Careful, flaming is now a Felony

[Mac Medic]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28871

Nothing better to do with themselves I guess.

[EzyStvy]

without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person." So getting a good conviction is dependant on people agreeing on what is the meaning of the word annoying.

We probably need Lawyery Ron to stop by, but I'm pretty sure someone has to prove the Intent part. I annoy all sorts of people but it genneraly isn't my "intent" to do so...

[doctorgonzo]

I saw that yesterday too. There is some debate as to whether that includes anonymous e-mail, or if it is just limited to Internet-based phone technologies.

If it does apply to e-mail, then it is clearly unconstitutional.

[David M]

It is a clear violation of the First Ammendment. I doubt any sane judge would uphold the law. But on the other hand we do get some pretty insane legal decisions.

[Force Flow]

There is a difference between flaming and stalking. Flaming, yes, can produce some heated arguments and less than cheerful words, but if people wish to behave in that manner, it's their prerogative.

Stalking on the other hand can lead to real danger...either to your heath or monetarily.

Knowing that news sites tend to sensationalize stuff like this...I tried to backtrack a little bit and dig up the bill's summary and text.

The summary from the cornel site in the cnet article was considerably different than what was in the offical bill's text from the library of congress.

cnet article: http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...2491&subj=news
cornel summary: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...3----000-.html
library of congress:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109HqS2sc::

LoC Cyberstalking portion of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...dN5Hwe:e91030:

Originally Posted by origional text `Whoever-- `(1) tavels 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, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, 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, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or 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, any interactive computer service, 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);

Basically, that's more or less a standard definition for stalking.

Now, the sensationalist twist is that cornel and cnet picked out goes from "substantial emotional distress" to "annoy".

Second, the cornel summarization doesn't look like bill H.R.3402. I'm not exactly sure *where* that summary is from.

[edit]: cnet states that in earlier revisions that the bill was more ambiguous. It wasn't as specific in terms of cyberstalking. Under revision 4; Subtitle K, Sec. 509, you can see the Cyberstalking taking shape: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...qS2sc:e214946:

I do not see where "annoy" was placed.

Here are the different revisions: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3402:

[edit2]: it seems that the LoC page uses temporary links. The one above this edit was good. The bill in question is revision 6 on the list, Subtitle K, Sec. 113.

[mairving]

A little jail time is not as bad as the penalty for flaming here...a lifetime ban to the Mech. That's gotta be worse than jail.

[Strider]

There a good reason flaming isn't allowed for it stops people from posting questions on forums on the internet. The thing I can't stand is when somone posts a thread and a person replies "Noob, blah blah", I just shake my head and think to myself that we have all been there and this might prevent the person from posting again in the future. However, thanks to PCMech policy of no flaming this problem isn't prevalent as some other message boards that I visit and the final result is better service provided to everyone.
The way I read the article it's more geared toward the corporate spammer that is harrassing the mass population than the individual poster (unless that poster is getting way way way out of hand), besides I think this a law that is impossible to enforce.

[David M]

It is pretty obvious that the writer of the article has a personal agenda against the President. Who writes the laws?..the House and Senate. The President can only sign or veto a bill into law. Once again, the writer of a news article twists and omits in order to further his or her personal agenda.

[Redfallon]

Originally Posted by David M It is pretty obvious that the writer of the article has a personal agenda against the President. Who writes the laws?..the House and Senate. The President can only sign or veto a bill into law. Once again, the writer of a news article twists and omits in order to further his or her personal agenda.

I agree with ya 100% David! However, if I were to express any more on the subject we'd get directed over to forumclick.

[doctorgonzo]

I thought that I had read that Bush or his administration had asked Republican Senator Arlen Specter to insert the language into the bill, but I could be mistaken; Specter did put it in there, however. As for Bush being responisble for the law, I guess that depends on your perspective of the unitary executive!

[David M]

Right Fallon. That is why I try to keep things politically neutral. There is nothing wrong with exposing a writers bias, so long as your not slinging mud at the left or right.