's right to publish
> anonymously.)
>
> Once this law is challenged in the courts, it will be struck
> down quicker than you or I can do an oil change. And I'm
> sure you're plenty fast at this.
>
> You are in no danger. I hope you have been posting to this
> thread tongue-in-cheek!

Well put.

I think he has been posting tongue in cheek too, hency my reply to the
McDonalds shoe comment.

It is a pretty weird law they are suggesting, besides it being totally
unconstitutional, it is also totally uninforceable:

Anonymous posting of this nature will be illegal.
Who are they going after? The poster is anonymous!
Ok, they find this person, but wouldn't that mean he wasn't anonymous
after all? (they did find him, right? Way to be anonymous!)

Kind of a circle jerk, if you ask me. What are they smoking on the
hill, anyway?

"Remco" <whybcuz@yahoo.com> wrote
> I think he has been posting tongue in cheek too, hency my
reply to the
> McDonalds shoe comment.

Yes, Tegger and you can be a scream, but annoying ones(!) So
look out...

Not. :-)

> It is a pretty weird law they are suggesting, besides it
being totally
> unconstitutional, it is also totally uninforceable:
>
> Anonymous posting of this nature will be illegal.
> Who are they going after? The poster is anonymous!
> Ok, they find this person, but wouldn't that mean he
wasn't anonymous
> after all? (they did find him, right? Way to be
anonymous!)

lol

> Kind of a circle jerk, if you ask me. What are they
smoking on the
> hill, anyway?

Some chatter on this at
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...o+to+jail/2010
-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news suggests
the law was meant to apply to people who used their internet
connections to somehow dial up a specific person (not
address a whole audience), anonymously, and harass him/her.

I think even Pres. Bush (someone whom I consider no rocket
scientist) would concede that this law is easily misread,
and he doesn't want to stop dissenting speech with it, and
that dissenting speech takes many, legit forms and is
important to this country. Often "annoying" speech is
critical to meaningful and good change for society.

Elle
"Your mother wears WD-40 behind her ears!"

r2000swler@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1136905281.446466.277680@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:

>
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>> Problem with this is that you and I are in Canada. The law does not
>> cover us. We can annoy anyone we want anytime.
>>
>> I think I'll start right away: Hey Terry, your shoes look funny. Are
>> they hand-me-downs from Ronald McDonald?
> --------------------------
> I live in Lexington Kentucky, USA, in what used to be known as the
> land of the.



Ohhh. For some reason I thought you lived in Winnipeg.

Oops.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

different Terry.....

Terry in winnipeg

TeGGeR® wrote:
>>> Problem with this is that you and I are in Canada. The law does not
>>> cover us. We can annoy anyone we want anytime.
>[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> I live in Lexington Kentucky, USA, in what used to be known as the
>> land of the.
>
>Ohhh. For some reason I thought you lived in Winnipeg.
>
>Oops.
>

--
Message posted via http://www.carkb.com

TeGGeR® wrote:
> Problem with this is that you and I are in Canada.

As am I, and I thank God (and my parents) for that on a regular basis!

> The law does not cover us. We can annoy anyone we want anytime.

Sweet land of Liberals...er... nevermind.

> I think I'll start right away: Hey Terry, your shoes look funny. Are they
> hand-me-downs from Ronald McDonald?

My sister is ex-military. I used to tell my neice that her momma wears
combat boots, but it just didn't seem as funny...


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0602-1, 01/09/2006
Tested on: 1/10/2006 4:30:20 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com