A new law

[+ deej]

This is laughable and won't withstand legal challenge, but see:

 

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news

 

Excerpt:

 

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

 

It's no joke. 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.

[Chuck50]

The will shut the site down quick HUGS Chuck

 

It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

 

"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

he he

im sure not

[SAdler]

What does this mean for the Rico Report?}(

[Lookin]

" . . . will shut the site down quick."

 

 

Guess we'll all end up in the pokey together.

 

In fact, why not refurbish Alcatraz and move the whole operation there?

 

I know whose punk I wanna be!

[Flower]

Have no idea, but the real vice it seems to be addressing is the anonymity, and in my opinion more power to them. But why stop there--what about all the telemarketers that have blocked numbers and as soon as you start asking questions or tell them they're violating the do-not-call regulation, they hang up.

 

I agree the statute seems pretty vague to be constitutional--I think legislatures do that intentionally and Presidents sign them intentionally knowing they will be struck down, but it gets constituents off their backs and they can blame the courts for finding fault with it.

 

Most legislatures are attorneys and they pay big bucks to attorney legislative analysts so in most cases they do know when they're passing an unconstitutional law--it's usually not an accident, but a cop out.

[Guest zipperzone]

>I agree the statute seems pretty vague to be constitutional--I

>think legislatures do that intentionally and Presidents sign

>them intentionally knowing they will be struck down, but it

>gets constituents off their backs and they can blame the

>courts for finding fault with it.

>

>Most legislatures are attorneys and they pay big bucks to

>attorney legislative analysts so in most cases they do know

>when they're passing an unconstitutional law--it's usually not

>an accident, but a cop out.

 

If that's the case then it is a monumental waste of time, effort & money. You'd think Georgie boy could find a better way of spending his time.

[+ deej]

This was a rider to the bill funding the Justice Department.

 

I doubt a third of the legislators who voted for it even knew it was there, and it would be politically unpopular to turn down funding to DOJ so it passed (and was probably signed for the same reason).

 

This happens all the time, and is how so much pork gets into the federal budget. Senators don't even know they voted for those obscure little riders. If they knew it was there, it was titled "Stalker protection for abused women" (or something like that), and that wouldn't be popular to vote against either.

 

It's being pretty resoundingly trashed in the blogger community although there was nothing from the Free Speech Coalition last time I looked. I would have expected them to be all over it.

 

I've yet to see a qualified legal opinion on it (nor have I seen the full text). It SEEMS far too vague and far too loosey-goosey with free speech but now that it's been signed it needs to be tested. And it won't be tested quickly -- look how long the 2257 fiasco is dragging out!

[+ ArVaGuy]

>>I doubt a third of the legislators who voted for it even knew

>it was there, and it would be politically unpopular to turn

>down funding to DOJ so it passed (and was probably signed for

>the same reason).

>

>This happens all the time, and is how so much pork gets into

>the federal budget. Senators don't even know they voted for

>those obscure little riders. If they knew it was there, it was

>titled "Stalker protection for abused women" (or something

>like that), and that wouldn't be popular to vote against

>either.

 

At the risk of getting this moved to the Politcs section, no member of Congress actually reads the all of the legislation. They have Legislative Directors (LD) who do all that for them. The LD tracks all the votes and legislation, provides summaries, and when the votes get called to the floor, informs the senator or congressman how he is supposed to vote.

 

This little trick of attaching riders to various funding bills has been around for decades. Both parties play the game. The assumption by many is that the courts will overrule the law and declare it unconstitutional. That then gives Congress the opportunity to blame the courts for undoing their intent. Don't expect this to change regardless of which party controls the chambers. And remember, the president does not have line-item veto power.

 

You can bet that more than half had no idea this rider was in the funding authorization. Besides that they were in a hurry to recess for the holidays do doubt.

[+ deej]

>This little trick of attaching riders to various funding bills

>has been around for decades. Both parties play the game. The

>assumption by many is that the courts will overrule the law

>and declare it unconstitutional. That then gives Congress the

>opportunity to blame the courts for undoing their intent.

>Don't expect this to change regardless of which party controls

>the chambers. And remember, the president does not have

>line-item veto power.

 

Exactly. And as the article points out, sometimes these things get signed into law but the President directs DOJ not to enforce. (So in a way, he has limited line-item veto.)

 

This is how some pretty dumb laws get on the books, at both the Federal and State level. Did you know that in Oklahoma, it's illegal to get a fish drunk? (It's true! Or was at one time.)

 

Our government is a fabulous institution. Except when it isn't. ;-)

[Bilbo]

There is an organization trying to pass what they call a Read the Bills law which would mean that a bill would have to be published (and read out loud? I forget.) for all of the legislators and the public, in its final form, at least a week before it is voted on. Sometimes, from what I hear, the final form can be as thick as Gone With The Wind and only be availablel as of the night before the vote.