We Now Have an Official Nazi State
can Now go to Jail For "Annoying"
5th 2006 President Bush signed into
law an act subjecting people to jail
for "annoying" people on
the Internet buried in the so-called
Violence Against Women and Department
of Justice Reauthorization Act.
You can now go to jail for "annoying"
anyone, in their opinion (if not whose?)
thanks to the Violence Against Women
Act (VAWA) pushed through again by
well funded and organized radical
feminists, and their friends in Washington
who get political capital and mileage.
VAWA has provided over $4 Billion
in funding which is generally used
to oppress men's rights and place
women rights at unthinkable levels,
with no parity or fairness whatsoever?
It is written to be sexist and hence
is illegal sexual discrimination.
Harming anyone is a crime already.
Why should women be able to get men
thrown in jail becuase of "fear",
being "annoyed" or other
non-criminal activities? Harassment
is a crime, theoretically with some
sexual parity? Why should women
be able to get MEN thrown in jail
because they are "annoyed"
or at the peak of their menstrual
ridiculous and unconstitutional acts
being implemented as law are proof
that our system of government has
broken down, probably beyond simple
repair. Congress is now enacting laws
that are completely unconstitutional,
for what must only be personal and/or
party political gain, without any
respect for the rights of the governed
as "We the people . . "
These folks are there to protect us,
not legislate away our rights.
Laws like this empower judges. politicians
and others with unthinkable power
to put anyone in jail for nearly any
reason. Did you annoy someone by expressing
your opinion (freedom of speech).
Did you annoy someone by telling the
truth - maybe they are a jerk and
deserve to be told to give them a
chance of redemption and introspection?
Did you annoy someone by just being
Personal Disclaimer; It is not my intent
to annoy anyone in posting this
article, please don't turn me in should you
still feel like feeling annoyed by it.
My desire to leave the state of MA may
just have been broadened to include
all 50 states. Has anyone besides me
contributed the recent years loss of
population in MA to anything other than
"high cost of housing" and
so called "anti illegal immigration
sentiment"? Such as Family Court,
DSS, high taxes and politically
charged selective prosecutions.
Off to jail with you!
Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST
Annoying someone via the Internet
is now a federal crime.
It's no joke. Last Thursday, President
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
American Civil Liberties Union.
"What's annoying to one person
may not be annoying to someone else."
Buried deep in the
new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously
titled bit called "Preventing
Cyberstalking." It rewrites
existing telephone harassment law
to prohibit anyone from using the
Internet "without disclosing
his identity and with intent to annoy."
To grease the rails for this idea,
Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania
Republican, and the section's other
sponsors slipped it into an unrelated,
must-pass bill to fund the Department
of Justice. The plan: to make it politically
infeasible for politicians to oppose
The tactic worked. The bill cleared
the House of Representatives by voice
vote, and the Senate unanimously approved
it Dec. 16.
There's an interesting side note.
version that the House
approved in September had radically
different wording. It was reasonable
by comparison, and criminalized only
using an "interactive computer
service" to cause someone "substantial
That kind of prohibition might make
sense. But why should merely annoying
someone be illegal?
It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when
you annoy someone on the Internet,
you must disclose your identity.
Here's the relevant language.
device or software that can be used
to originate telecommunications
or other types of communications
that are transmitted, in whole or
in part, by the Internet... without
disclosing his identity and with
intent to annoy, abuse, threaten,
or harass any person...who receives
the communications...shall be fined
under title 18 or imprisoned not
more than two years, or both."
are perfectly legitimate reasons to
set up a Web site or write something
incendiary without telling everyone
exactly who you are.
Think about it: A
woman fired by a manager who demanded
sexual favors wants to blog about
it without divulging her full name.
An aspiring pundit hopes to set up
Suck.com. A frustrated citizen
wants to send e-mail describing corruption
in local government without worrying
In each of those
three cases, someone's probably going
to be annoyed. That's enough to make
the action a crime. (The Justice Department
won't file charges in every case,
of course, but trusting prosecutorial
discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco
resident who runs the
Annoy.com site, says a feature
permitting visitors to send
obnoxious and profane postcards
through e-mail could be imperiled.
what's annoying? That's the ultimate
question," Fein said. He added:
"If you send an annoying message
via the United States Post Office,
do you have to reveal your identity?
once sued to overturn part of the
Communications Decency Act that outlawed
transmitting indecent material "with
intent to annoy." But the courts
ruled the law applied only to
obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't
have to worry.
not going to close the site down,"
Fein said on Friday. "I would
fight it on First Amendment grounds."
He's right. Our esteemed
politicians can't seem to grasp this
simple point, but the First Amendment
protects our right to write something
that annoys someone else.
It even shields our
right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Clarence Thomas
defended this principle magnificently
in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman
who was punished for distributing
anonymous political pamphlets.
If President Bush
truly believed in the principle of
limited government (it is in his
official bio), he'd realize that
the law he signed cannot be squared
with the Constitution he swore to
And then he'd repeat
what President Clinton did a decade
ago when he felt compelled to sign
a massive telecommunications law.
Clinton realized that the
section of the law punishing abortion-related
material on the Internet was unconstitutional,
directed the Justice Department
not to enforce it.
Bush has the chance
to show his respect for what he calls
personal freedoms. Now we'll see
if the president rises to the occasion.
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's
Washington, D.C., correspondent. He
chronicles the busy intersection between
technology and politics. Before that,
he worked for several years as Washington
bureau chief for Wired News. He has
also worked as a reporter for The
Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired.