• You've discovered RedGuides 📕 an EverQuest multi-boxing community 🛡️🧙🗡️. We want you to play several EQ characters at once, come join us and say hello! 👋
  • IS THIS SITE UGLY? Change the look. To dismiss this notice, click the X --->

RIP Free Speech. (1 Viewer)

Skeptic

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
RedCents
As a Conservative, I'm having a harder and harder time supporting the Bush Administration...probably because they aren't actually Conservative.

I normally like to keep Politics forbidden here, but this one affects you, me and everyone who posts on Forums like these:

Section 113 of the bill includes this:

(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.

The effect of this, even though you can't tell it from the language of the bill, is to rewrite this part of the Communications Act of 1934 to read: (B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number and; (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number ((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)).’

That makes "annoying" someone via comments posted on a blog or Web site a crime punishable by fines of up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for up to six months.

That's bad news, because it silences critics. Even if you find a critic annoying, they have a right to speak. The bargain we made with the Web was that everyone, even annoying anonymous critics, have a voice. That's been rolled back and, along with it, another important foundation of freedom of speech.
 
Correction: if you "annoy" someone while disguising or attempting to disguise your identity, you are breaking the law.

You can annoy someone all you want, just be sure to tell them who you are.
 
But you can talk about it without commentary like
Skeptic said:
As a Conservative, I'm having a harder and harder time supporting the Bush Administration...probably because they aren't actually Conservative.
Just seen it go bad in the past. Not that I agree or disagree with quoted statement.
 
If you want to be anonymous on the internet, you can. Or you can legally change your name to John Doe or something common - making it impossible to track you (by name).
 
Only a matter of time before Blair jumps on the band wagon and follows our leader Bush (he's our leader as well now you know, Bush is just his lapdog...) -

Rock on the "United Kingdom of States!"

-_-
 
Ok that statement annoyed me. What's your name?

Followed by a reply saying "No wait, your statement saying I annoyed you annoys me. Whats YOUR name?"

..........
 
Ok - so who do I collect the $50k from? Now, if this only applied to telemarketers and spammers, that wouldn't be so bad.
 
wait so people who go on alts in the world of warcraft servers that annoy me i acn get fined oooooo.....
 
RIP Free Speech.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top