E-Bullies can goto Jail

by **Username123** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:46 am

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.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

Source

by **killer_cr0ss0ver** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:12 am

wtf, how would they know if thats your real name.. crazy shits....

by **Jackal** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:13 am

Why is this most likely something WK would post? :lol:

by **Steve [The Spiderman]** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:18 am

Haha...that's garbage!

by **J@3** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:39 pm

How many life sentences do you plan on serving Jackal?

by **Blasphemy** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:48 pm

Wow thats bullshit. Just say some fake name how the hell would they know? Track your ip and go ring your doorbell? Then ask if the guy lives there? And when he doesnt he will call the cops and you will get arrested and sent to jail for 3 whole days???

by **Jing** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:52 pm

haha moron.

by **The GOAT** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:58 pm

My name is Tits McGee and you should all go straight to hell for being you. I will now proceed to send you spam and annoy you.

by **Mazzocchi** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:50 pm

Jae wrote:How many life sentences do you plan on serving Jackal?

you should talk

Is it considered "Illegal Flaming" if the person really is an idiot, and really deserves to get e-riped appart?

If not then I think msot of us are safe lol

by **Null17** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:26 pm

who cares. I'm not American

by **J@3** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:37 pm

Mazzlowcchi™ wrote:
Jae wrote:How many life sentences do you plan on serving Jackal?

you should talk

Lol I've changed my ways, just call me Tookie.

Besides, I'm using my real name so it's ok :lol:

by **Jowe** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:11 pm

Believe it or not. America does not control the world. :roll:

by **Jugs** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:27 pm

Jackal wrote::lol: Why is this most likely something WK would post?

That's what I thought when I saw this topic :lol:

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:26 pm

"Annoying", "harrassing" and "threatening" don't necessarily all describe the same actions. I can see the logic behind the law but I don't think it will be upheld effectively.

by **Matt** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:27 pm

Lol I've changed my ways, just call me Tookie.

hahaha

this law is stupid

by **Jackal** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:58 pm

How many life sentences do you plan on serving Jackal?

My name has been posted. Well, first one atleast.

Besides, I live outside the US. 8-)

by **H Rock** on Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:13 pm

"Annoying", "harrassing" and "threatening" don't necessarily all describe the same actions. I can see the logic behind the law but I don't think it will be upheld effectively.

It can't be. It's impossible to do that.

by **J@3** on Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:46 am

I actually saw a case on some CrimeTV-esque show that was on late night TV here a few months back, it involved a 16 year old kid who had gone into an internet chat room and said he was a student of some high school that had just had a massacre, and that he was planning on "finishing off the job". As it turns out, one of the girls in the chat room was actually a student of that school and she was so scared by it she called the police and also filed her own law suit.

It turns out that the kid lived on the other side of the country, so he was basically just talking shit. Never the less, he was arrested and placed into custody where he was constantly beaten by the other inmates... I remember it really clearly because his lawyer had promised him that he wouldn't do jail time if he admitted to what he did and apologised, and since he was getting bashed so much the judge would be lenient. He apologised and admitted to it, then the judge sentenced him to a years jail (well, juvie) to make an "example" out of him.

I think the case must've been a few years back because it seemed a bit late-90's, but was very interesting all the same.

by **AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy** on Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:31 am

It actually is feasible, the tracking resources are there, and the future of the Internet-woven world actually demands that new laws are imposed on the usage of the web, both for business oriented as well as recreational policies.

As long as the Internet broadens it's grasp on the worldwide distribution of information of all sorts, it will be policed more seriously by those who have either something to gain or to lose by it.

Laws like the one mentioned in this thread might seem stupid, non-feasible and just plain inapplicable right now, but in a number of years from now they will be the norm, not the exception.

by **Username123** on Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:51 am

Jugs wrote:
Jackal wrote::lol: Why is this most likely something WK would post?

That's what I thought when I saw this topic

Thats because i have been e-bullied by Jackal enough times :cry:

by **dada** on Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:54 am

Kinda strange how Riot isnt in here yet and GWB is involved.

by **Jackal** on Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:11 am

Thats because i have been e-bullied by Jackal enough times

Me? Bully? How in heavens name did you come to that conclusion? :shock:

by **#12** on Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:24 am

Null17 wrote:who cares. I'm not American

same here

by **Riot** on Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:15 pm

dadamafia wrote:Kinda strange how Riot isnt in here yet and GWB is involved.

How do you even know if Dubya read it? He signs a lot of things he doesn't read.

by **cyanide** on Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:38 pm

Riot wrote:
dadamafia wrote:Kinda strange how Riot isnt in here yet and GWB is involved.

How do you even know if Dubya read it? He signs a lot of things he doesn't read.

That's why he's such a great president :mrgreen:

E-Bullies can goto Jail

E-Bullies can goto Jail

Who is online