PeterDavid.net

OMG, she is gonna be so tickled that you mentioned her in your blog! I wonder how long before she posts about it in hers... :D

1Come on, this is the interenet. If you can't some good clean annoymus fun here, where can you have it?
P.S. Love Ted Stevens Hulk tie
Josh

If it is an anonymous annoyance, how exactly will they know who to prosecute? Will the act of simple annoyance be enough to get a search warrant?

On the plus side, I think it makes MySpace illegal.

Idiotic law, sure to be overturned.

Bush should not have signed it, no excuses there. Of course, when it gets buried "into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice" it's easy to slip crap like this through.

If only Bush were the problem...it passed the Senate unanimously. Not a single vote against. Wow.

And not to further discourage my liberal friends but the list of cosponsors of the bill read like a who's who of (coff) progressive voices: Conyers, Jackson-Lee, Nadler, Waters, etc. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03402:@@@P)

Sadly, the only hope is that Bush will direct the justice Department not to enforce it. Looks like both the liberals and conservatives let us down big time on this one.

Oh yeah, and since I use my real name...SCREW YOU ALL!!! Ah ha ha ha ha ha!

Seriously though...imagine X-Ray in prison, surrounded by tough cons, hard men all (booyah!), having to tell them how he got there. "I called Peter David a bad name." Yeah, THERE'S some mad street cred.

Only the U.S. Government would equate a prank call at 3AM with a post on some website at 3AM. One wakes you up while the other makes you just shake your head. It's laughable.

I'm with you about anonymous and pseudonymous trolls. I like the idea of this legislation, but I can't really see it being enforceable. It's like anti-spam legislation - pass all the laws you want, there will always be someone from Nigeria or its ilk wanting you to send them your bank account number...

Now I wonder, as a lowly Canuck, will I still be able to snark with impunity? Perhaps extradition and a Cuban vacation would be in order. You guys have got to retake the castle before all this damage is completely irreversable. The law against impure thought will surely be tabled soon.

On the plus side, I think it makes MySpace illegal.
BWAHAHA.

Ahem.

What's the big deal? The government is monitoring all our communications anyway so no one is anonymous any more.

When I first read of this on another site, X-Ray was the first thing I thought of also. For a cowardly little shit he/she certainately made an impression.

Besides, I think this law is aimed more at going after stalkers than trolls.

---------------

Did anyone tell Bush that there are amendments other than the second that he's supposed to protect?

Like he does the fourth?

"I pissed off Peter David on his website"

They all moved away from me on the Group W bench...

"...and creating a disturbance" and they all came back and we ...

(I'm too lazy right now to google the rest)

So, is writing annoying fanfiction/erotica/erotic fanfiction a crime under this law? And would it really be that bad?

Seriously, this law won't stand. Some people view the freedom of the Internet as a danger to be regulated while it can; I suspect it won't be long at all before the Internet enjoys the same freedoms as print and, well, maybe not television...

Hell, I'll be among the first to admit that I post under a pseudonym, and am unashamed to do so, since, at least around where I live, the people most likely to be "annoyed" by what I have to say are the same type of people who burn crosses on people's lawns. If it were just me, I wouldn't worry so much, but I've got a family to think about now.

Heck, just last month I wrote a letter to the editor about the so-called "War on Christmas," and "Good Christians" started calling my home. No thank you, not again...

-Rex Hondo-

You mean that isn't your real name? That's too bad, Rex Hondo would be great. Especially if you were a member of the Jonny Quest team.

Ok, before we all go off with pitchforks and torches and those large rake things the villagers always carry in the Frankenstein movies, there may be less to this than meets the eye. A few other sites have been blogging about this and some are claiming that this is a tempest in a teapot.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/09/flame_someone_anonym.html

Uh, try again. Maybe you guys should read the text of the bill... this is a wildly inaccurate interpretation of the bill, in which the word "annoy" appears not once. The word "annoy" appears in *existing* legislation (Communications Act of 1934) and it does not include any communication a recipient might find annoying. Furthermore, the identity provision is not specified in the amendment discussed. Your article is, indeed, a joke.

followed by:

Your latest reader comment has it exactly right. The anonymous harassment provision is the old telephone-annoyance statute that has been on the books for decades. It was updated in the widely (and in many respects deservedly) ridiculed Communications Decency Act to include new technologies, and the cases make clear its applicability to Internet communications. See, e.g., ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 829 n.5 (E.D. Pa. 1996), aff'd, 521 U.S. 824 (1997). Unlike the indecency provisions of the CDA, this scope update was not invalidated in the courts and remains fully effective.

In other words, the latest amendment, which supposedly adds Internet communications devices to the scope of the law, is meaningless surplusage.

So....if I'm understanding this, the law basically does to emails what has long been the case with phone calls. "Annoy" is an awfully vague word. I haven't seen many prosecutions over annoying phone calls, which is why my Uncle Mort walks the streets a free man still.

Shouldn't apply at all to blogs. It applies to "transmissions", not to Internet sites that someone must seek out. Of course, a publicity seeking judge could rule broadly enough that anything could be considered a transmission but I think we might be able to breath a bit easier.

Hey, where are our resident Legal Minds? Is this mountain or molehill?

No legal mind here, but basically the argument for the law is that the internet goes through phone lines, therefore the government can regulate.

However, wi-fi will probably make all this very messy.

going off on a tangent, to show how screwy the law is, (and on this I speak from experience), you can threaten a person face to face & the police can do nothing, but if you call the person on the phone & make the same threat, then the police can take action. At least here in New York.

Good catch, Bill - my husband also pointed out that it was the old telephone statute expanded. I'm frankly amazed at how knee-jerk incensed some of my fellow progressives got at this legislation. In my 10+ years online I've been at the receiving end of some very nasty trolling by pseudonymous cowards, and as far as I'm concerned the First Amendment doesn't enter into it, since these trolls aren't actually standing behind their own words when they attack others. Meanwhile not a few members of the liberal blogosphere are busy twisting themselves into knots misinterpreting the word "annoying" to refer in theory to themselves, which is oddly telling...

Soooo, is Peter David your real name? I bet I could get you sent for 20 years in the cooler for the "freedom" clock alone. ; )

There's a number of thoughts that can be made about this...

Is this law intended to be anti-spam? Or is it something else?

With Bush, I can't rule out the possibility that this is another pot shot toward political dissidents and so forth.

Like PAD said, Bush has shown a complete disregard for 9/10ths of the Bill of Rights, so this might not be any different.

Here's to hoping Alito is filibustered in the name of individual rights.

The problem with simply expanding the existing telecommunications act to email and message boards is that, as somebody pointed out, a telemarketer calling you at 3 am or just as you're about to eat dinner is an interruption. Spam may be annoying, but it takes about 1/2 a second to delete and you only see it when you access your account.

What is the average age in the Senate? 60? 65? Maybe they don't understand that these are completely different kinds of communication media.

Reading the article that Peter linked to, I saw that the word "annoy" appeared in the Communications Decency Act, but the courts ruled that it only applied to obscene materials.

Now we just need someone in the government to define obscene.

Another point: How does one stop an "annoying" email from Nigeria? Is that guy who keeps offering me half of $5 million going to be extradicted? Or just "extraordinarily renditioned"?

I find this creeping idea that the government can simply declare that certain media are publicly owned, therefore, the 1st amendment doesn't apply. Already, we have senators who want to extend the FCC's undefined decency standards to cable TV. Satellite radio will undoubtably be next, so don't get comfortable, Howard Stern.

What's next? Hey, most trees in this country are harvested on federally owned land, why not declare that anything printed on paper is "publicly owned" and therefore has to conform to what the FCC thinks is "indecent"?

Does this mean if I spell my name wrong in a rush to post something, and someone out there deems my post annoying, I can be prosecuted?

Lord help the dyslexic, and Lord help the semi-literate, one-eyed, pipe-smoking, spinich-eating sailors.

"Yer honor, I canks helps meself that me spellin' ain't so good when I use the compuker. I yam what I yam!"

A real shame people don't read all the replys before posting.

Be interesting to see how it pans out.

Personally, if I'm prepared to say something in public, I'm prepared to put my name to it, and Gawd knows there are enough irritating little sods out there sniping from the undergrowth that damn near anything that thins their ranks does have a certain appeal...

Then again, that 'burning crosses' post does raise a valid point!

So basically this means that on all those gaming site message boards (example: City of Heroes, Biowares Knight of the Old Republic) where you can sign in as the name of a character, and your real name is hidden...all those people can prosecute if they get flamed????

Judge: why are you here today?
Annoyed Person: he said my wookie was underpowered and ugly!

Instead of taking PAD's word for it (or some hack columnist), why not go to the actual text. What a concept! So here we go: the original text. As you'll see, the word "annoy" (caps mine) was in the U.S. Code before the new law was passed:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000223----000-.html

TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part I > § 223 Prev | Next

§ 223. Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications

(a) Prohibited acts generally
Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications—
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to ANNOY, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
(C) 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;

The new bill that Bush signed into law amends the above thusly:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109Cu0e7D:e91030:

SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.

As near as I can tell, what the amendment does is make it clear that a "telecommunications device" can be a device that uses the Internet. This strikes me as an uncontroversial bit of news, although in the hands of one in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome, it of course becomes scandalous.

-Dave O'Connell

Dave, I would suppose that your reasoned interpretation of the new statute would carry more weight if you didn't accuse anyone who disagreed with you of having a mental illness. I'd like to know your qualifications as a psychologist.

I still have issues with lumping the internet in with other telecommunications devices like phones because the nature of the medium is very different. How is an "annoying" email defined? How do you enforce it when the sender is in another country? Grafting internet regulations onto existing telecommunications law shows a complete lack of understanding of the internet on the part of our lawmakers.

Yeah well, it's ONLY the 1st Ammendment. We have to keep striving for that sterile environment where no-one has negative or unpure thoughts. A society that does not question it's government because it acts in it's best interest at all times. We must move away from blogging and free thought and questioning our neocon masters and spend more time in church and slaving to the media. *Okay...I've gone overboard. HEHE* My real problem is are we ever going to seriously get to a point where crap doesn't keep getting slipped into other bills? Things like this, happen all the time. Sometimes, I just bang my head into the wall...I keep hoping one day, maybe I'll turn into the Hulk and fix things. LOL. :)

Ok, it's an expansion on the limitation of free expression. That's bad. But it's an expansion only in the means of limitation, not the kind of limitation. Which is, not so bad?

Den, I agree, it does speak of congress' rather flip assumption that it can regulate internet communication. Which, when we're talking about e-mail, and not message boards liks this, amounts to private conversations. And that should be troubling to everyone, because it does open the door further to government regulation of what people can and can't say to each other in a private conversation.

But I think too many people are focusing on the term "annoy" here. Making an annoying statement isn't enough: it also has to be "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent." Annoy plays into part of the intent of the maker of the statement. Good luck proving that in most cases.

It's a flag raising issue, to be sure, but only the tiniest of flags. And probably something that suggests that Capitol Hill folks have way too much time on their hands. They can barely get a defense bill passed on time, but then can pass this kind of tripe?

How much would this affect the first amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You still get to do all that, so long as you put your real name to it.

Funny, my copy of the first amendment doesn't have the clause "but only if you use your real name" in it.

I wonder why Samuel Clemens was never charged with "annoying" politicians in his day. He certainly made many of them the butt of his satire under a fake name.

Making an annoying statement isn't enough: it also has to be "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent."

Still waiting for that FCC regulatory definition of "obscene".

Dave, I would suppose that your reasoned interpretation of the new statute would carry more weight if you didn't accuse anyone who disagreed with you of having a mental illness. I'd like to know your qualifications as a psychologist.

It's more of a rhetorical device than anything. I don't expect the AMA to officially classify it as a disorder. But to trump up any old thing to get at somebody (as this columnist did) does indeed strike me as "deranged."

-Dave O'Connell

This wouldn't apply to internet forums. Check the phrase "any person ... who receives the communications." E-mails are received, discussion on internet forums is willfully *retrieved*. At the very worst, the host of the forum could be forced to provide users with ignore-filtering capabilities. But more than likely, the the complainant will just be told "if you don't like it, don't read it."

"Still waiting for that FCC regulatory definition of "obscene". "

You'll know it when the FCC sees it.

I don't expect the AMA to officially classify it as a disorder.

Well the AMA wouldn't, because it's the American Psychiatric Association (APA) that publishes the DSM-IV, the book that lists all officially recognized mental diseases and disorders.

But to trump up any old thing to get at somebody (as this columnist did) does indeed strike me as "deranged."

Bush signed the law. Peter had some objection to it based on what he had read. Are you saying that anyone who interprets the law differently from you is deranged? Maybe his interpretation was a little mistaken, but how does that make him deranged? That just makes you sound spiteful and contemptuous of anyone who doesn't share your view of the current president.

Personally, I think a case can be made for charges of harrasment if you continuously email someone once they've made it clear they don't wish to speak to you (and even then, don't law makers know about Block Sender and Exlcusivity settings?), or perhaps computer trespass charges for trolls and spammers who visit sites once they've been banned, but what does it matter if the sender is anonymous? What does that have to do with anything?

Den wrote: "I still have issues with lumping the internet in with other telecommunications devices like phones because the nature of the medium is very different." ... "Grafting internet regulations onto existing telecommunications law shows a complete lack of understanding of the internet on the part of our lawmakers."

Are you claiming the two mediums are different from a technical standpoint or philosophical standpoint? If it's the former, then I strongly disagree with you. Fundamentally, both mediums operate by manipulating electrons to facilitate one- or two-way communication; both involve a transmitting and a receiving device; and both are housed in a person's private residence.

I'm saying they're different from a usage standpoint. When you receive a phone call, your phone rings and you are distracted from what you were doing at the time. That's why telemarketers are so annoying.

Emails are sent to the inbox created by your ISP and downloaded when you choose to access your account. Spam may be annoying, but accessing it doesn't interrupt what you were doing.

I suppose an argument could be made that someone who fills your inbox to the limit is causing you genuine harm. You may be missing essential communications when you hit your limit.

At any rate, let's just be happy that what seemed to be a big deal apparently turns out to be considerably less than one.

But as Luigi already pointed out, unless that person changes email accounts daily, blocking the sending solves the problem of trying to overflow a person's email account.

How many emails would one person have to send in order to do that anyway? My free Yahoo email account has a 1 GB limit. It has over 1300 undeleted messages (I haven't bothered to clean it out in a few years) and according to the indicator, that's only 5% of capacity. Someone would have to set up a server to continuously bombard your box. Hackers might try that against a large company, but to target an individual like that would take some serious hate.

And the solution that is to simply change YOUR email address.

I really don't know if this is a problem that's common but I did have my email service shut down once-not because they filled up the inbox but because somebody had it rigged up that I was receiving an unbelievable amount of email in a matter of seconds. The server shut me down and it took a while to straighten it out. The purpose of this escapes me.

Sure, you can change your email address but that's like saying that the solution to obscene phone callers is to get an unlisted number.

I suspect the impetuous for all this was the rise in cyber stalking and cyber harassment--I see stuff like this in High School more and more, people using text messaging to really bully some kids. Mostly girls torturing some other poor girl. I don't think it's something I'd send them to jail for...maybe a good kick in the ass. (of course if it were one of MY girls being targeted my solution would involve pliers and blowtorches).

And the solution that is to simply change YOUR email address.

Oh, but that argument can be made against things that are very clearly harassment. "All you have to do is [change your job, move, get an unlisted phone no., etc.]".

If someone is taking actions where your only means of being able to live your life involve a change among the above, I think that qualifies as harassment.

As for this -- I'm glad that this appears to be a not especially huge deal. As for "Bush Derangement Syndrome", Dave ... well, my apologies if the administration's previous blatant impositions on freedom of speech make me sensitive to spotting other potential ones. I'm glad this one doesn't appear to be; I won't apologize for being vigilant, however, and you should not expect same.

TWL

I don't buy your usage argument, Den, because if one owns an answering machine and sets it to screen one's calls, the telemarketing calls (Spam) are queued up and waiting when one opts to check -- just like e-mail on a computer. Fundamentally, there is no difference, in my opinion.

Most ISPs these days offer multiple email addresses, so requesting a new address is a lot easier then changing your phone number or moving.

And Maheras, sure you can setup an answering machine, but your phone is still going to ring and disrupt your day unless you turn the ringer off. And what if you're expecting an important call? Even if you have caller ID -and most telemarketers block their ID- you still have to check it. And if it's blocked, you have to pick it up and find it that it's some asshole that wants to talk about your auto insurance.

Yes, spam is annoying, but not to the degree that telemarketing is. Email is also text-based, not sound. Somebody calling you up and blowing an airhorn into the phone is infinitely more "annoying" then an email offering to sell you a vibrator.

To me, this law is mostly a solution in search of a problem.

And Tim, I agree, Bush has definitely primed the pump for people to assume the worst from the government these days on freedom of speech and the right to privacy. I'm sad that some people feel that being extra-vigilant about our freedoms is a sign of "derangement." I guess that's the times we live in.

Yes, this law is limited to harassment (or annoyance) that actually causes distress or damage to the recipient.

And FISA limited no-notice wiretaps to those obtained with a warrant - even one after the fact. And this administration still managed to expand their interpretation to make warrants unnecessary.

If the trend continues, how long until some neocon "public servant" expands the definition of this law to include, say, any mass mailings on behalf of a non-Republican politician? After all, if the neocons are the only ones truly serving our country, as they maintain, then "tricking" someone into voting for a different politico would be harming their best interests, right?

Speaking of stupid laws...

How about this one out of the UK getting back into the news: British men face trial over "Al-Jazeera bombing" leak.

The two were arrested under Britain's Official Secrets Act. Yet, while the White House has called this memo "outlandish" and Blair has denied that Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera, the British government is putting these two men on trial and have threatened the media with arrests should they leak the memo any further.

If there's nothing to it, why is there a trial?

"Still waiting for that FCC regulatory definition of "obscene"."

From the FCC FAQ pages...
What makes material “obscene?” Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.

Now, what would the FCC have to do with this anyway?

Soooo, is Peter David your real name? I bet I could get you sent for 20 years in the cooler for the "freedom" clock alone. ; )

Actually, the only thing annoying about that is the way the java script keeps crashing my browser.

First of all, Jeff, that's quoting an SC ruling, not a regulation. Second, how is does one define what an "average person" finds offensive? How does one determine a community standard? Should a TV show be shown to a certain percentage of residents in a town and let them vote on whether it's obscene?

Desk Anchor: And now we go to April O'Neil, reporting live from the City Jail....
April: Today we've seen an incredible upswing in the population of the holding cell. All the people you see behind me were arrested just in the past few days. Folks, what are the charges against you? Are you alleged to be members of the Foot Clan?
Jailbird #1: The wha?
Jailbird #2: You mean, like, ninjas?
Jailbird #3: No way. Pirates would be cooler, but seriously, no.
April: So tell us, then, why ARE you in jail today?
Jailbird #1: Personally, I blame Commander Taco. No offense, Rob, if you're listening.
Jailbird #2: Don't be such a troll, man. You could've totally opted to log in before you posted.
Jailbird #1: Yeah? So could *you*.
April: I don't understand -- Commander Taco? Trolls? Could someone explain this a little more clearly?
Jailbird #3: I can see that you're not familiar with Slashdot. Go google it, you'll be glad you did. Just don't ask anybody to explain their nicknames.
Jailbird #2: In fact, lady, I'll help you along -- it's a website where people post summaries of and links to news articles around the Internet, and then we talk about them. And we talk about a lot of other stuff, too. You don't even have to actually join to participate, but it helps.
Jailbird #1: Yeah, just don't be surprised if you aren't taken too seriously while you're posting as an Anonymous Coward.
Jailbird #3: Except by a few literalist nutballs out there, apparently.
April: I still don't understand. Is this an activist group or something? What did you all do that could lead to an arrest?
all three: Nothing!
Jailbird #1: Somebody posted anonymously, somebody else around here got offended and then read that they could get the Anonymous Coward who wrote that post thrown in jail for it, and here we all are.
April: So you're all under arrest because of something one of you did?
Jailbird #2: {huffy sigh} Arr tee eff aaay, lady.
Jailbird #4: Mod user down: flamebait.
Jailbird #2: Take off, {bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep}.
Jailbird #3: {talking over #2 and #4} Not exactly. We're all customers on the same ISP in this area, and we all posted as Anonymous Cowards during the right time-frame that the District Attorney thinks it could've been one of us. I guess they don't have enough geeks on staff, because they can't figure out how to narrow it down any better. We figure they're hoping one of us will take the rap just to get this over with.
April: So **do** you know who they should be charging?
Jailbird #1: I think it was Cowboy Neal.

Bush signed the law. Peter had some objection to it based on what he had read. Are you saying that anyone who interprets the law differently from you is deranged? Maybe his interpretation was a little mistaken, but how does that make him deranged? That just makes you sound spiteful and contemptuous of anyone who doesn't share your view of the current president.

No, I just think that PAD came across the column, took it as gospel because it synched up nicely to his worldview, and passed it on without bothering to read the legislation in question. Interpretation of primary source material doesn't enter into it when you don't even bother to look at the primary source material. PAD was just plain sloppy on this one.

-Dave O'Connell

Well the AMA wouldn't, because it's the American Psychiatric Association (APA) that publishes the DSM-IV, the book that lists all officially recognized mental diseases and disorders.

Point taken, sort of. But then, I wasn't seriously contending that Bush Derangement Syndrome is a medical condition in my original post, either. You might as well take someone to task for saying a person is in the throes of "dance fever." True, the dance-a-holic in question might not actually have a higher-than-normal temperature. But to point that out is rather beside the point, don't you think?

-Dave O'Connell

Den, that quote was taken from the FCC's FAQ pages. Posted here was "Still waiting for that FCC regulatory definition of "obscene"." So, there's what the FCC defines as obscene.

And something obscene on a broadcast has nothing to do with something being annoying via e-mail or even on the telephone. Thus, my answer.

So, if you want to talk about broadcast, there's the problem. Broadcasters can't really know what wouldn't fit community standards until they air something that generates a lot of complaints. It doesn't take many letters or e-mails to the FCC to generate an investigation and stations would rather not have that happen.

"Should a TV show be shown to a certain percentage of residents in a town and let them vote on whether it's obscene?"
No. If a station decides not to air something, too bad. Local folks will just have to wait the 4-5 months before a show is released on DVD or moves to non-broadcast television.

I made a living as a Telemarketer for many years. I am a tad biased.

No one thinks twice about the adds we click thru while surfing. Nor do T.V. adds really bother any of us anymore long as you have a DVR.

Congress picks the weakest stuff to legislate.

Telemarketing gets more expensive. Its harder to reach the people that will buy from the ones that know how to do it right. Simply because consumers complained long enough and elected officials needed to be perceived as public friendly.
Telemarketing is just like any ad you see. I was easy to ignore, if I interupted a customer I would not get the sale.

My dad is a staunch Republican I am a Liberal. We argue a lot. One thing we agree on is either way it seems to work like a pendulum. Some years its more conservative others more liberal. I teased him a lot while Clinton was in office =).

We all need to remember what the senators are doing and vote em out. When a non-republican president gets into office he/she will have the power base to swing the pendulum back the other way quickly.

"No, I just think that PAD came across the column, took it as gospel because it synched up nicely to his worldview, and passed it on without bothering to read the legislation in question. Interpretation of primary source material doesn't enter into it when you don't even bother to look at the primary source material. PAD was just plain sloppy on this one."

Well, number one, bite me. Number two, since you're apparently reading challenged, you couldn't parse that the column was brought TO my attention rather than that I stumbled over it. And number three, despite your contention that this isn't newsworthy, I've read over the supplemental material and am not remotely convinced that Bush, who has a track record of granting his people the most extreme lattitude in his "interpretation" of the law (Big Brother is listening), will not grant them leave to similarly take as broad an interpretation as possible to these revisions.

Once upon a time, the American government "in time of war" used broadly written statutes to throw Americans in jail simply because they dissented. So I don't exactly trust the notion of anyone standing there and batting their eyes doe-like claiming that, Oh no, mercy me, you're making far too big a thing out of this because the government would neeeeever do anything like that, would never abuse power, you must be deraaaaanged.

PAD

Which makes it all the more puzzling that so many liberals were the ones who sponsored the law in the first place (and they ALL voted for it in the Senate). Are they just not very smart?

Well, since there was hardly a groundswell of conservative opposition (as evidenced by the fact that it passed... ;), the same could be asked of them....

Interpretation of primary source material doesn't enter into it when you don't even bother to look at the primary source material.

Sounds alot like Bush when he 'interprets' laws & the Constitution.

No one thinks twice about the adds we click thru while surfing.

Wanna bet?

For one, most intelligent people don't click on the ads. Second, I have this wonderful little tool for Firefox called AdBlock (which is very popular, btw), which blocks many of them from even loading on the page to begin with.

Well, number one, bite me. Number two, since you're apparently reading challenged, you couldn't parse that the column was brought TO my attention rather than that I stumbled over it.

Whether or not one "stumbles" across something or has their "drawn to it", there is still an "accidental" or "unplanned" aspect to it, is there not? Maybe, maybe not, but I will accept nit-picking in lieu of something that furthers your initial argument.

I see a different argument in your recent post, one that deals with your level of trust in Bush's interpretation of the law. A variation on the old "fake-but-accurate" defense, to put it in 60 Minutes-speak. But that is a different matter than your original post. Is it really a "travesty of First Amendment interference" to clarify that the term a "telecommunications device" can include something that utilizes the Internet? Given that this is what Bush actually did, that's what you're left to argue. Molehill, prepare to become mountain.

As for the rest of the legislation, what do you think of it? It is the "Violence Against Women Act", after all. Would you have otherwise approved of this legislation? And if so, would you have applauded Bush on this blog for vetoing it according to your misgivings or would you have demonized him as "anti-woman" or somesuch language for opposing the main provisions? Just curious.

Once upon a time, the American government "in time of war" used broadly written statutes to throw Americans in jail simply because they dissented. So I don't exactly trust the notion of anyone standing there and batting their eyes doe-like claiming that, Oh no, mercy me, you're making far too big a thing out of this because the government would neeeeever do anything like that, would never abuse power, you must be deraaaaanged.

I'll assume you're just indulging in rhetoric and are not "reading-challenged" when you suggest that I'm batting my eyes doe-like, or for that matter, standing. I am, in fact, sitting down and have successfully reigned in my eyelashes' spastic tendencies, at least for the time being. Also, I never said that the government would never abuse power, just that it didn't seem like a valid complaint against Bush in this context. But we'll let that slide, because I'm not nit-picking.

All irony aside: Look, I don't begrudge you not wanting certain parts of history to repeat themselves (your description brings to mind Lincoln's conduct during the Civil War.) But there is a big difference between being vigilant and disintegrating into knee-jerk hysterics over the news that using the Internet makes you a user of a telecommunications device.

-Dave O'Connell

Let's beat the nit-pickers to it! Here we go! That first sentence of mine should've read:

Whether or not one "stumbles" across something or has their *attention* "drawn to it", there is still an "accidental" or "unplanned" aspect to it, is there not?

Now that that's cleared up, it's time for me to go bite PAD, per his request. I'm not that reading-challenged, you know. I know an invite when I see one.

-Dave O'Connell

Actually if you really want to get technical about it, I didn't use the word "stumble" in the post PAD cited. I used "come across". PAD, you quoted me accurately, but then as you made your "reading-challenged" jab, you became "reading-challenged" yourself and cited me as saying "stumbled." "Come across" is a pretty neutral term, no? Whatever. I'm not the silly man who sloppily brought it up.

-Dave O'Connell

Craig when I type "click thru" I mean hit the red x and close the pop up. I am aware of ad blockers etc.

My point is you can say no and hang up the phone. You can click thru the add. Pay for satellite radio, use a dvr. Your privacy from any form of advertisment can be bought. Either with a small amount of time or with real cash.

true patrick, but the premise was that this would be used by conswervatives for eeeeeevil. So of course they would be for it, (which would be dopey--as someone else pointed out, these things go in cycles and the law you use against someone today will be used against you tomorrow.)

which would be dopey--as someone else pointed out, these things go in cycles and the law you use against someone today will be used against you tomorrow

And yet, that hasn't stopped them from suggesting stupid crap like the "nuclear option" for judicial confirmations, has it?

How was that suggestion stupid? The threat of it got them what they wanted. Roberts sailed through and Alito looks to do the same unless one more day of listening to Biden drone on causes the poor man to gnaw thorugh his arm in a pathetic attempt at escape.

One more point--while from PAD's point of view this wasn't an overreaction due to his perception of the past trangressions of the administration, from a conservative point of view it is getting hard to take liberal doomsday scenarios seriously. there have been too many of them. Remember the draft? Is there ANYONE who STILL expects to see the draft reinstated in the next 2 years? yet those who doubted it just a short time ago were chided for being naive. The army just announced its 7th straight month of reaching its goals. There will be no draft and there was never any chance that there would be one.

"Is there ANYONE who STILL expects to see the draft reinstated in the next 2 years? yet those who doubted it just a short time ago were chided for being naive. The army just announced its 7th straight month of reaching its goals. There will be no draft and there was never any chance that there would be one."

The army keeps meeting recruiting goals because they've lowered their goals to reflect today's lower enlistment rate.

There's not been a draft...because the government is handing out money left and right to pay for private security forces in Iraq. Missions that rightfully should be performed by the best-equipped, highly trained and motivated, best volunteer military force on the planet (and unlike yesterday's hearings, I don't mean those statements to be at all sarcastic, unlike the constant reference to Justice O'Conner as the "model" Supreme Court Justice) are instead being performed by private citizens that are basically mercanaries, hired guns, maybe with training, maybe not. Who knows?

Think not, says some? Those 4 civilians that were ambushed on a bridge some several months ago, and then had their corpses hung from the bridge? Private security. Who's families are now suing the company they worked for for lack of proper equipment and mission personnel.

That's the only reason there won't be a draft, because the Administration can just hire the troops it needs. We'll withdraw our military units, and replace them with private mercanaries, for as long as it takes to restore a US friendly order to Iraq.

How was that suggestion stupid?

"as someone else pointed out, these things go in cycles and the law you use against someone today will be used against you tomorrow.)"

Your quote, and one I agree with.

That's why it's stupid. I thought the stupidity was obvious, but apparently not.

I think Dave is missing the problem in the legislation. It's all well and good to make a law against making anonymous, harrassing phone calls. Those are obviously targeted for a specific effect. However, once you broaden the provision to cover all communication over the internet, you cover a wide range of communication that is, often by default, anonymous.

Anonymous phone calls are almost without exception intended "to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass." Anonymous internet communications are not.

People do not willingly involve themselves in prolonged phonecalls with anonymous people. (900 numbers aside.) People on the internet engage with anonymous people, intentionally, all the time.

And there's no indication that the expanded law is limited to VOIP or email or IM or other 1-on-1 communications, so it would seem to cover anonymous postings on blogs, message boards, and other web pages, as well.

The law is intended to prevent cyberstalking, but the standard ("to annoy") is too low, and the methods of communication (essentially any) are too broad.

So consider this: You don't have the right to call up random people and scream "BUSH IS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER!!" According to this law, you can't post that sentence anonymously on a message board.

The law is obviously ill-conceived, too vague, unenforceable, AND unconstitutional.

It's just bad law.

According to this law, you can't post that sentence anonymously on a message board.

That's not true. At the very least you have to be able to show intent to cause harm. You'd have to be a hardcore moonbat to get a case of the vapors over that one. Basically, this law (which I don't like) does for the internet what was already done for phones. I doubt that anyone has been prosecuted for calling up people and saying "Bush is the greatest president ever." Although some might consider that to be obscene, I don't think they'll get very far.

"as someone else pointed out, these things go in cycles and the law you use against someone today will be used against you tomorrow.)"

Your quote, and one I agree with.

That's why it's stupid. I thought the stupidity was obvious, but apparently not.

If they had actually dropped the bomb that might be so but they didn't. They got what they wanted--the Democrats backed down with a face saving compromise that pretty much ensures that Bush will get his people through.

You could argue that when the Democrats get in power they will make the same threat but since the Republicans seem to allow Democratic presidents to get the people they want for Supreme Court that may not be necessary. Or they'll let them pull the trigger. Frankly, I'd just as soon see majority rule return to the Senate anyway, I don't see why a 60% majority is needed.

Drew's point is a good one. I'm not a fan of enshrining "annoyance" into law as something we should be protected from. But this definitely predates Bush, and if you're going to have it apply to telecommunications devices, I don't see why the Internet should be excluded from that category. (Not everyone on this board agrees. Fair enough. I wouldn't characterize it as a subversion of the First Amendment, though.)

So in that sense, the change is sensible. Clarify what seems to be obvious and make it unmistakably obvious. What came before that might be problematic.

-Dave O'Connell

Those comparing annoying phone calls to annoying Internet postings seem to forget one thing.

How many annoying long distance phone calls do you get on average? Not a whole lot, I'm betting.

How many Internet scams, spam and other annoyances are from outside the territorial US? Is there a number which goes that high?

Consider: I'm Canadian, living in Canada, and an 'operator' (sort of traffic cop) in an Internet chat room about Japan. The channel is hosted somewhere in Britain, I think. One of the most annoying individual (who posted under an alias, of course) who found ways around several bans, turned out to be from Holland. So, OK, who's got jurisdiction on this one?

So, yes, another ill-conceived, unworkable law by politicians who haven't a clue what they're doing.

You could argue that when the Democrats get in power they will make the same threat but since the Republicans seem to allow Democratic presidents to get the people they want for Supreme Court that may not be necessary.

Supreme Court is one thing, and how many did Clinton get to nominate?

But Federal appointments in general... well, the Republicans denied quite a few of those to Clinton, more so than the number Democrats have refused to Bush to date iirc.

Yet that doesn't stop the nuclear option from being mentioned any time the Democrats decided to think for themselves for once.

I was really hoping that the Dems would force the issue with Roberts, but, yeah, I agree it probably won't happen with Alito either. These guys need to grow so gonads already.

Well, I'm of the opinion that qualified people should not be excluded from the judiciary, so I don't want to see republicans doom good democrats or visa versa. I especially object to the way both sides try to justify pure partisanship by pretending that the people they are blacklisting are racists or otherwise unfit.

Clinton got to nominate two, same as as Bush has so far. Clinton's nominees won acceptance by 97-3 and 87-9.

I especially object to the way both sides try to justify pure partisanship by pretending that the people they are blacklisting are racists or otherwise unfit.

That pretty much poisons the well. It prevents fuller discussions such as, oh, say, does Alito give too much deference to legislative or executive branch intentions (in my mind, that was the fatal flaw in the Court that allowed WWII relocation camps).

Some comments on the "annoyance" law:

First, it applies only to the portion of Internet-based activity defined as "Telecommunication." This is defined elsewhere in US law, with the FCC being the defining body. For the record, direct person-to-person email and Voice-over-IP are the only two forms of internet activity which qualify, per the FCC, as telecommunications. The rest of it, including blogs and forum-style outlets like this, are considered "information services," not "telecommunications."

Second, has it occured to any of you yet that the goal of this thing was to extend current legislation governing prank telephone calls made to and from persons with traditional telephone service to also cover calss to or from persons using VoIP services. In other words, it makes calls to or from those with telephone service through their cable or other broadband service, or cellular phone service, subject to the same prank calling and obscene calling laws as everyone else. It may be "anti-free speech" or "about darn time" depending on you rview, but it's hard to make a case for it being revolutionary, unprecedented, or likely to change the face of society.

Now, I would also like someone to tell me how or why this is Bush's fault (or to his credit, for those who like this). It was a spurious amendment attached to a must-pass bill (funding for the Justice Department). As long as the JD budget was acceptable, no sane President was going to veto this sucker because of some lightweight amendment that got glued on, any more than anyone in Congress or the Senate was going to pitch much of a fit about it. Once the Congress-critters got it stuck on there, it was a slam-dunk. So, why aren't you yelling about the people who actually did it?

I get really depressed when I realize that the level of political discourse has sunk to "I hate Bush" "Well then, you must be a mush-brain Libral. I love him!" Isn't there anyone left in this country with a working brain dell who will at least blame the actual perpetrators of legislative "action," even if they are too lazy to bother to find out if the law they are upset about even exists.

Is there ANYONE who STILL expects to see the draft reinstated in the next 2 years?

Yes.

As for the SC nominating process (and I've no idea how we got there), I agree that the rhetoric both pro and con can get way out of hand.

You want a good reason to reject someone, taken from a previous administration?

Clarence Thomas said in his hearings that he had never discussed Roe v. Wade as a law student. Never. Never ever.

A half-decent senator could very easily say in response to that, "either that is a lie or you are one of the most manifestly incurious legal scholars on the planet. Either option is sufficient grounds to reject your nomination."

No bias, no racism -- just "you're an unqualified dork."

(And BTW, Bill, I hope you would accept obvious racism as a disqualifier if it's manifestly present. I can't think of any nominees in recent history to whom it would apply, but let's say, for instance, that someone chose to nominate David Duke to the court.)

TWL

As long as the JD budget was acceptable, no sane President was going to veto this sucker because of some lightweight amendment that got glued on,

Isn't this why Clinton got the line-item veto, to be able to veto stupid crap 'glued on' to another bill?

Maybe somebody forgot to explain that part to Bush.

(And BTW, Bill, I hope you would accept obvious racism as a disqualifier if it's manifestly present. I can't think of any nominees in recent history to whom it would apply, but let's say, for instance, that someone chose to nominate David Duke to the court.)

Well, of course. It was the pretending that the nominee was a racist that bothered me, especially when the only real reason for the opposition is the party affiliation of the president who nominated them. But when Teddy kennedy tries to say that Alito has never written an opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job it's obvious what he is trying to do. A careless reader might assume from that statement that Alito always sides against "people of color" when, in fact, he has ruled multiple times in favor of minority plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases. He made the ruling but because he did not write an opinion I guess it doesn't count.

And this is from Kennedy. If a Supreme Court nominee ever came before the congress with the same amount of baggage that Teddy has, he'd be ridden out of town on a rail.

"One more point--while from PAD's point of view this wasn't an overreaction due to his perception of the past trangressions of the administration, from a conservative point of view it is getting hard to take liberal doomsday scenarios seriously. there have been too many of them. Remember the draft? Is there ANYONE who STILL expects to see the draft reinstated in the next 2 years?"

Yes. Right now there's stop gap measures that are as good as draft, such as extending tours of duty by months if not years, and hauling in people in their 40s and 50s who are stunned to be ripped away from their lives and shoved back into the army. And if/when they reinstitute a full draft, they'll probably call it something else. But yes, absolutely, I expect to see it back.

As for scenarios, you know what I'm personally sick of? Knee-jerk conservative support for Bush over his various doomsday scenarios. So much so that he feels the need to spy on Americans "because if they're talking to bin Laden, I want to know about it." Every aspect of his foreign (and much of his domestic) policy is based on worst case scenarios and the language of fear. Conservatives (and Bush) voice concern about danger to the country, and it's vigilance and patriotic. Liberals voice concern about basic freedoms, and it's doomsday scenarios that are hard to take seriously.

Meanwhile in the Bushverse, debate about the war could possibly bring "comfort to the enemy." With that sort of attitude, *anything* that can be used to squelch opinions being voiced is something to be wary about.

PAD

Agreed Peter.

People that use fear to lead will never be in a position to lead for very long. I am ashamed that Bush jr made 8 years out of public fear.

I am very worried that as his legacy he leaves behind a court that will make rulings in the same vein that gave him the first 4 years.

When the Supreme court re-interprets the law and its flawed is there a way to change it? If so is that an act of congress?

Is there a way around knee-jerk reaction in any situation? I have never been able to make a choice and figure out if its the best answer until later.

You know, when reading the act, it might be well to examine the sentence structure. It's all very well to argue that it's only supposed to cover "annoying" communications that also "cause personal harm", but in the actual act, the operand in the sentence describing affected communications isn't "and" - it's "or". In other words, the communication objected to can be harmful AND annoying, simply harmful - or simply annoying.

Remember, this is an administration that has very probably listened in on my calls to Dell's customer "service" and financial departments, because they're overseas. ("Boss, this number shows a pattern of lots of calls in a short period to India, where there are some Islamic fundamentalist groups. Think we should tap those calls, just in case?")

"You could argue that when the Democrats get in power they will make the same threat but since the Republicans seem to allow Democratic presidents to get the people they want for Supreme Court that may not be necessary."

And who, exactly, have the Democrats prevented Bush from appointing to the SCOTUS? Miers was the target of pre-hearing criticism from both sides of the aisle. Alito looks like he's going to get confirmed. He appears to be getting hammered, but he should be getting hammered. He's not answering the questions the committee are putting to him. He's responding, but he's not answering. Ginsberg answered the Roe question honestly, and truthfully....she supported the decision. It was clear which way she was likely to vote on that matter. Even Justice Roberts admitted that Roe is settled precedent. Alito won't even go that far, and he was called on it yesterday. He'll talk up and down, left and right, about other Consitutional issues that are like to come before him if he gets appointed. But he avoids responding on Roe. He also demonstrates a near-perfect memory of his prior case record, but can't remember why he listed a controversial group on a job application. And he can't remember why he joined.

The reason the democrats are concerned with Alito isn't because he's conservative: they already KNOW that. They're concerned because he's not being very honest in his responses. He's not lying, so far as anyone can tell, but he's avoiding the hard issues for some reason. I think that's a cause for concern in someone that's going to be wrestling with the most difficult and important issues that affect everyone in the country.

Ginsberg answered the Roe question honestly, and truthfully....she supported the decision. It was clear which way she was likely to vote on that matter.

Hmmm...as I recall there were a number of questions and issues that she refused to comment on. (according to wikipedia then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden told her to not answer questions she did not feel comfortable answering. He's obviously gotten over THAT idea!)But what I find interesting is that if it's true that she was very very clear on her position doesn't it say something good about those pro-life senators who voted to confirm her anyway?

At any rate, if that is the actual problem they have with him why is gasbag Kennedy grilling him about having a Vanguard mutual fund...gee, so do I. It's one of the things those of us without a huge family trust fund tend to end up with, not that he'd know. I like the suggestion that someone made that if another opening happens Bush should nominate Kennedy, just to watch him finally get the kind of treatment he so richly deserves. What a fraud.(when one reads the facts of the Vanguard case it is obvious that it has no more relevance than the fact that Justice Ginsburg has participated in over 20 Supreme Court cases involving companies in which her husband held stock.

And while I genuinely like Biden, one of the few actual adults in a position of leadership in the Democratic Party, it's hard to take seriously the claim that he hasn't been able to get the information he needs when a large part of the problem is that he is apparently pathologically incapable of falling out of love with the sound of his own voice. Even some of the moonbats at Democraticunderground have reported shouting "Shut up! Shut up!" at their TVs when chatty Cathy gets going.

At any rate, Alito is a lock. I can tell because of the aforementioned backstabbing going on at the far left sites--they are already looking for scapegoats. Leahy seems to have pissed them off for some reason--what, it wasn't enough they got Mrs. Alito to cry, they should have physically thrown stuff at her too?

And if/when they reinstitute a full draft, they'll probably call it something else. But yes, absolutely, I expect to see it back.

When? Within the next 2 years?

(BTW, an earlier poster claimed that the armed forces have been able to meet their goals lately because they have lowered them. Is there any way to check this out? All I've found is that the number of soldiers is greater now than it was before 9/11. Anyone know where to find info about what the goals have been through the years?)

doesn't it say something good about those pro-life senators who voted to confirm her anyway?

Yeah, that for many of these guys, being pro-life is nothing more than a talking point to help get them elected to office.

Is it even conceivable (rimshot!) that they might have voted that way because they thought she was well qualified...or does every action, right or wrong HAVE to be the result of venal behavior?

Is it even conceivable (rimshot!) that they might have voted that way because they thought she was well qualified...or does every action, right or wrong HAVE to be the result of venal behavior?

Having never researched Ginsburg's confirmation hearings, I couldn't say.

But that doesn't explain the bitching and moaning from Republicans regarding Bush's nominations, when they rejected (iirc) more of Clinton's nominations.

Shouldn't this also say something about those on the right who refused to give Miers her supposedly well-deserved chance for an up or down vote?

Hypocracy is great, isn't it.

Speaking of stupid laws...

How about this one out of the UK getting back into the news: British men face trial over "Al-Jazeera bombing" leak.

The two were arrested under Britain's Official Secrets Act. Yet, while the White House has called this memo "outlandish" and Blair has denied that Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera, the British government is putting these two men on trial and have threatened the media with arrests should they leak the memo any further.

If there's nothing to it, why is there a trial?

How does the joke go? The Official Secrets Act isn't there to protect secrets; it's there to protect officials.

Speaking of stupid laws...

How about this one out of the UK getting back into the news: British men face trial over "Al-Jazeera bombing" leak.

The two were arrested under Britain's Official Secrets Act. Yet, while the White House has called this memo "outlandish" and Blair has denied that Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera, the British government is putting these two men on trial and have threatened the media with arrests should they leak the memo any further.

If there's nothing to it, why is there a trial?

How does the joke go? The Official Secrets Act isn't there to protect secrets; it's there to protect officials.

Clinton got to nominate two, same as as Bush has so far. Clinton's nominees won acceptance by 97-3 and 87-9.

Just make sure no one uses those numbers as an attempt to show how "obstructionist" the Dems are since the confirmation skids were greased well beforehand. Clinton, in an admirable show of practical bipartisanship, got together with GOP leaders to discuss potential nominees, trying to get who he wanted while making sure that the choices were one the the other side could live with. The confirmation hearings and vote were almost pro forma.

The idea of such bipartisanship from the W. Adminstration -- hell, the current GOP -- is laughable. The current meme seems to be "Open wide while we cram this down your throats. Oh, and don't choke, gag, or complain because if you do, you hate America."

Shouldn't this also say something about those on the right who refused to give Miers her supposedly well-deserved chance for an up or down vote?

Who says it was well deserved?

just make sure no one uses those numbers as an attempt to show how "obstructionist" the Dems are since the confirmation skids were greased well beforehand. Clinton, in an admirable show of practical bipartisanship, got together with GOP leaders to discuss potential nominees, trying to get who he wanted while making sure that the choices were one the the other side could live with. The confirmation hearings and vote were almost pro forma.

The idea of such bipartisanship from the W. Adminstration -- hell, the current GOP -- is laughable. The current meme seems to be "Open wide while we cram this down your throats. Oh, and don't choke, gag, or complain because if you do, you hate America."

Ok, fair enough--can anyone give examples of a few judges that share Bush's views to the same degree that Ginsburg shared Clinton's who would be supported by Democrats?

If Roberts and to a lesser degree Alito are considered extremists it's hard to imagine who would be acceptable, other than someone from the left, which is about as likely as Clinton renominating Bork.

At any rate, if the attacks on Bush's picks are as incompetant as the last few days have been the issue is probably moot. Democrats have done the impossible--made themselves look so bad they knocked the Jack Abramoff story off the front page. I keep saying that there is no way that the Democrats can't pick up seats in both houses in the 2006 elections but I'm probably seriously understimating their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Which makes it all the more puzzling that so many liberals were the ones who sponsored the law in the first place (and they ALL voted for it in the Senate). Are they just not very smart?

No, they just didn't realize the president, though ostensibly a strict constructionist when it comes to the SCOTUS and Congress, is apparently a loose-to-the-point-of-diarrhea constructionist when it comes to the Executive Branch when they first conceived this law. I mean when the President decides without precedent that he can conduct illegal wiretaps despite very accomadating laws and pretty much states that he'll ignore the McCain anti-torture law whenever he feels like it because he's the President, God only know how he'll interpret this potential gem.

So, no, it's not the liberals aren't very smart, but rather that liberals reasonably assumed that the President would be the conservative he claimed to be and trusted that he wouldn't overreach.

They really should have known better. They're finally getting the plot now.

Who says it was well deserved?

Anybody in the GOP who says that Alito deserves an up or down vote. The same lot that refused to give one to Miers.

It doesn't matter whether she was qulified for the job or not (which she wasn't).

The same group who said Roberts' religious background is important after saying that we shouldn't talk about Miers' religious beliefs.

Hypocrits, through and through.

Shouldn't this also say something about those on the right who refused to give Miers her supposedly well-deserved chance for an up or down vote?

Who says it was well deserved?

Bill Frist, for one:

"All 100 members of the U.S. Senate will soon decide a basic question of fairness. Will we permit a fair, up-or-down vote on every judicial nominee?"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-05-15-oppose_x.htm

And then there's Sen. John Cornyn:

"All Americans of good faith should at least agree that we need a fair process for selecting judges — with full investigation, full questioning, full debate, and then an up-or-down vote."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/cornyn200505090747.asp

(Now granted, Cornyn's also the one who after the Terri Schiavo debacle basically said that judges who waded into political frays were at legitimate risk for assassination, so his "up or down vote" might be a bit more final than most.)

And hey, how about Rick Santorum?

"My one motivation is to affirm the constitutional duty of all Senators to give advice and consent on the President's judicial nominations. That includes a vigorous debate ending in an up-or-down vote."

http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/santorumfilibusterletter.htm

Karl Rove, Jim DeMint, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Pete Domenici, and Sam Brownback?

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/051114ta_talk_hertzberg

In other words, they're happy to insist on an "up or down vote" when it's one they think they'll win. When someone clearly incompetent is nominated, they'd rather shuffle their feet and mutter platitudes while Other Folks squelch the problem for them.

You want to claim Democrats can be hypocritical sometimes, be my guest -- I've been saying it for years, and I think it's healthy to call them on it. But please do not do us the discourtesy of claiming (or implying, as you more often do) that Senate Republicans are any better about it.

TWL

So they realized this when? The law just passed last Thursday. Did Maxine Waters wake up friday morning and realize it was all a horrible mistake?

Your scenario, while comforting in that it confirms your world view, is unlikely. But easily proven--I can expect Nadler, Waters, etc to immediately announce a planned repeal...any...day...now.

Anybody in the GOP who says that Alito deserves an up or down vote. The same lot that refused to give one to Miers.

It doesn't matter whether she was qualified for the job or not (which she wasn't).

Well, see, that was sort of my point. If a person isn't qualified I don't think they deserve a vote at all. The Meirs nomination was withdrawn, quite rightly. She wasn't qualified. Sorry, I just don't see the hypocrisy. If Bush had unwisely insisted that she go before the committee and face what would have been a brutal experience, well yeah, I'd say they should have had an up or down vote and I have no doubt it would have been down. But you are really reaching here.

You want to claim Democrats can be hypocritical sometimes, be my guest -- I've been saying it for years, and I think it's healthy to call them on it. But please do not do us the discourtesy of claiming (or implying, as you more often do) that Senate Republicans are any better about it.

Well, since implications are matters of perceptions, it's a bit hard to argue the point. But so far as Supreme Court nominations go it is simple fact that Republicans have been less likely to blackball a nominee because they differ with the party line on abortion, death penalty, etc. Spin it any way you like. 97-3 and 87-9. And with all due respect to Justices Breyer and Ginsberg, I think that Justice Roberts was a more qualified choice.

But again, the point is moot. I have no doubt that the next time the Democrats manage to nominate a presidential candidate smart enough to actually win the election the Senate Republicans will put on performances every bit as awful as what we saw this week.

Since I think the president has a right to get the qualified candidates they choose approved, I also hope that these future Republicans will also be every bit as successful, which is to say, not very.

Sorry, I just don't see the hypocrisy.

The Senate Republicans I quoted above said that "every judicial nominee" deserved an up-or-down vote. Not "ones we think are qualified", not "ones we think we can get confirmed". Every Single One.

I hope that makes the hypocrisy clearer. If not ... well, you've been wrong before.

You planning to at least acknowledge that the answer to your "who says it was well deserved" is "a shitload of high-profile Republicans"?

TWL

So they realized this when? The law just passed last Thursday. Did Maxine Waters wake up friday morning and realize it was all a horrible mistake?

Although the law was passed last Thursday, I'm assuming that it's been in the making and in committees for quite some time now -- well before Bush's wiretap opinions came to light.

Your scenario, while comforting in that it confirms your world view, is unlikely. But easily proven--I can expect Nadler, Waters, etc to immediately announce a planned repeal...any...day...now.

I'm not sure what scenario you think I'm expecting and I don't quite see how your example of proof confirms anything. You’re presuming to know what my worldview is. You do not. You also assume that I find comfort in something that confirms it. I do not necessary do.

IIRC, the administration took the authorization to use force in Afganistan as a permission slip to conduct the illegal wiretaps. That's a bit of a non sequiter if I ever saw one and on that basis, it's not unreasonable to believe they would use a similar get-there-from-here approach with this law. I do not really have a problem with the law as I (think I) understand it. Let’s just say that, in light of past actions of the current Executive branch, I would not be surprised if some dismaying news breaks that W. used it to justify something questionable.

Heh, maybe I am being too cynical. Well, “eternal vigilance” and all that . . . :)

The thing is that I hope I'm wrong and I hope the adminstration does the responsible thing and use the law for which it was obviously intended. The problem is this: When was the last time this administration has shown any unforced sense of responsibility?

I still think you're stretching here. Had her nomination actually reached the point where any of these people got to actually vote and had these republicans THEN voted to keep her from getting a vote, knowing that she would go down to an embarrassing defeat...THAT would indeed be hypocritical. As it stands...if Frist et al called for her to withdraw her nopmination you might, maybe, be able to make an argument on hipocrisy. If you could prove that Myeres really really wanted to give it her best shot and she was forced to withdraw her nomination, you could make a good argument. As it stands...not so much.

You want to claim Democrats can be hypocritical sometimes, be my guest -- I've been saying it for years, and I think it's healthy to call them on it. But please do not do us the discourtesy of claiming (or implying, as you more often do) that Senate Republicans are any better about it.

I have to get back to this, after a good nap...do you really think the two sides are exactly equal in their malfeasance and hypocrisy? I'm just wondering. If you had said that you believed that Senate Democrats, while far from the people you might want them to be, are at least better than their Republican counterparts, I wouldn't bat an eye. Perfectly reasonable position to take, even if I'd disagree with it. Wouldn't really see it as a discourtesy.

If you meant that I never claim or even imply that Republicans can do any wrong, I can pull out many quotes to the contrary, many probably in direct conversation with you. Santorum alone should be good for a half dozen quotes.

I'm not sure what scenario you think I'm expecting and I don't quite see how your example of proof confirms anything. You’re presuming to know what my worldview is. You do not. You also assume that I find comfort in something that confirms it. I do not necessary do.

Well, if it's true that liberal lawmakers made and passed this law before they knew how easily Bush would pervert it and use it for evil and that they now, as you say, are "finally getting the plot now", it is reasonable to expect that they will now take action to stop it. Right?

Were they to do so, it would in my mind be strong evidence that your take on their motives was correct.

Here's mine--this law is a pretty minor strengthening of the already existing law. The people who made it are not worried about Bush doing anything at all with it. If the vote were held today it would pass by the same margin. We will not see any attempt by Nadler and crew to weaken their bill.

As for my comment on your worldview, point well taken. That was snotty of me.

I still think you're stretching here.

I don't, not surprisingly. When the same people who insist that any Bush nominee should get a straight up-or-down vote then make absolutely no response to a nomination's scuttling, that's hypocritical. It's not AS hypocritical as the alternative scenario you lay out, but it's certainly hypocrisy on a very visible scale.

What would be manifestly UNhypocritical would be for them to say "we consider Ms. Miers unqualified, and we look forward to voting against confirmation." That would be in keeping with the "everyone deserves a vote" meme. Of course, that would also be humiliating their Dear Leader.

do you really think the two sides are exactly equal in their malfeasance and hypocrisy?

No, and a good point.

If you meant that I never claim or even imply that Republicans can do any wrong, I can pull out many quotes to the contrary, many probably in direct conversation with you. Santorum alone should be good for a half dozen quotes.

Oh, I know you're willing to acknowledge it -- but I would hope that you'd also acknowledge that you tend to call most of those transgressions minor while being willing to nail Democrats to the wall most of the time. One side is significantly played down vis-a-vis the other. (For example, it's interesting to me how much you're savaging Ted Kennedy when we've got people like Tom DeLay in much bigger positions of power while doing much more obviously criminal things.)

But them's what makes horse races, I suppose.

TWL

Well, if it's true that liberal lawmakers made and passed this law before they knew how easily Bush would pervert it and use it for evil and that they now, as you say, are "finally getting the plot now", it is reasonable to expect that they will now take action to stop it. Right?

Were they to do so, it would in my mind be strong evidence that your take on their motives was correct.

The vast percentage of liberals don’t think Bush is evil and would consequently use his powers thus, but I do believe that they didn’t realize that W. would make a habit of claiming overreaching executive power. I believe that they now are. Excuse please if this was not clearer.

Here's mine--this law is a pretty minor strengthening of the already existing law. The people who made it are not worried about Bush doing anything at all with it. If the vote were held today it would pass by the same margin. We will not see any attempt by Nadler and crew to weaken their bill.

I tend to agree with you and I think it unlikely that this law will be misused. But, as I’ve said, I have barely a thimble’s worth of faith in this administration. Yes, it’s cynical and yes, I wish I could not be so pessimistic about our president, but I am. His and his administration’s actions have made sure of that. All I can do is try to be objective and call a spade a spade when I see it -- and try to make sure that I’m not squinting through my preconceptions when I’m actually looking at a rake. :)

As for my comment on your worldview, point well taken. That was snotty of me.

No worries. Happens to the best of us. :)

I love you guys. :)

Anyway, Tim, for me Ted Kennedy sets off the same bells that Lieberman does for you. I can't stand the guy. Delay may be a sleaze and he may go to jail but Teddy is going to hell, if there is a God in heaven. I think I'd loath him even if I was liberal--hell, ESPECIALLY. This guy represents liberals the same way that Robertson represents conservatives (although in Robertson's defense, while he has opened his big yap about assassinations I don't think he has actually killed anyone).

Awful guy.

Anyway, if I tend to overemphasize the transgressions of the Democrats it's just to try to keep things in a bit of balance. I mean, from the article PAD linked us to you never would have known that this was something that liberal Democrats were pushing at least as hard as conservative republicans, if not harder.

See, for me I think it's a difference in type. Teddy is personally a very sleazy guy who I wouldn't want to come anywhere near -- but in terms of policy, I think his heart is very much in the right place and has a good eye (sometimes) for what works. Sure, I could wish for a better messenger, but I'm (metaphorically) paying him to be an advocate, not Driver of the Year.

Robertson, on the other hand, strikes me as personally sleazy, politically manipulating people through their faith, AND willing to advocate world-altering vicious events. That does not give him a leg up in my book. (And it's not like Kennedy intentionally murdered someone, unless you know something I don't.)

As for DeLay -- look, I now live and grew up in New Jersey. I understand corruption. :-) DeLay puts everybody else in amateur hour.

And while I do hope he spends a good long time in prison, I'd much prefer to keep him around and in the public eye until about, oh, Thanksgiving. After that, since he seems so fond of "perpetuating a Biblical worldview", a good old-fashioned stoning would not be amiss...

TWL

Actually, I said he "killed" someone, not murdered. A subtle distinction and one probably of minor interest to the Kopechne family.

I've been wondering why the Democrats have been doing what they've been doing. Alito was no slam dunk but it's becoming hard to see how he won't win confirmation now, less from anything he's done but just from the behavior of his opposition. When they weren't incompetent they were obnoxious. Yet I generally believe that the guys in Washington are smarter than they seem. My best guess is that one should follow the money (always good advice). The various special interest groups have been raising a lot of money for a fight. They have power and influence. If Biden and crew don't at least put up a good fight they can kiss the nomination goodbye (the exception, as always, is Hillary. She will quietly vote against him, placating the base while saying nothing that will move her too far to the left.).

But blood lust is seldom sated. The Kos Crowd is livid, ready to string up the Democrats for not winning. Rome is the mob and he who controls the mob controls Rome. Yeah, but it's very very hard to control a mob. Biden is probably my favorite pick for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 election but I think he seriously hurt himself this week.

Yes, I know you said "killed" rather than "murdered". (That's why I said "it's not like he murdered someone" when you said he'd killed someone.) I didn't disagree -- I was pointing out that the distinction is important. Let's put it this way -- Kennedy did kill someone, but by accident. Robertson has intentionally advocated deliberate murder. That makes for a clear-cut hierarchy in my mind.

(And Biden has no chance. People have long memories, and the '88 debacle is part of those memories. I think he'd be a valuable member of some administration, of either party, but he'd never be a viable candidate.)

TWL

Well now, you can't complain about intentionally advocating deliberate murder aftyer suggesting a good old fashioned stoning just a few posts above...

(I know, I know--nobody has less right to bitch about dark humor than I do. Just busting your chops.).

Yeah, you may be right about Biden. People do have long memories these days and the late night comedians will have a field day. It's probably impossible for a politician to get through a speach without lifting some platitude or phrase without proper attribution and it will be doubly impossible for Biden because he WON'T SHUT UP!

That said, he comes across as a genuinely decent guy and from a few reports I've heard from people who have met him, he is.

This whole "executive privilege" argument by partisan Democrats seems hypocritical to me. It smacks more of "Bush-is-not-our-guy-so-everything-he-does-is-evil" then a real, open-minded examination of the issue.

Where's the uproar by these same partisans when a Democrat stretches the limit on privacy issues? I'll tell you where: In a corner with a hand over their mouth.

Such reactive, loyal lapdog reactions are one-sided, in my opinion, and ignore some even more potentially invasive privacy issues perpetrated by officials from their own party.

Here in the Chicago area, officials can't put neighborhood and intersection surveillance cameras (with full audio capabilities) up fast enough. The date/time data collected by the Illinois Tollway I-Pass system can now be used in court to verify a person’s whereabouts, and my guess is that eventually, it will be used to ticket speeders as well (If toll booth “A” is 10 miles from toll booth “B,” and the speed limit between both booths is 60 mph, if you make the trip in less than 10 minutes, you were speeding, Bubba. Where’s the Democratic uproar about these issues? Clue: There isn’t one, because Chicago has had Democratic leadership for 70-odd years, and the current governor is a Democrat. Then there is the widespread availability of GPS and cell phone tracking, RFID technology, and who knows what else?

And yet, some partisan Democrats are only worried that someone can monitor which library books some people take out? Or Democrats are incensed that the justice department under a Republican administration bypassed a legally debatable “rubber stamp” warrant to monitor calls from known/suspected terrorists to the U.S.? How dumb is that?

Aren’t ALL issues above cause for thoughtful examination?

To be honest, I think we are already at a point now where there is little or no privacy, so I am pretty much resigned to that fact with everything I say and do. As far as I'm concerned, the genie's out of the bottle, and there ain't no putting it back -- regardless of one's political stripe.

Where's the uproar by these same partisans when a Democrat stretches the limit on privacy issues? I'll tell you where: In a corner with a hand over their mouth.

If you're referring to the Democratic "leadership" that gets all the press, you've probably got at least a partial case. If you're referring to the partisan Democrats who post here, I would prefer that you submit some actual evidence first.

To be honest, I think we are already at a point now where there is little or no privacy, so I am pretty much resigned to that fact with everything I say and do. As far as I'm concerned, the genie's out of the bottle, and there ain't no putting it back -- regardless of one's political stripe.

That, however, I'll pretty much agree with. The main thing to really argue for now is transparency -- give us the same ability to eavesdrop on government officials that they have to do for us. That'll make it a lot less likely that systematic abuses will occur, IMO, because the abusers will themselves get caught awfully quickly.

TWL

Dear Lord.... this is stupid. You mean someone buried a wierd, stupid, and possibly nasty thing inside of an over-long bill that declares violence against women to be wrong and people have the stamina and odd sense of focus to single out the President of the United States to sign into law H.R. 3402, the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005".

Maybe the problem is a Congress (doesn't matter what Party controls it) that spends too much time in session and a bunch of bill-writers who refuse to make these stupid things concise with language clear to the layman.

and if anyone ever accuses me of actually using anonymity here and there and everywhere.... for crying out loud I GIVE everyone a link to discover my real name. Furthermore... my real name has no more real meaning on the internet than my fancy-pants comic-themed handle. The only thing that means anything is an ISP... and some other pieces of information that come in the form of numbers. Those things could be used to track the real me down so you could say the exact same things to me in person that you could online.

Now you could blame the POTUS for not reading the bill... but first I want to know how many Congressmen read the entire bill and understood the entire bill. Then I want to know what high-paid scumbag lawyer (regardless of party) wrote this thing.

give us the same ability to eavesdrop on government officials that they have to do for us.

Oh come on that's...that's...Tim, you're a genius.

One other point about the genie being out of the bottle regarding privacy. Two recent news stories highlight this. The first is an apparent CIA-ordered kidnapping in Italy that was methodically and excruciatingly accurately reproduced by European law enforcement agencies who later tracked records of the cell phone "here I am" pings on dozens of CIA operatives cell phones (Source: Chicago Tribune). The second is the recently reported business of selling cell phone records (along with all called numbers) of anyone for a hundred bucks or so. This included the records of police officers and thus, potentially, all of their sources and informants (Source: Chicago Sun-Times).

In both cases, technology has moved far faster than even intelligence and law enforcement people recognized.

These types of electronic records are everywhere, and someone with foresight and some dough can easily tap into them without all that much trouble.

Another chilling invention just now available for "law enforcement officials and the military" for about $1,000 is a device that can actually tell if anyone is inside a house or not. It can "see" through up to 12 inches of concrete and 50 feet beyond. The device was developed to combat urban terrorists, but how long before criminals get there hands on the device and use it to rob unoccupied homes? Here's more: http://www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=article&aref=01_04_2006_WI_O1

This stuff is just a drop in the technological bucket.

So when I read about people getting their knickers in a knot over the release of library book records, I just have to shake my head and laugh. I guess ignorance IS bliss.

Thanks, Bill, but 'tain't my idea originally. I'll take credit for helping spread it, though. :-)

TWL

At least one pro-liberal website offered to pay the cost of anyone who obtained the phone records of Republican congressmen. they were supposed to look for contacts with Abramhov and associates.

On the one hand, it's not illegal and in keeping with Tim's idea for transparency. On the other hand, nobody who thinks it's a fine idea has much moral authority to complain about the erosion of privacy rights. then again...

Moral- I knew there was a reason I hated cell phones and am the only person I know without one!

Sorry, but intersection cameras are NOT an invasion of privacy, since when you're on the street, you are, by definition, in public. And if they manage to get the tech worked out to nail speeders, tough shit. You breaks the law and you pays the price.

-Rex Hondo-

Rex wrote: "Sorry, but intersection cameras are NOT an invasion of privacy, since when you're on the street, you are, by definition, in public. And if they manage to get the tech worked out to nail speeders, tough shit. You breaks the law and you pays the price."

Those cameras don't discriminate whether a person is on their private property or not when they capture an image. Nor do they only detect sounds from the public street and sidewalks.

But let's just say, for the moment, I agree with your assertion above. One could use the same argument that records in a public library paid for with taxpayer money are as public as, say, a police blotter, court records, etc., could they not?

"But let's just say, for the moment, I agree with your assertion above. One could use the same argument that records in a public library paid for with taxpayer money are as public as, say, a police blotter, court records, etc., could they not?"

Well, yeah, they could. But I think they'd be hard-pressed to explain how the scrutiny that results from breaking the law justifies a similar scrutiny just for taking a book out of the library.

PAD

It's not just taxpayer-funded institution records regarding lawbreakers that are public. The same goes for real estate transactions, marriages, census information, death records, etc.

For example, although census data is masked for 70 years, eventually it becomes completely public. I've spent hours going through the 1930 and 1920 Census information, for example. Also, World War II enlistment records from 1941-46 are now public (for example, Jack Kirby's enlistment record is available on line, as is Stanley Lieber's, Steve Ditko's and those of eight million other enlistees). And if one is so inclined, one can go to any local city hall or federal NARA branch and review birth, death and marriage information, and lots of other stuff as well. One can also request all sorts of taxpayer-funded government information through the Freedom of Information Act. The list goes on and on. All this certainly weakens the argument that, somehow, taxpayer-funded library records are sacrosanct. And as I said in a previous post, public access to public library records are such an insignificant issue compared to all the other privacy issues bubbling around out there, that the whole (mostly partisan-driven) flap seems absolutely silly to me.