+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 17

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    1,313

    It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...22491&subj=new

    I hope you folks will visit me in the slammer!!!! I am sure many companies and posters here find me very annoying!!!!

    Soapboxmom

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    243

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Soapboxmom
    http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...22491&subj=new

    I hope you folks will visit me in the slammer!!!! I am sure many companies and posters here find me very annoying!!!!

    Soapboxmom
    Unbelievable.
    "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,272

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Soapboxmom
    http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...22491&subj=new

    I hope you folks will visit me in the slammer!!!! I am sure many companies and posters here find me very annoying!!!!

    Soapboxmom
    Eveyone at scam.com is likely to be locked up with you. So of course we'll visit,,,, what's your cell#.
    Last edited by Phinnly Slash Buster; 01-12-2006 at 01:14 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,251

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    I heard that's only if you harass people under an unregistered name. So you're allowed to annoy people if they can find out who you are... hahaha.
    I do not believe that MLM/Network Marketing is a bad business model. I believe it's the shady people in MLM that make it LOOK bad. As long as you work hard, run your business ethically, and work with ethical people, then MLM can help you reach your financial goals... whether it's just to make extra money on the side or a full-time income.

    "Never argue with an idiot. They just drag you down to their level and beat you with years of experience."

    Pink Zebra Sprinkles

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    408

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Soapboxmom
    http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...22491&subj=new

    I hope you folks will visit me in the slammer!!!! I am sure many companies and posters here find me very annoying!!!!

    Soapboxmom
    I personally would not expect more from this administration or his cronies like
    Sen. Arlen Specter.....boy are we in trouble.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    That only has to do with Anonymous Sex Stalkers. Not with everyone else.

    http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=8752

    Do the research.

    Namaste'

    Lady Mod

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    43

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zendi
    Unbelievable.
    Scoot over, I'll be on the bench next to you.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    43

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by April47
    I heard that's only if you harass people under an unregistered name. So you're allowed to annoy people if they can find out who you are... hahaha.
    Then they can shoot you & get away with it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    243

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Judy Hart
    Scoot over, I'll be on the bench next to you.
    Quite right...lol..

    Do you suppose they'll have us in orange jumpsuits...egads...orange is soooo not my color... :eek:
    "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    1,313

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    That only has to do with Anonymous Sex Stalkers. Not with everyone else.

    http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=8752

    Do the research.

    Namaste'

    Lady Mod
    http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tka/2006/01/09

    Does this article better explain this less than clear and concise law?????

    Soapboxmom

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Soapboxmom
    http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tka/2006/01/09

    Does this article better explain this less than clear and concise law?????

    Soapboxmom
    The law is pretty self explanitory. Did anyone actually read the law? This is not an MLM topic. This is a political topic and therefore belongs in the politics forum NOT the MLM forum.

    The Patriot act took away our Constitutional Rights when it was enacted. But people weren't all up in arms then. Emails and blogs have been monitored since shortly after 9/11, where were the protests then? And now we find that our phone communications have also been monitored. Where is the outrage?

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    - Benjamin Franklin


    "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." -- United States Supreme Court - American Communications Association v. Douds
    When election time rolls around, remember who it is that keeps writing these things into laws.

    Lady Mod

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    1,313

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    Lady Mod,

    2 things here are very troublesome.

    1) I was raised in a staunch Republican family. I have always voted Republican and for the most part find I agree with their stance on most issues. Imagine my horror when I discoverd that the Republican party is the "MLM party." If one goes to http://www.followthemoney.org/ it is clear to see that the MLM companies exclusively support the Republican party and Republicans often speak at MLM company conventions making for one speech what many of our families have as an annual salary. Republicans in general (which isn't universal I know) seem to mistake MLM for a vital part of free enterprise, which I would argue vehemently against. Attornies General, Governors and many elected officials have taken big campaign donations from MLMs. I have to wonder if this doesn't keep these MLMs from getting the attentiion from the authorities they deserve. It is hard to bite the hands that feed you. Melaleuca gave $45,500 in 2002 alone!

    http://www.followthemoney.org/databa...0213&d=3847139

    So, that with lack of funds and manpower allows many of these opportunities to continue unchallenged!

    2) If there is so much confusion about the scope of this law, which appears to be an update to the phone laws of the past, how will it be enforced? Will those responsible for enforcement construe it in any way to include internet forums like this one? Will it be declared unconstitutional as it seems to diametrically opposed the First Amendment? Lady Mod, I did read the law numerous times and I must say it is worse than deciphering the bum compensation plans we have been tearing apart. Are we to believe that our Republican lawmakers are responsible for this? Did a crafty Republican want to shut up political detractors or us crazy anti-MLMers? www.volokh.com had yet another take on the implications of this legislation.

    Eugene Volokh, January 10, 2006 at 3:07pm] 6 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
    Annoying Anonymous Speech Online:

    People are troubled by a just-enacted statute that extends part of telephone harassment law to the Internet. I think they're right to be troubled by it, and here's why.

    First, the statute, with deletions marked by strikeouts and insertions marked by underlines:

    47 U.S.C. � 223(a)(1)(C): Whoever ... in interstate or foreign communications ... makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications....

    (h)(1) The use of the term �telecommunications device� in this section --
    (A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
    (B) does not include an interactive computer service [= any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions].; and
    (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 ....

    What does this practically mean?

    1. This potentially criminalizes any anonymous speech on a Web site that's intended to annoy at least some readers, even if it's also intended to inform other readers. This is true whether the poster is berating a government official, a religious figure, a company that he thinks provides bad service, an academic who he thinks is doing or saying something misguided, a sports figure who he thinks is misbehaving, or what have you; so long as he's trying to annoy any recipient (whether the target, if the poster thinks the target is reading the blog, or the target's partisans or fans).

    2. How is this different from traditional telephone harassment law? The trouble is that the change extends traditional telephone harassment law from a basically one-to-one medium (phone calls) to include a one-to-many medium (Web sites).....

    Of course, when prosecuted, the speaker can say "my speech is protected by the First Amendment." But given that the statute draws no distinction between what constitutes protected annoying anonymous speech and what constitutes unprotected annoying anonymous speech, the speaker doesn't know what he may safely say, and the prosecutor doesn't have much guidance about what he should prosecute. It's as if Congress enacted a whole bunch of speech restrictions but tacked on an "except if the First Amendment prohibits this" to them. The result would be speech restrictions that are technically not overbroad (since by their terms they don't bar First-Amendment-protected speech), but that are practically too vague, since they provide little guidance to people about what they may say.
    ...
    D. Finally, Popa can also be read as holding that speech is protected from the statute when the speaker "intend[ed] to engage in public or political discourse." "Public discourse" is broader than just "political message," and would certainly include religion and probably consumer matters involving large businesses and the like. But it too is a pretty vague term. Is publicly distributed personal criticism of a particular professional's skills, for instance, a lawyer's or a professor's, "public discourse"? There's no well-established First Amendment test for this, and the Court's use of the related term "public concern" has proven to be unpredictable and, I think, often misguided (see Part V.B of this article, starting with PDF page 46).

    So on balance I think the extension of the telephone harassment statute to the Web is a mistake. The statute already has problems, and the extension risks substantially exacerbating those problems, by potentially covering one-to-many annoying Web speech as well as the somewhat less valuable one-to-one annoying telephone calls.
    Soapboxmom

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Soapboxmom
    Lady Mod,

    2 things here are very troublesome.

    1) I was raised in a staunch Republican family. I have always voted Republican and for the most part find I agree with their stance on most issues. Imagine my horror when I discoverd that the Republican party is the "MLM party." If one goes to http://www.followthemoney.org/ it is clear to see that the MLM companies exclusively support the Republican party and Republicans often speak at MLM company conventions making for one speech what many of our families have as an annual salary. Republicans in general (which isn't universal I know) seem to mistake MLM for a vital part of free enterprise, which I would argue vehemently against. Attornies General, Governors and many elected officials have taken big campaign donations from MLMs. I have to wonder if this doesn't keep these MLMs from getting the attentiion from the authorities they deserve. It is hard to bite the hands that feed you. Melaleuca gave $45,500 in 2002 alone!

    http://www.followthemoney.org/databa...0213&d=3847139

    So, that with lack of funds and manpower allows many of these opportunities to continue unchallenged!

    2) If there is so much confusion about the scope of this law, which appears to be an update to the phone laws of the past, how will it be enforced? Will those responsible for enforcement construe it in any way to include internet forums like this one? Will it be declared unconstitutional as it seems to diametrically opposed the First Amendment? Lady Mod, I did read the law numerous times and I must say it is worse than deciphering the bum compensation plans we have been tearing apart. Are we to believe that our Republican lawmakers are responsible for this? Did a crafty Republican want to shut up political detractors or us crazy anti-MLMers? www.volokh.com had yet another take on the implications of this legislation.



    Soapboxmom

    Absolutely and Bush is his puppet who signs these things into laws.

    Right now, I am helping with drafting some paperwork for a group to go before congress eventually to get the ball rolling on some changes shall we say? We are right at the beginning but so far, it's very interesting.

    Namaste'

    Lady Mod
    Last edited by sojustask; 01-13-2006 at 03:06 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    43

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zendi
    Quite right...lol..

    Do you suppose they'll have us in orange jumpsuits...egads...orange is soooo not my color... :eek:
    GADS!!! Those suits are not well tailored, and panties, I bet they're the cotton ones that come up to your neck!!!! If I can't have cheese, I'm not goin'.
    Really, though. When you look at the donations made by Pharma to the repubs. It is a staggering amount. Look into the protection they bought. The Lilly rider slipped into law & if you don't know what that means to the people of this country, you might want to look.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    137

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Soapboxmom

    Republicans in general (which isn't universal I know) seem to mistake MLM for a vital part of free enterprise, which I would argue vehemently against. Attornies General, Governors and many elected officials have taken big campaign donations from MLMs. I have to wonder if this doesn't keep these MLMs from getting the attentiion from the authorities they deserve. It is hard to bite the hands that feed you. Melaleuca gave $45,500 in 2002 alone!
    OMG! $45,500! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    YEAR 2004 ALONE!

    As of Feb. 3, 2004 - WalMart - $1,014,600
    Wal-Mart widens political reach, giving primarily to GOP

    As of Feb. 24, 2004 WalMart - $1.3 million
    Wal-Mart Becomes Largest Corporate Political Investor

    As of Nov. 2, 2004 - WalMart - $1,606,000
    Wal-Mart supports pro-business candidates and its political contributions on the national level overwhelmingly tilt Republican


    As of December 31, 2004 - WalMart - $1,677,000 - 78% to Republicans

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Aspartame Island
    Posts
    920

    Re: It's now illegal to annoy!!!!

    It's the thought of giving to the Republicans for exchanges to keep quiet on certain issues, not the amount. Walmart, obviously has more to hide than Melaleuca, so therefore the bigger contributions. The fact that Melaleuca gave to them spells there may be something to hide after all.

    Sin is sin, no matter the how big or small it is.

Similar Threads

  1. Becoming Illegal
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-21-2007, 06:12 PM
  2. Is this illegal?
    By Yeah Well Fine Then in forum Retail Scams
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-12-2007, 09:23 AM
  3. Is this illegal?
    By enlightenment in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-31-2006, 01:03 PM
  4. Is it illegal to..
    By MinionDH in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-31-2006, 03:18 PM
  5. It's now illegal to annoy!!!!
    By Soapboxmom in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-12-2006, 02:22 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
access, acted, administration, afraid, ain, allowed, ame, amendment, america, american, annual, anonymous, another, anti, apart, appears, april, arms, article, association, bad, balance, basically, bet, better, bigger, bite, blogs, boy, bunch, businesses, cable, called, calls, campaign, case, cell, cer, cheese, claiming, companies, compensation, con, confusion, cons, consumer, continue, control, conversation, corporate, country, crazy, cronies, database, december, declared, democracy, deserve, disclosing, doesn, dona, draws, elected, electio, ended, ends, enterprise, error, essential, eugene, families, fans, find, first amendment, folks, fra, freinds, funds, fusion, gave, general, give, goal, goin, governors, group, had, hahaha, hands, har, harassment, hard, heard, helping, hey, hide, his, holding, hope, horror, html, ial, identity, illegal, imagine, ime, include, industries, inter, interactive, involving, ion, isn, issues, jail, judy, lady, large, law, lawmakers, liberty, lie, line, lol, long, making, matter, mea, melaleuca, mlm, more, multiple, national, news, nov, officials, onli, only, opportunities, orange, org, outrage, page, pages, par, part, party, pas, patriot, pdf, people, person, personal, personally, phone, plans, plutocrats, pos, poster, posters, power, pro, professional, prosecuted, prosecutor, protected, protection, prove, proven, proves, provider, public, quote, rage, read, red, registered, related, religious, remember, research, responsible, retail, rio, rolls, safe, safety, scam, scam.com, secrets, section, seem, service, services, sex, shoo, shortly, show, shows, shut, shut up, site, slammer, small, soooo, speaker, specifically, star, starting, states, station, strength, supports, suppose, supreme, supreme court, system, systems, tag, taken, telephone call, telephone calls, test, they, thinks, thought, threaten, ties, time, times, tor, trouble, types, unchallenged, unconstitutional, united, united states, update, url, usa, users, visit, vital, voted, walmart, weak, wide, worse, writing, www, year

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •