Clarification on the President's most recent stupid law

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html

"... Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write
something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle
magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...3----000-.html

Look at Paragraph h, section B -- telecommunications device does not include an interactive computer service. Imagine
that!

(h) Definitions

For purposes of this section-
(1) The use of the term "telecommunications device" in this section-
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and
indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
(B) does not include an interactive computer service.

Moon Shyne wrote:

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html

"... Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write
something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle
magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...3----000-.html

Look at Paragraph h, section B -- telecommunications device does not include an interactive computer service. Imagine
that!

(h) Definitions

For purposes of this section-
(1) The use of the term "telecommunications device" in this section-
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and
indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
(B) does not include an interactive computer service.

Yes, but the law was UPDATED from the original telephone act, boobie.

What you quote here is the OLD law, not the new and improved one.

- Ronald Poirier ^*^

"Moon Shyne" wrote

"... U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle
magnificently in a 1995 case ...."
===
Well, there's the leader of the brainstrust.
===

Gini wrote:
"Moon Shyne" wrote

"... U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle
magnificently in a 1995 case ...."
===
Well, there's the leader of the brainstrust.
===

Actually, Thomas gets no credit at all for the brillant person that he
is. He dissents frequently because he sees the commerce clause of the
Constitution as being much more limited in scope than everyone else on
the court, including Scalia and the late Reihnquist (sp?). He also gets
attacked by democrats a lot. Frankly, it smacks of racism. Harry Reid
attacking the intelligence of any Supreme Court Justice is like
throwing peas at a semi, pathetic as hell. Unfortunately, the average
American has no clue what the majority of the cases in the Supreme
Court are about, hell most lawyer's don't know or care, either. Take,
for example, the current, "right to die" case. The media reports are
pathetic, the reporters do not even understand the issue and try to
spin the story as a truly political decision based only on states
rights (i.e. federalism) issues, when the decision is really about the
interpretation of a statute. Read the thing for yourself. Thomas makes
sense, you just have to take the time to read him.

Oh yeah, and Thomas is not a conservative per se. His limiting
interpretation of the commerce clause can lead to really liberal
rulings, like medical marijuana in calfornia. He was with Reihnquist
and O'Conner, voting to ALLOW medical marijuana to be used, arguing
that the commerce clause did not affect the purely intrastate activity
at issue here.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Moon Shyne" wrote

"... U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this
principle
magnificently in a 1995 case ...."
===
Well, there's the leader of the brainstrust.
===
Actually, Thomas gets no credit at all for the brillant person that he
is. He dissents frequently because he sees the commerce clause of the
Constitution as being much more limited in scope than everyone else on
the court, including Scalia and the late Reihnquist (sp?). He also gets
attacked by democrats a lot. Frankly, it smacks of racism.
==
Brilliant? Oh puleeze! The man's a mental lightweight who doesn't belong on
the court and it doesn't have a
damned thing to do with race (except that he was a token
black confirmed by Republicans *because* he was black and they needed to
shore up their black base
while getting a conservative puppet)! The racism card is the claim his
defenders attempt to use when
they know they can't defend him on any other grounds. In your clearly
unbiased opinion, were the
attacks on Anita Hill (most viciously by Arlen Specter) during the
confirmation process a result of racism?
==

Taking our rights away to control information is what the true agenda
is here. stop information flow control the people with the information
you want them to see. any one can see this is what is really happening.
keep them in the dark to what is really happening. Now they can do what
they want with little to no chance of the people interviening. next tep
to a police state.

lets recap he
1 the patriot act 1 and update and trying to update again.
2 taxing income witch is against the consitution.
3 control the news groups
4 control property owners with permits
5 forcing by lieing to the american people to war with Iraq
6 tax laws introduced reductions that are not reductions at all because
the taxes are moved to something else.
7 the domain laws all of them!
8 the fixing of voting booths in Ohio, and Florida
9 the wire taps and internet taps going on still of the american
people.
10 the none privaticy act.
11 the right to almost bare arms.
12 the right to not let weman to have birth contral if the seller
wishes not to sell them.
13 the congress and the house having the right to give them selfs raise
14 the right to change the consitution to fit their greedy needs

I could go on but we get the true picture here by now.
Wake up and fight the fight of our lifes. stop them from taking away
our rights
If it is not in the constitution it is not a law. by them changing the
consitution it still is not a law.
but they can bully us around because of the power we give them. it is
time to take this power back by voting.
Votem all out. There is no way some one should be in office for more
then 4 year term at 8 year max at a time any way in any branch of the
government. But you dont see them rushing to change that law do you.

They lost tuch with our reality because of their greed.
Vote them out. Do it soon or there will be no rights just a police
state ruled by greedy fat cats whom could care less about us, well like
now. Dont fall for their lies against people that run against them.
Their lies are just to stay in office and not to help us in any way. We
are smarter then that.
you decide very soon.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Taking our rights away to control information is what the true agenda
is here. stop information flow control the people with the information
you want them to see. any one can see this is what is really happening.
keep them in the dark to what is really happening. Now they can do what
they want with little to no chance of the people interviening. next tep
to a police state.

lets recap he
1 the patriot act 1 and update and trying to update again.
2 taxing income witch is against the consitution.
3 control the news groups
4 control property owners with permits
5 forcing by lieing to the american people to war with Iraq
6 tax laws introduced reductions that are not reductions at all because
the taxes are moved to something else.
7 the domain laws all of them!
8 the fixing of voting booths in Ohio, and Florida
9 the wire taps and internet taps going on still of the american
people.
10 the none privaticy act.
11 the right to almost bare arms.
12 the right to not let weman to have birth contral if the seller
wishes not to sell them.
13 the congress and the house having the right to give them selfs raise
14 the right to change the consitution to fit their greedy needs

I could go on but we get the true picture here by now.
Wake up and fight the fight of our lifes. stop them from taking away
our rights

We get the picture........you might want to watch out for the black
helicopters circling your house tonight.....and don't forget to wear the
tinfoil hat.


If it is not in the constitution it is not a law. by them changing the
consitution it still is not a law.
but they can bully us around because of the power we give them. it is
time to take this power back by voting.
Votem all out. There is no way some one should be in office for more
then 4 year term at 8 year max at a time any way in any branch of the
government. But you dont see them rushing to change that law do you.

They lost tuch with our reality because of their greed.
Vote them out. Do it soon or there will be no rights just a police
state ruled by greedy fat cats whom could care less about us, well like
now. Dont fall for their lies against people that run against them.
Their lies are just to stay in office and not to help us in any way. We
are smarter then that.
you decide very soon.