Trolling is now OFFICIALLY illegal

[Guest firehawk44]

Yippee! It's about time! It's too bad the ACLU has to again annoy me by trying to define the word 'annoy' and make this a major issue (I don't think they like President Bush OR the Republican Party). If you're charged for "annoying" someone under this statute, you will have a chance to defend yourself in court and a jury of your peers will define whether you 'annoyed' someone or not. The judge will sentence you appropriately if found guilty. I seriously doubt the Usenet service will be affected since you have to subscribe to newsgroups (sometimes make monthly payments) to see the "annoying stuff" so you are basically asking to be annoyed. Any good lawyer can defend that. Receiving e-mails from non-descript senders is really annoying to me especially when they send sexually explicit e-mails to my young grandchildren and bombard their e-mail addresses daily (just one example of a nuisance). Gee, wonder why the CNET author didn't mention that? So even if things get nasty as you and the author of that CNET article put it, just remember the annoyer has to be brought before a court of law before he or she can be thrown into jail (unless you live in certain other countries that have no constitutional form of government). Lastly, I seriously doubt anyone will be convicted for sending an unsolicited political message as the writer suggests. That is truly a known scare tactic employed by the opposition political party (yes, Republican's do it too when the Democrats are in power). It's amazing how many people believe garbage like this because it looks like it comes from a reliable Source (a Washington correspondent????)(from CNET????).... I don't know why they do it but it's interesting to note they also mention the ACLU. I personally believe (as millions of others) the ACLU is destroying the United States but that's another topic for discussion in another forum. Thanks for bringing this topic to our attention.Respectfully,Jim Young

[Guest tg272]

>it is, yet a lot of people don't and no action is taken to>rectify that.But where is yours? :-outtaBart BartholomayDeacontg272

[Guest SoarPics]

"And I thought that it was a rule here at AVSIM, to only use your real name in any post."Avsim's Terms of Use clearly state that one must register using their real name and a valid e-mail. Members can choose any "handle" they wish.To Jim,In a true democracy you and I can create laws (and enforce them) to stop those spammers from sending your grandkids those explicit e-mails. But what would you do if your government wisked your grandkids away without due process? How would you stop that from happening? What if that government took the kids to a place outside our country where it would not necessarily have to be concerned about the rights of your grandkids? Granted, the ACLU isn't the swiftest of organizations, but a scarier scenario would be if the government did as outlined above... and you had nowhere to turn for help.When men must fear their government it might be time to change the government. Fortuneatly we get to do that every couple of years in the United States. It's kind of a peaceful coup de'grace via the voting process.Cheers,Greg

[Guest firehawk44]

Hi Greg,"In a true democracy you and I can create laws (and enforce them) to stop those spammers from sending your grandkids those explicit e-mails."Agree. But seems like when we try to create those laws as you suggest, the opposition party, the media, and the ACLU jump in and try to make it look like big brother has arrived and is taking away your freedoms. I personally don't like laws since one law will usually result in the passing of several other laws. It's like a virus. It just spreads and keeps spreading. "But what would you do if your government wisked your grandkids away without due process? How would you stop that from happening? What if that government took the kids to a place outside our country where it would not necessarily have to be concerned about the rights of your grandkids?"That comment is very political. I am fairly familiar with the law enforcement and intelligence communities and people aren't wisked away without cause. There's a lot of evidence to convict these people just "wisked away". But if I'm the enemy (or terrorist leader), I would want to know 'immediately' how the authorities found out. Who was that Source who ratted on one of our people? The Source of intelligence could still be collecting valuable information whether it be from technical or human Sources. Sure! I would raise a stink and try to embarrass our government into devulging their Source or Sources. So, I'm sorry people are being 'wisked away' and they aren't receiving an immediate trial or release. The United States is at war and that's the way it has to be whether it be a Democratic or Republican Administration.Lastly there's no reason to fear your government unless you're doing something illegal or inimical to the security of the United States.Ciao,Jim Young

[Guest SoarPics]

Hi Jim,"The United States is at war and that's the way it has to be whether it be a Democratic or Republican Administration."A state of war can only exist between two or more nations that are in conflict (for any number of reasons) with each other. The current administration wants folks to believe a state of war exists between us and the terrorists so that it can easily make use of it's war powers as granted them by the constitution and Congress. And they're proving to be very adept at manipulating and stretching those granted war powers. What we're really fighting is criminals. Criminals who would kill and mame innocent people to make their point(s). Fighting such an entity is poorly done using a military."Lastly there's no reason to fear your government unless you're doing something illegal or inimical to the security of the United States."Seems simple enough. But who gets to decide if what you or I are doing is illegal? A government that is reaching a point of being out of control when it comes to encroaching upon civil liberties? A government that sees nothing wrong in detaining individuals and denying them any rights to freedom without respecting their basic right to due process? As has been noted in a number of other posts here this government seems easily willing to encroach upon human and civil rights in the name of freedom... how can that work? Taking away basic human rights just to preserve freedom? Seems more than just a little hypocritical and backward thinking.While I agree with your point about a government rightfully wanting to protect it's intelligence sources (especially the humint element) doing so in the name of freedom by denying freedom to a few simply is doomed to fail. It causes disenfranchisement of entire generations of people (as evidenced by the Israelis dealing with teenage Palestinians blowing themselves up in crowds of Iraeli civilians. Those kids did so because they had no real hope of any kind of nominal freedoms or self-determination... and they felt that way since their births).Intelligence gathering is an important facet of any government if it hopes to survive, but that intelligence is best utilized for political purposes (as in reaching some form of peaceful compromise with a would be adversary through diplomacy). Of course, diplomacy doesn't work on criminals but neither does a Predator striking an entire village in a far away country in the hopes of getting one bad guy. Kill (for eample) 2 dozen innocent civilians trying to get one bad guy... now you've got alot more enemies than before the Predator strike. It's no way to win friends and influence enemies.This governemnt's current philosophy of diplomacy through force and imprisoning folks without due process is short sighted and dangerous. While the problem of these terrorists wasn't created by them, they sadly have inherited it. And they're doing an absolutely miserable job of trying to end it. By killing innocent civilians in a far away land (that we would much rather have as friends rather than enemies) and by reducing the freedoms of their own people.As I stated in an earlier post, the terrorists must love what the current admoinistration is doing. The administration is slowly moving toward creating a state of anarchy (by encroaching on folks' rights and imprisoning others without due process), and what a terrorist loves more than anything else is anarchy. Yep, they must be tickled pink with the Bush braintrust.Back at ya, :-beerchug Greg

[Guest Charlie]

"A state of war can only exist between two or more nations that are in conflict (for any number of reasons) with each other. The current administration wants folks to believe a state of war exists between us and the terrorists so that it can easily make use of it's war powers as granted them by the constitution and Congress. And they're proving to be very adept at manipulating and stretching those granted war powers. What we're really fighting is criminals. Criminals who would kill and mame innocent people to make their point(s). Fighting such an entity is poorly done using a military."Yep. This "state of war" crap, and the willingness of an alarming number of Americans to buy into it, is what got this administration re-elected. Now, too late but better late than never, America is starting to wake up. The only true state of war that exists is the disaster in Iraq.You know what REALLY bothers me, though? I never thought I'd experience the day in this country when there is cause to wonder what "authorities" may be monitoring your speech and writings for "unpatriotic" content. What's going on today ought to send chills up the spine of every American.

[Guest tg272]

Well, Greg, with all those posts under your belt, it would seem that we've got to give ya a break to two, but man are you off base.You can't be serious. Do you really believe people beside yourself aspire to such concepts?Whoa!Bart BartholomayDeacontg272

[Guest SoarPics]

Well, Bart, all those posts are worth a handful of spit, in my view. But one thing those posts afford me is a certain level of knowledge about the owners and moderators of this forum... and none of us particularly care for flame bait.Your question, "Do you really believe people beside yourself aspire to such concepts?" offers little to the discussion, and even less to any form of debate. And that's all this is. Folks who want to post their opinions and perspectives should feel free to do so, but without being belittled by another who disagrees.So feel free to project your own perspectives, but don't put anybody down while doing it. That's when a debate stops being fun, educational, and entertaining.I certainly accept your right to your own persepctive and opinions. Please present them with something more than the above (sorry, but there simply is not much substance to your arguement thus far).Regards,Greg

[Guest tg272]

Hi, Greg -I'm not concerned that you are a moderator, operator, or anyone else.... What you've been talkling about, in my view, lacks a complete understanding of anything substantive concerning the subject matter to which you've addressed your comments.I'm sure you're a terrific guy. I'm not flaming or otherwise personalizing my comments to you as an individual. Merely, I wish only to comment on the content that you have placed in writing. That's all. I'm sorry you've taken it any other way. In that regard, this will be my last post regarding this particular issue on this thread. I feel secure in my own understanding of the issues not to let this get out of hand. Thanks.Bart BartholomayDeacontg272

[Guest SoarPics]

"What you've been talkling about, in my view, lacks a complete understanding of anything substantive concerning the subject matter to which you've addressed your comments."Sorry Bart, it wasn't my intention to run you off. I merely hope you will present discussion opposing my points.To answer your question above, yes I do believe more and more folks believe as I do (3 years ago I felt just as you do). And I believe the trend will grow. That's not to say folks will throw another revolution and toss the current leadership out, but folks will indeed toss them out in the 2008 elections (shudder at the thought of the Demos regaining power... they can't even organize a corner pep rally reasonably well).Cheers,Greg