| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2006 01:30:20 PM · #1 |
... time to update your profiles. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
Basically if you post an "annoying" message you must make your REAL name available for the readers or you are breaking the law.
Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
This is no joke, I'm refering to bill H.R.3402
God Bless America, what will they do next.
(this law of course would only apply to US members) |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:32:03 PM · #2 |
| Just move to Canada. We have the right be assholes and not tell anyone who we are. HA! |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:34:31 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Just move to Canada. We have the right be assholes and not tell anyone who we are. HA! |
Nooooo.....!!!!
Must not reply, mustnotreply,mussn'tsaynothin',pshssshp....
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:34:38 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:34:43 PM · #5 |
| Wow...thankgod I don't live there! :p |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:35:23 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Just move to Canada. We have the right be assholes and not tell anyone who we are. HA! |
Not for long if the polls are right about Mr. Harper and his "crew".
Seriously, I read a brief little summary of the new law and it seems quite interesting. Anyone have a link to the full text (for the lazy) I could look it up, but I thought if someone knew off-hand, I'd love to read it. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:36:12 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Just move to Canada. We have the right be assholes and not tell anyone who we are. HA! |
That actually would bring up an interesting question... since this site is based out of the US I wonder if people outside the US could get away with "annoying" posts. You obviously wouldn't be breaking any of your own laws... I wonder how that would work if they allowed you to post something that was illegal according to US law.... intersting. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:36:20 PM · #8 |
Dan
As far as I can tell, this law applies only to annoying emails or messages, not to static public posts such as blogs or profiles here at DPC.
Frigging hilarious, I have to say!
Message edited by author 2006-01-10 13:36:52.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:39:28 PM · #9 |
| Well.....this has got to be.....the dumbest thing ive seen so far.....but i cant complain i didnt Vote.....=) |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:39:49 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Dan
As far as I can tell, this law applies only to annoying emails or messages, not to static public posts such as blogs or profiles here at DPC.
Frigging hilarious, I have to say! |
I agree!! I also agree on the frigging hilarious part! LOL...
Rose |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:39:51 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Dan
As far as I can tell, this law applies only to annoying emails or messages, not to static public posts such as blogs or profiles here at DPC.
Frigging hilarious, I have to say! |
What have you read that makes you think that? I'm not trying to call you out, just curious. I've only read one article and that wasn't the impression that I got so I'm curious to read more.
This is a quote from the article:
"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." |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:42:05 PM · #12 |
| and to add..hopefully at its first challenge, the legislation will fall for vagueness or for not adequately balancing rights. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:42:22 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Kavey:
Dan
As far as I can tell, this law applies only to annoying emails or messages, not to static public posts such as blogs or profiles here at DPC.
Frigging hilarious, I have to say! |
What have you read that makes you think that? I'm not trying to call you out, just curious. I've only read one article and that wasn't the impression that I got so I'm curious to read more.
This is a quote from the article:
"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." |
yea, the impression I got was that ANY form of internet communication could no longer be annonymous if it was deemed "annoying" |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:42:35 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
... time to update your profiles. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
Basically if you post an "annoying" message you must make your REAL name available for the readers or you are breaking the law.
Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
This is no joke, I'm refering to bill H.R.3402
God Bless America, what will they do next.
(this law of course would only apply to US members) |
I would like to see this law enforced hahaha no way!!! I can imagine the legal argument trying to prove a message is annoying and they wouldnt know who it was can they need to prosecute Try and prove that it was anyone at the computer if they dont have name on the message I.E on this page I use auto sign in hey is it terry typing this?? yes? ok prove it:))
Message edited by author 2006-01-10 13:44:48. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:43:45 PM · #15 |
wouldnt this send anyone who's ever ranted in the rant forum to jail? LOL
it won't hold up. plus it was snuck in so someone will blast it now that it's out there.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:45:51 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
wouldnt this send anyone who's ever ranted in the rant forum to jail? LOL
it won't hold up. plus it was snuck in so someone will blast it now that it's out there. |
Only if they don't post their real name. If you use your real name then rant and flame away!
(I have my name in my profile, WHEW! that was a close one! ;) ) |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:47:24 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
wouldnt this send anyone who's ever ranted in the rant forum to jail? LOL
it won't hold up. plus it was snuck in so someone will blast it now that it's out there. |
:)
Rose |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:49:07 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Givemeashot:
Well.....this has got to be.....the dumbest thing ive seen so far.....but i cant complain i didnt Vote.....=) |
In my mind -> That give you the right to complain - IF you vote then you picked a side and either won or lost (ok maybe not so B&W but anyway), so you cannot complain either way.
As for the dumbest - well; I'm not so sure since the list is so long I would need some time to consider. At first glance seems pretty stupid...
You cannot assume it would not be related to forum use if push came to shove. It just adds yet another issue to the cross border nature of electronic communication and how little these minions understand it. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:52:12 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by robs:
In my mind -> That give you the right to complain - IF you vote then you picked a side and either won or lost (ok maybe not so B&W but anyway), so you cannot complain either way.
|
I can complain all I want. That part's in the Constitution.
(...and don't even begin to breach the topic of "fair elections"...)
So, Mavrik, want to be the test case for the legislative challenge? |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:53:06 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Not for long if the polls are right about Mr. Harper and his "crew".
|
God help us all if that's the case, especially us in the east.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:55:21 PM · #21 |
| They should recruit members of the site council from here as part of the committee to handle this new law. They are more than qualified for this type of work. :-) |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:55:29 PM · #22 |
I'd rather not have those who openly steal and try to blame everything on someone else. I guess corruption is acceptable if it goes that way (again).
Message edited by author 2006-01-10 13:55:52. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:59:34 PM · #23 |
Luckily I've never made any annoying posts...
hehe.
:-D
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:59:56 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
So, Mavrik, want to be the test case for the legislative challenge? |
nah, my name is in my profile. you all know who's har-ass-ing you.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 02:00:30 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Luckily I've never made any annoying posts...
hehe.
:-D |
lucky you're a canuck! :)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 12:08:51 PM EDT.
