Bush says no to blog bad manners

[atotaltotalfan2001]

This is the most incredible thing I've read in a while.

How did it come to this?





http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

[LHardy]

SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:5:./temp/~c109KXOhjw:e96088:

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by LHardy
SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:5:./temp/~c109KXOhjw:e96088:

Thanks for posting this. Still, I can't tell if the law actually does what some in the cyber community says it does....what do you think?

[LHardy]

U.S. Code : Title 47 : Section 151

This is a subset of that code that is what we are talking about.
Pub. L. 105-277, div. C, title XI, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat.
2681-719, as amended by Pub. L. 107-75, Sec. 2, Nov. 28, 2001, 115
Stat. 703, provided that:
''SEC. 1100. SHORT TITLE.
''This title may be cited as the 'Internet Tax Freedom Act'.
''SEC. 1101. MORATORIUM.
''(a) Moratorium. - No State or political subdivision thereof
shall impose any of the following taxes during the period beginning
on October 1, 1998, and ending on November 1, 2003 -

AND


''(F) Material that is harmful to minors. - The term
'material that is harmful to minors' means any communication,
picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording,
writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that -
''(i) the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and
with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is
designed to pander to, the prurient interest;
''(ii) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner
patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or
simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or
simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd
exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast;
and
''(iii) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value for minors.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/47/chapters/5/subchapters/i/sections/section_151_notes.html

As you can see this is not a recent "BUSH DID IT" thing.
it has existed for years and I find no such statements as described in the article.
Unless someone has something more definite. I would call the article itself BS.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by LHardy
AND

As you can see this is not a recent "BUSH DID IT" thing.
it has existed for years and I find no such statements as described in the article.
Unless someone has something more definite. I would call the article itself BS.

I thought the amendment changing the rules for the internet re: obscene and/or harassing, annonying messages was in the law governing telephone communications....

That's what I'm looking for....

[Ragin]

I believe this is what we're looking for. Sorry for the C&P, but the website prevents me from bookmarking and linking back onto the webpage.

S.1197
Violence Against Women Act of 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.

SEC. 114. CRIMINAL PROVISION RELATING TO STALKING.

(a) Interstate Stalking- Section 2261A of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 2261A. Stalking

`Whoever--

`(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, place under surveillance, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

`(2) with the intent--

`(A) to kill, injure, harass, place under surveillance, intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or

`(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--

`(i) that person;

`(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 of that person; or

`(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;

uses the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B);

shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.'.

(b) ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR STALKING- Section 2261(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(6) Whoever commits the crime of stalking in violation of a temporary or permanent civil or criminal injunction, restraining order, no-contact order, or other order described in section 2266 of title 18, United States Code, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 1 year.'.

SEC. 115. REPEAT OFFENDER PROVISION.

Chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 2265 the following:

`Sec. 2265A. Repeat offenders

`(a) MAXIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT- The maximum term of imprisonment for a violation of this chapter after a prior domestic violence or stalking offense shall be twice the term otherwise provided under this chapter.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:68:./temp/~c109TmBXII:e70998:

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
I thought the amendment changing the rules for the internet re: obscene and/or harassing, annonying messages was in the law governing telephone communications....

That's what I'm looking for....

I think the relevant info is on page 54 of the following pdf file, which can be found at www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

I think the amendment adding the internet to this act is on or close to the last page....

[speaker]

Does any of this apply to Speakup anyway?
Speakup is channeled through one website and the threads are under the jurisdiction of res, who appoints moderators. The obscentities sent to blogs and private email addresses are of a much more vulgar nature, and would be reported and deleted and the poster banned, on Speakup. Given that, everyone and anyone is invited to post on Speakup, but with the threat of deletion if they become too offensive, such as brian, or moadib.

[Ragin]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
I think the relevant info is on page 54 of the following pdf file, which can be found at www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf



Thanks TTF ...

That's exactly what they are refering to.

They sure don't make it easy to find, do they?

Its no wonder this "slipped through" without a lot of fan fare.

[LHardy]

Originally posted by RaginTaxpayer
[BIts no wonder this "slipped through" without a lot of fan fare. [/B]

Hold It.
This wasn't slipped through. this act was established in 1934 and amended on several occassions for various reasons.
The law does not specify anything directly related to "internet spying" or any thing relatred in the article that is brought to question.
It does state that cyberstalking follows the same guide lines as telecommunications (the phone). Which was revised according to the site in 1996 (Clinton),ammended by Telecom Act of 1996.

Totals referance -


CRIMINAL PROVISION RELATING TO STALKING.

Is not directly related to Cyberstalking. Although weight from one law may carry into the other.

Still the article comes off as a scare piece to agian bait people to the BUSH is Evil campaign.

Also when was the last citizen convicted on the grounds of a prank phone call. This law is intended to give teeth for judges and prosecutors to go after real stalkers. You know the ones that talk your 14yr old into meeting them in a parking lot. Go for a drive and never come back. Your daughter has now been the victom of rape, torture, and murdered found dead in a shallow grave somewhere out there.
or
To convict that group of numbers runners and mafia types using the internet as a means of cohersion or fraudulant purposes.

Anyway you look at it it is a good law and the right people will be effected by this. None of us at speakup need worry.
Unless of course you are a covert Alquida terrorist. With plans to oust your EC government and install a new Government that actually do the will of the people.
Who would even begin to believe that?

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by LHardy
Hold It.
This wasn't slipped through. this act was established in 1934 and amended on several occassions for various reasons.
The law does not specify anything directly related to "internet spying" or any thing relatred in the article that is brought to question.
It does state that cyberstalking follows the same guide lines as telecommunications (the phone). Which was revised according to the site in 1996 (Clinton),ammended by Telecom Act of 1996.

Totals referance -


Is not directly related to Cyberstalking. Although weight from one law may carry into the other.

Still the article comes off as a scare piece to agian bait people to the BUSH is Evil campaign.

Also when was the last citizen convicted on the grounds of a prank phone call. This law is intended to give teeth for judges and prosecutors to go after real stalkers. You know the ones that talk your 14yr old into meeting them in a parking lot. Go for a drive and never come back. Your daughter has now been the victom of rape, torture, and murdered found dead in a shallow grave somewhere out there.
or
To convict that group of numbers runners and mafia types using the internet as a means of cohersion or fraudulant purposes.

Anyway you look at it it is a good law and the right people will be effected by this. None of us at speakup need worry.
Unless of course you are a covert Alquida terrorist. With plans to oust your EC government and install a new Government that actually do the will of the people.
Who would even begin to believe that?

Well, this a fine mess. The amendment in the law I was looking at had nothing to do with cyber stalking. It simply amended the comunications act regarding telephone communications to include internet users -- or so I thought.

Someone, please explain to me how it wouldn't apply to harassing and or obscene or related messages over the internet?

[LHardy]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Well, this a fine mess. The amendment in the law I was looking at had nothing to do with cyber stalking. It simply amended the comunications act regarding telephone communications to include internet users -- or so I thought.

Someone, please explain to me how it wouldn't apply to harassing and or obscene or related messages over the internet?
Total;
After reading through all the info you posted and others. Reading the article twice thinking I missed a referance point. I find nothing that relates to the articles claims. It is scare tactics.
Harassing example-
Divorced couple with restraining order. Ex uses internet to harass.
Obscene - With porn on the net this can only be languge used in conjunction with the harassment charge.
Stalking- As I described in previous post.

It is a good law that needed to include the internet.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by LHardy
Total;
After reading through all the info you posted and others. Reading the article twice thinking I missed a referance point. I find nothing that relates to the articles claims. It is scare tactics.
Harassing example-
Divorced couple with restraining order. Ex uses internet to harass.
Obscene - With porn on the net this can only be languge used in conjunction with the harassment charge.
Stalking- As I described in previous post.

It is a good law that needed to include the internet.

I'm waiting to see what shakes out. There is just too much confusion right now. From the posts commenting on the article at its web site, there seems to be a division of opinion on just what the amendment to the telecommunications act means.

[Ragin]

my 0.02 cents ...

Sec 223 [47 U.S.C. 233] of the Communications Act of 1934 basically criminalized interstate and foreign telephone harassment. (content being sexual in nature, hangup calls that annoy, unknown heavy breathers, verbal threats to instill fear, sexual or harassing communications to a minor under 18, etc)

The law that the President signed was the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, and within that Act, they specifically included the amendment to the Communication Act (which was already amended at an earlier time to include the internet)

I think the purpose was to leave no grey areas for defendants if charged under the Violence Against Women Act.

It's not a new law. It expired in Sept 2005, as far as I can determine. This reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act for fiscal years 2007-2011

[Ragin]

Originally posted by RaginTaxpayer
It expired in Sept 2005, as far as I can determine.

Ok that date doesn't look right now that I re-read it.

But anyways ... I found a summary of the law.

"Sec. 113. Preventing Cyberstalking. To strengthen stalking prosecution tools, this section
amends the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) to expand the definition of a
telecommunications device to include any device or software that uses the Internet and possible
Internet technologies such as voice over internet services. This amendment will allow federal
prosecutors more discretion in charging stalking cases that occur entirely over the internet."


http://www.garmo.com/pdf/vawa-law.pdf

[Northshore]

This is annoyng me.

Watch it!