Okay, my jaw is on the floor, and I'm at a loss for words. While I've seen debate about one amendment or another, I've never come across anyone who claimed to care about American politics and yet outright rejected the Constitution as annoying and unnecessary.

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost

September 2004

JAN 10, 2006 03:35 PM

UpTight said:

TedKoppel said:

UpTight said:
The incontrovertability, the sacredness, the god-like perfection of the bill of rights....and the way people of all sides refer back to it as an untouchable absolute reminds me of the way shariah law relates to the Koran or the way that fundamentalist Christians refer to the bible.

Yes, I'm sure we'd all agree, it's none of my business yadda yadda yadda, but don't you find the auto-generated response of "unconstitutional" a little bit inhibiting, inflexible and stifling? Doesn't it get on your tits?

No. It's the Constitution. It's the blueprint for the nation. Anything that gets passed has to be acceptable according to the rights defined by the Bill of Rights. These rights protect the public, and no concessions can be made. The point being that one law that makes a slight concession may seem like a good idea, and another concession may seem like a good idea, and then another. These things add up, and will invariably be abused by people in power. It's happened all throughout history. So, looking at this, the founding fathers decided that certain areas were totally off limits for the government, and wrote out what these things were. This means that sometimes the government can't do whatever the hell it wants to, and nobody has to try to gauge whether or not its heart is in the right place. Good.

We, in the UK, seem to manage okay without referring to a constitution.

Don't you trust yourselves?

Let's see:

Slavery? Check.
Jim Crow laws? Check.
Internment of Japanese American citizens? Check.
Criminalization of homosexuality? Check.
FBI spying on lawful political dissent? Check.
Racist immigration laws? Check.
Torture? Check.
Unlawful executive spying? Check.
Executive atempts to seize domestic industry? Check.

UpTight

I'm lost

December 2003

JAN 10, 2006 03:54 PM

Dead_Ringer said:

UpTight said:

TedKoppel said:

We, in the UK, seem to manage okay without referring to a constitution.

Don't you trust yourselves?

are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

SomethingStupid

North Hollywood, CA

March 2004

JAN 10, 2006 03:56 PM

UpTight said:
are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

Well, he was naively assuming that you'd think about what he posted instead of connecting the dots for you.

magneticflux

I'm lost

February 2003

JAN 10, 2006 10:06 PM

bones_708 said:

--The law applies, at most, to emails and not, contrary to all the panic, to web message boards and especially not to blogs. The statute requires a "transmission" a website is not a "transmission" and is clearly not covered by the amendment. This is, at most, about anonymous e-mails that are intentionally sent (i.e., "transmitted") to specific email addresses. I "send" (i.e., transmit) emails but I don't "send" (i.e., transmit) my blog anywhere readers seek it out.

--Indeed, if you follow the statutory trail carefully i.e., jump from the new section (h)(1)(C) to its reference of the original section (a)(1)(C) it becomes apparent that the amendment isn't even about emails, but about Internet-based phone calls (e.g., Vonage). The extension to "the Internet" is referring to one who "makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device." A computer can be a "telecommunications device," but a blog cannot.

Shit!! The Bush bashers were wrong on the facts again

A little research, or common sense, would of gone a long way here.

Bzzt -- Wrong. That guy has no understanding of telecommunications networks. Is their no transmitting and recieving as well when I tune into the radio station I like? This is what is suggested in the above. When I post messages on messages board their is indeed transmission that is occurying. And information that leave your computer is by definition a transmission. When I post here, information is being transmitted and recieved on both the physical layers and in the abstract sense that I am specifically speaking to people here (conveying information) and they are responding (recieving and processing and initiating new transmissions). There is no communication without transmission of some kind, on any media. Posting on a website, blogging, etc are all transmissions (very similar to radio), though they may not be "addressed" transmissions, like my sending postcards or emails to specific people; however they are not any less transmissions on the grounds that they are "broadcasts".

[Edited on Jan 11, 2006 1:17AM]

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN

July 2003

JAN 10, 2006 11:06 PM

Actually... I like having a basic foundation for our government which, in theory, prevents blatant abuses of governmental power. I really, really love parts of the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment...

But I don't like relying on the dictates of a bunch of people who lived well over two hundred years ago and a document that's not always clear or easily applicable to modern times, and contains a few bad ideas. I'd be all for a revamp if it weren't for the fact that I don't trust the folks in power now. It's kind of like having a leaky roof that you can only repair by removing it altogether...and gosh, it's been raining for how long now...?

Anyhow, on topic: ....how is VOIP not telecommunications to begin with? You're communicating over a distance. That's what it *is*. And there shouldn't be any distinction, in terms of harassment. It's a different route for your voice data, that's all. The Internet is the truly new part that needs clarification, and just including it under the same law word for word doesn't take into account the very real and practical differences. If you're not being annoyed on the Internet, I question whether you are actually using it.

Princelogos

USA

November 2005

JAN 10, 2006 11:40 PM

jake_lex said:

UpTight said:
how awful - how dare Bush attack the right to anonymously harrass someone.

next thing you know he'll be clamping down on stalking!

bastard

The laws on stalking/harassment/terroristic threatening online are exactly the same as any other communications medium. If someone tells you in an IM that they're going to kill you, that's exactly the same as someone telling you that on the phone or even in person. It's relatively easy to get information from the IP address if you have a warrant.
I don't even know why any of those things are issues. If someone annoys you just stalk them down and threaten to kill them. It's always worked for me.
In short, this is a needless law. Another attempt to limit freedoms to fight crimes that can be fought with existing laws that aren't as restrictive of our rights.

UpTight

I'm lost

December 2003

JAN 11, 2006 01:16 AM

reprobate said:
not to mention your quaint ASBOS.

you don't have chavs in America

[Edited on Jan 11, 2006 by UpTight]

quagmirething

I'm lost

June 2005

JAN 11, 2006 01:49 AM

reprobate said:
Nope, and given that your government has expressly and repeatedly abrogated the right to counsel, the right to public trial, the right to speedy trial, the right to confront ones accuser, free speech, exercised prior restraint, and detention without trial, not to mention your quaint ASBOS curtailing the lawlessness of birdfeeding, sarcastic remarks, oh and basic political expression, I'd say we have good reason.

There's something to be said for living through the experience of bad law. In the UK the pro-life lobby are simply ignored, they are tiny. At one time their position had wide public support and the backing of law, but people learnt from that mistake. The US's temperance movement could be said to have gone the same way.

The kind of laws which worry me most are the ones which apply to a very small number of people, either because it's a very narrow law or through excessive discretionary powers.

Lyam

Vatican City

May 2005

JAN 11, 2006 02:13 AM

So I can annoy whoever I want?Great.

suck my balls.

DuchessOfKMA

Dublin, CA

July 2007

JUL 20, 2007 08:41 PM

This like many other things in the world... are great in Theory...
stalkers are scary fucks... the world today is pretty ridiculous...
and its always going to be so if we keep idiot proofing everything.

::le sigh::

skidmatic

Youngstown, OH

July 2009

JUL 05, 2009 04:25 PM

Yeah that has to do with that girl who killed herself after her neighbor (a mom of a girl in her class) made a my space account and had a fling with her as a fictitious male . Then the mom got the girl to be all distressed (that is when the girl offed her self).

Awesome law, good post.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

JUL 05, 2009 08:58 PM

skidmatic said:
Yeah that has to do with that girl who killed herself after her neighbor (a mom of a girl in her class) made a my space account and had a fling with her as a fictitious male . Then the mom got the girl to be all distressed (that is when the girl offed her self).

Awesome law, good post.

Err...this was posted almost a year before that happened.

lil_tuffy

MODERATOR

San Francisco, CA

JUL 05, 2009 09:02 PM

WTF... I wrote for the newswire? I have no recollection of this.

IDGAS

Jackson Heights, NY

March 2004

JUL 05, 2009 09:36 PM

lil_tuffy said:
WTF... I wrote for the newswire? I have no recollection of this.

Now you need to wonder what else you have forgotten

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH

February 2007

JUL 05, 2009 09:53 PM

PointBlank said:

Err...this was posted almost a year before that happened.

Things move a bit slower in Ohio.

RudieCantFail

Baton Rouge, LA

January 2006

JUL 05, 2009 09:57 PM

lil_tuffy said:
WTF... I wrote for the newswire? I have no recollection of this.

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

JUL 06, 2009 07:25 AM

PointBlank said:

Err...this was posted almost a year before that happened.

She was acquitted of the charges, for those that didn't hear.

LOS ANGELES – A federal judge has tentatively thrown out the convictions of a Missouri mother for her role in a MySpace hoax directed at a 13-year-old neighbor girl who ended up committing suicide.

U.S. District Judge George Wu on Thursday said he was acquitting Lori Drew of misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization but stressed the ruling was tentative until he issues it in writing. He noted the case of a judge who changed his mind after ruling.

Drew showed no reaction to the decision.

She was convicted in November, but the judge said that if she is to be found guilty of illegally accessing computers, anyone who has ever violated the social networking site's terms of service would be guilty of a misdemeanor. That would be unconstitutional, he said.

-TM

Lucifer69133

I'm lost

February 2009

JUL 06, 2009 10:06 AM

lil_tuffy said:
WTF... I wrote for the newswire? I have no recollection of this.

And when did George Bush come back to power????

Tiger_Fodder

Braintree, MA

June 2007

JUL 06, 2009 03:26 PM

This explains some recent occurrences on SG.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

North Hollywood, CA

March 2004

JAN 10, 2006 03:29 PM

I'm lost

September 2004

JAN 10, 2006 03:35 PM

I'm lost

December 2003

JAN 10, 2006 03:54 PM

North Hollywood, CA

March 2004

JAN 10, 2006 03:56 PM

I'm lost

February 2003

JAN 10, 2006 10:06 PM

Saint Paul, MN

July 2003

JAN 10, 2006 11:06 PM

USA

November 2005

JAN 10, 2006 11:40 PM

I'm lost

December 2003

JAN 11, 2006 01:16 AM

I'm lost

June 2005

JAN 11, 2006 01:49 AM

Vatican City

May 2005

JAN 11, 2006 02:13 AM

DuchessOfKMA

Dublin, CA

July 2007

JUL 20, 2007 08:41 PM

Youngstown, OH

July 2009

JUL 05, 2009 04:25 PM

New York, NY

November 2004

JUL 05, 2009 08:58 PM

MODERATOR

San Francisco, CA

JUL 05, 2009 09:02 PM

Jackson Heights, NY

March 2004

JUL 05, 2009 09:36 PM

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH

February 2007

JUL 05, 2009 09:53 PM

Baton Rouge, LA

January 2006

JUL 05, 2009 09:57 PM

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

JUL 06, 2009 07:25 AM

I'm lost

February 2009

JUL 06, 2009 10:06 AM

Braintree, MA

June 2007

JUL 06, 2009 03:26 PM