Matrix Games Forums

Not a joke. More laws like this coming our way. Whenever I list whats in the works people laugh in disbelief but oh well. In the end I keep being right about what passes and what doesn't. They are mostly snuck in but they always stick. There are lots more than anyone even realizes already. The internet is going to be a very very different place inside of 5 years. You can already say bye-bye to any thought of real anonymity.

This one is pretty broad in its possible applications.

The only other thing I have left to say is "Your all under arrest. Anything you say can and will be..."

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyan ... &subj=news

LOL you are TROLLING Veldor I'm reporting you to the FBI, hahaha

This is where it will fail though Freedom of Speech:

(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.)

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

LOL you are TROLLING Veldor I'm reporting you to the FBI, hahaha

This is where it will fail though Freedom of Speech:

(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.)

"Whoever...utilizes 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... 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."

The key word to me is "intent". And, I'm sorry but its likely the first amendment does little to protect you. If that were the case you could crank call anyone you wanted as much as you wanted. You could write threatening letters. You could send pornographic images to that girl you really like. And so on. Yet all of those things are illegal despite our first amendment rights. As they should be.

Here with this law too, intent must be proven. I'd guess that generally means showing a pattern of activity towards a specific individual, which is exactly why it falls within the "Violence against Woman... Act" Essentially enhanced anti-cyberstalking laws that can be used more broadly to protect anyone even you or I.

Also note that one must simply disclose their real identity if they wish to troll or flame legally.. [:D]

So, as I was saying.. "You have the right to an attorney..."

I hope they start with the Yahoo discussion boards. There's enough Tards there to keep em busy indefinitely.

Hi, You can still be a butthead you just need to let them know who you are.

"without disclosing his identity" seems to be the key. The forums aren't anonymous, thus it wouldn't apply to flaming... Interesting that that "his or her" is not used.

ORIGINAL: gunny

I hope they start with the Yahoo discussion boards. There's enough Tards there to keep em busy indefinitely.

LMAO [:D]

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

The forums aren't anonymous, thus it wouldn't apply to flaming...

They are anonymous if you don't include your real name. I seriously doubt the average poster here put his or her full real name in, even if you did choose too.

Nuts. Som parts around the world people are still been raped, tortured and murdered but som politicians are more concerned about trolling in the internet?

So where can I deliver my testimony? I have som trolling raports.

ORIGINAL: Veldor

They are anonymous if you don't include your real name. I seriously doubt the average poster here put his or her full real name in, even if you did choose too.

AFAIK the IP numbers are registered, at least they are in other forums using the same software. The reason for it is to block unwanted people from posting.

There would be 20 million under aged violating this law on a daily basis. I hardly doubt this law would, could or should ever be enforced. It's one of those 1700's 1800's laws, you know like it's against the law to hang your clothes out on a Wednesday in Wyoming, lord knows why, it was just one of those stupid laws. Another one was spitting on the sidewalk. JAYWALKING one of the most broken laws of America and there's 100's more (I've even seen law enforcement officers break the jaywalking law). There's a book out of them probably in your local bookstore. Silly Laws still active but no longer inforced.

That would also mean no one on any forum could ever say anything good or bad about a game again, because it would "annoy" someone.

And Veldor you're starting to get annoying.

Something just came to me about this law, you reckon ole Bush has been getting a lot of annoying anonymous hate email since he's been in office? LOL 48%+ of the population doesn't agree with him so I would think it's very possible.

Let's see, who can I flame? ravinhood!!!!! How dare you have only 1437 posts!! You should be chastised!!!!!! sorry ravin, you were the first name I saw [:D][:D][:D][:D]

Here's some commentary on this...

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006 ... 1136923654

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus
AFAIK the IP numbers are registered, at least they are in other forums using the same software. The reason for it is to block unwanted people from posting.

That's not sufficient by any means IMO, or the specific text wouldn't have needed to be in the law. The point isn't for law enforcement to be able to figure out who you really are, the point is for the individual (so as to be able to identify perhaps that you are the same individual that's been following her to work or making prank calls, the one who threw a brick through the window etc). The same rules as if you call and say hateful things but don't identify yourself. Just because the phone company can trace or lookup the call doesn't change the fact that you did not identify yourself.

You have to take the whole law into account, and the laws it modified to really understand the scope. It's not like most of you are thinking. Think of it in the context of existing harrassment and stalking laws. If you show up at the supermarket where your ex is once or twice its hardly going to be stalking. If you make a phone call or two its hardly harassment. But now if there is a repeated pattern to the behavior in regards to one person and directed at another, suddenly it quickly becomes stalking or harassment. Those laws have simply now been extended to include the various internet forms of communications such as primarily Voice over IP calls, email and forum postings. Etc.

So on one level no one really need worry, but on another, If someone is seriously "following you around virtually" or otherwise being a complete nuisance online, you have some potential legal recourses now. So the vast majority are still not guilty of anything, though there is much more of "grey area" now then before that would apply to some. Perhaps even some on these very forums.

I have to go now, there is a pair of police officers at the door...

Since I am not an American, I guess I can say what I want still [:'(]

American Politicians are beyond stupid!

Signed ... Mr.Anonymous [:'(]

(oops, my ip traffic crossed the border)

signed ... Ray [X(]

http://technorati.com/search/declan

Wow take a look at all those news postings about this. This could be interesting what this law leads to. Oh wait this is probably annoying someone. I'm in big trouble. lol I somehow think this is going to get wayyyyy out of hand before it's over with. But, just in case I find someone annoying here, what number do I call to report them?

BTW my real name is Lana Turner.


This part pretty well sums it up that we have nothing to fear and can continue to annoy one another for the remainder of our lives.

[whoever] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications . . . shall be [punished].

[ Seems pretty broad, doesn't it? Well, there's a hook. It turns out that the statute can only be used when prohibiting the speech would not violate the First Amendment. If speech is protected by the First Amendment, the statute is unconstitutional as applied and the indictment must be dismissed. An example of this is United States v. Popa, 187 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In Popa, the defendant called the U.S. Attorney for D.C on the telephone several times, and each time would hurl insults at the U.S. Attorney without identifying himself. He was charged under 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C), and raised a First Amendment defense. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Ginsburg reversed the conviction: punishing the speech violated the Supreme Court's First Amendment test in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), he reasoned, such that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to those facts.

Under cases like Popa, 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C) is broad on its face but narrow in practice. That is, the text looks really broad, but prosecutors know that they can't bring a prosecution unless doing so would comply with the Supreme Court's First Amendment cases.

That brings us to the new law. The new law simply expands the old law so that it applies to the Internet as well as the telephone network. It does this by taking the old definition of "telecommunications device" from 47 U.S.C. 223(h), which used to be telephone-specific, and expanding it in this context to include "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."]

Veldor I think you went an over reacted to this. But, it was a fun read before the "facts" were presented.

Does this mean I can have the FBI go out and arrest everyone who calls trying to sell something? I consider them annoying!

They don't tell me who they are and they block their phone number [:-]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Veldor I think you went an over reacted to this. But, it was a fun read before the "facts" were presented.

How so did I over-react? I merely posted the info. In fact, if you read my own last post, I was the first to point out it really wouldn't apply to just any random postings or emails by anyone in particular (annoying or otherwise).

It's meant for specific situations where the abuse would be apparant, and its meant to extend existing laws as stated. It also helps in that so called "internet related abuse" can now be combined with other more traditional methods that might otherwise show someone to be behaving in a pattern of activities that otherwise would not be severe enough or in sufficient quantity of severity were the internet related items left out.

The notion that the law is useless and laughable is an equally flawed statement as are all the post you would quote, or I for that matter, that reference legal jargon to one degree or another.

That's why we have laws, lawyers, and courts in the first place. But what is important here is that we do have a good law to most importantly continue to aid in protecting women, and secondly to provide some foundation for others that may suffer repeated internet abuse from the same individual source.

There are ALOT of people that have used that later point to habitually harass individuals and they have simply finally put an end to that.

As for the police still outside my door, I don't know if its related to this or not. I hear the choppers circling above now. They'll probably cut the power soon. Time to make one last stand...

last stand

Oh oh, now you've done it ... those are "trigger" words that kick off the automatic terror alert ... it will not just be the FBI at the door ... expect a platoon of marines too [:-]

Mr Frag your about to look real stupid [;)] [:D]