These may be the last days of legal DU posting - and the excuse will be *

[helderheid]

was elected.

Imagine the new Patriot Act is passed stating we cannot wear anti-Bush shirts or we're "disruptors". What about that law (did it pass?) that states you cannot send anonymous communication (like here on DU) criticizing this administration? When will posting on DU be illegal?

The argument I heard over and over from the Republicans who want to vote Alito in is that * was elected and he has the right.

Unless and until people understand that he wasn't elected in either 2000 or 2004, this will always be the excuse.

If DU becomes an illegal place to practice our 1st amendment rights, I just want to thank you all for everything we've gone through together. This network means so much to me.

I'm going to say something unpopular now and that is I will not break the law if they make it illegal to be here. Call me a coward. I have 2 small kids and I have to protect them and be there for them.

I hope this despair is all for naught.

[fooj]

1. Oh sweetie...

We'll make it through this.

Peace.

[helderheid]

3. I hope you're right, fooj

:hug:

[MakeItSo]

7. panic in da house!

with all respect, fergodsake man, get a grip!

[FreedomAngel82]

10. If you don't see the realisation you need to get a grip

[MakeItSo]

20. Panic doesn't do any good -- edited to add some empathy

And seriously, there seems to be a hell of a lot of boo-hoo-hooing around here.

I think we've gotten a bit spoiled in recent years. We've had it really, really easy for a long time. 50K dead US soldiers in Vietnam, with literally millions of civilian casualties. Spying, censorship and propaganda are cliche during wartime. Thumbsucking didn't get us out of the messes of the past and they won't do so now.

Edited to add: I DO know how you feel. But I'm a few months ago I realized that I was sick and tired of being scared, and you know what? It's over. I'm ready to take these assholes on in any way that I can do defend the Constitution and to protect our children and our global family. No fear. They used it all up.

[helderheid]

26. don't be sorry, you have every right to your opinion... for now. ;)

[FreedomAngel82]

35. Good luck without any rights

Now that Sammy is going to be on there you can kiss your rights goodbye.

[helderheid]

15. for the record, it's woman

Getting a grip. God, I hope I can but it's looking bad.

[GrumpyGreg]

22. Ditto ! n/t

[Bluebear]

60. Well, that was comforting. nt

[FreedomAngel82]

9. I hope so too

This is just so depressing. I don't have hope anymore like I used to. *Sigh* :cry: Goodbye all the rights I've loved. I shall miss them. :(

[onenote]

2. what are you referring to?

Don't believe everything you read. There is no new law saying we can't wear anti-bush shirts. There is no law saying we can't post our thoughts on the Internet.

Sigh.

onenote

[helderheid]

It's been posted here - I'll try to get you sources

[sakabatou]

5. Yet, onenote, yet.

[helderheid]

11. here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/11/212726/954

Google (if you dare!)

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=disruptor+patriot+act&btnG=Google+Search

and

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

[onenote]

42. sorry, but these amendments don't do what is being claimed

I'll start with the so-called "disruption" provision (which, by the way, is NOT one of the provisions in the Patriot Act that Feingold is objecting to, which ought to suggest to you that maybe some bloggers are getting a bit hysterical for nothing):

Under current section 1752 of title 18, it is illegal to “willfully and knowingly” enter or remain in a cordoned off, posted, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where a person under the protection of the Secret Service (not just the Uniformed Division) “is or is temporarily visiting.” It also is illegal to willfully and knowingly and with intent to impede or disrupt official government functions, for someone to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted area where a protected person is present IF such conduct “in fact” impedes or disrupts. (In other words, just threatening to disrupt doesn’t cut it, you have to actually do so). Also illegal under current law: willfully or knowingly impeding entry or exit from a restricted area where a protected person is present or engaging in any act of physical violence against any person or property in a restricted area where a protected person is present. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_se...

Finally under current law (section 3056(d) of title 18), its illegal to interfere with the Secret Service when they are carrying out their protective duties under section 1752. So, if the President of France visits the US and goes to the theater and he wants to go to the bathroom, the Secret Service can cordon off the bathroom and if you attempt to bust in to relieve your bladder, you can be arrested. Shocking.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/index.html

What the new law does that might be considered an “expansion” of current law (but probably isn’t really) is as follows. The current law applies to areas when a protected person is present. The new law adds a section that makes it illegal to do any of the things described above in an area designated by the President as a “national event of special significance” (NSSE) even if a protected person isn’t actually there. So, for example, if chimpy is going to make a speech at a hotel in Dubuque at noon, the Secret Service (not just the Uniformed Division, but any officer or agent) can cordon off an area for security before he arrives and if you won’t leave the area or try to sneak in, they can bust you.

By the way, the authority to designate NSSEs isn't new. The designation of NSSEs was something started in 1998 by Bill Clinton in Presidential Decision Directive 62 (which is largely classified). Since 1999, the Secret Service has led federal security operations at around 14 NSSEs, including the 2000 and 2004 Republican and Democratic National Conventions, the 2001 and 2005 Presidential Inaugurations, the 2001 United Nations General Assembly, the G-8 Summit in Georgia, the World Economic Forum meeting in DC,Reagan's funeral, the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah and Super Bowl XXXVI in New Orleans. All that the new provision does with respect to NSSEs is make clear that the Uniformed Division has jurisdiction over NSSEs even if a protected person isn't presetn (they already have jurisdiction at any event where a protected person is present). Interestingly, it is likely that a "protected person" was present at every one of these events, with the possible exception of the Olympics and the Super Bowl (but probably even there).

So, the sky isn't falling. Its not going to be illegal to wear a t-shirt. Could some thuggish agent try to block you from attending an event because of your t-shirt? Sure. Its happened in the past and it sucks. But it was illegal then and it'll still be illegal now.

Turning to the so-called "annoying" message provision, for starters it doesn't matter whether the recipient is annoyed. What matters is whether the message was sent with the intent to annoy. A little background on what the provision is for and who supported it might calm things down:It is part of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act which was originally introduced in June 2005. In the House, more than half of the 108 co-sponsors were Democrats (including Conyers and Frank). In the Senate, there were nearly 60 co-sponsors, 40 of them Democrats. The ACLU sent a letter to the Hill endorsing the legislation. What it does, substantively, is modify an existing prohibition related to telephone calls made anonymously and with intent to annoy, harass, etc. The purpose of the amendment is to extend existing law to calls made via VOiP. Admittedly, whenever Congress tries to legislate regarding technology, there is a better than 50-50 chance they're going to screw it up, but its not as draconian as some people have claimed. BTW, this was not just a repub thing -- it passed the House 415 -4 and was unanimous (voice vote) in the Senate

onenote

[FreedomAngel82]

12. Yes there is

It was posted here a good while back. If you post anonymously on an internet message board and annoy people you'll go to jail if you don't tell who you are. There's also a law (I read this here too) that's going to be in the "Patriot Act" that makes it illegal to protest.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

13. If you post something that "annoys someone" and you don't use your own

name... then YES. It is illegal now.

Fascism is here.

:cry:

[leftstreet]

17. So Rove has to quit posting at Free Republic as Hot4Jeff

[Sydnie]

25. BWAAAAHAHAHAHA

[MakeItSo]

29. It's blatantly unconstitutional and will not stand up in court

The sky isn't falling quite yet.

[helderheid]

31. ummmm aren't warrentless wiretaps without probable cause?

[MakeItSo]

57. The wiretaps have a wartime context, "annoyance" doesn't

refer to national security and hence whether we're at war or not is irrelevant.

[helderheid]

61. both unconstitutional

[FreedomAngel82]

36. With a rightwing SCOTUS it will

Go to the ACLU and watch some of their video's on the court and various issues.

[onenote]

46. So how come the ACLU supported this law?

http://www.aclu.org//womensrights/violence/19921leg20050727.html

onenote

[LibertyorDeath]

55. "and will not stand up in court" Alito's court LOL

Good one!

So you don't think the Republican controlled SCOTUS will back
anything "blatantly unconstitutional"

LOL that's exactly what they've been put in place to do.

[MakeItSo]

62. Relishing the doom and gloom, are we?

This is all getting a bit over the top for my taste. Count your blessings that you weren't around for the Cambodian killing fields, or the Bataan Death March, or Auchwitz, or Hiroshima, or the anti-Sedition Act, or the Japanese Internment camps.

With all due respect, get some friggin' perspective. Things have always been rough. We'll get over this.

[helderheid]

64. I totally agree with you, but when did that all start and how??

We need to learn from history.

[MakeItSo]

65. I know how it ended; through clear-eyed courage and conviction

Not resignation and despair.

[helderheid]

67. okay so is it not so bad or so bad and we need to fight? Color me confused

[MakeItSo]

68. reasons to be optimistic

REASONS TO BE OPTIMISTIC:

1. Bush's poll #'s are at record lows! People are WAKING UP!
2. We have a good chance of winning back congressional seats this Fall and then proceeding with impeachment hearings!
3. Every day, Fitzgerald is getting more pigs to squeal!
4. Now that Sharon is a bloated aemoba, Israel is talking peace!
5. We have more of a free flow of information than ever before in history! We are entering a period of collective consciousness that's unprecedented in human history! It's painful "growing up." We know more now about politics, about the environment, and about the world than ever before. Sometimes reality hurts, but in the end it'll do us all good!


This isn't Pie In The Sky. It's within our grasp!

[helderheid]

70. Thank you - this is excellent - my biggest concern is that I feel strongly

Gore won in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 so what's to keep them from stealing 2006? If we get 2006, * and this horrid nightmere is OVER. Here's another thing to check out - I can't see them not cheating in 2006 if this is what they'd lose:

It's introduced in Dutch but it is mostly in English and a MUST SEE for
EVERY American.

This was aired on the Dutch television version of our PBS.

Direct link to broadband:

http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vpro/tegenlicht/bb.20030516.rm

Direct link to dial-up:

http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vpro/tegenlicht/sb.20030516.rm

[MakeItSo]

72. You can only steal an election if it's close

We just need to crush the fuckers in 08 and then uncover all their crimes so we have another 30 years of progressive politics.

[helderheid]

73. from your keyboard to God's ears

:)
:toast:

[TankLV]

71. And who will take it to court, and what court is that?

And until that future time, it IS the LAW, constitutional or not.

[MakeItSo]

52. Completely unconstitutional -- even Clarence Thomas would agree

Thomas ruled in 1995 that the First Amendment protected a woman's right to distribute anonymous political pamphlets. No way this holds water in court, all boo-hoo-hooing aside.

[helderheid]

59. Condescending much?

[berni_mccoy]

4. I'm not posting anonymously

The law says you can't "annoy" people with anonymous posts. I'm not sure what the full text of it covers, but I'm pretty sure that is the gist of it.

[FreedomAngel82]

14. So what if

another poster here claims everyone is annoying them? Does that mean that you go to jail?

[onenote]

28. No

Read up on the provision. It is part of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act which was originally introduced in June 2005. In the House, more than half of the 108 co-sponsors were Democrats (including Conyers and Frank). In the Senate, there were nearly 60 co-sponsors, 40 of them Democrats. The ACLU sent a letter to the Hill endorsing the legislation. What it does, substantively, is modify an existing prohibition related to telephone calls made anonymously and with intent to annoy, harass, etc. The purpose of the amendment is to extend existing law to calls made via VOiP. Admittedly, whenever Congress tries to legislate regarding technology, there is a better than 50-50 chance they're going to screw it up, but its not as draconian as some people have claimed.
BTW, this was not just a repub thing -- it passed the House 415 -4 and was unanimous (voice vote) in the Senate

onenote

[FreedomAngel82]

38. And who decides what an annoyance is?

[onenote]

45. you must be right...its a plot by the fascists Conyers and Barney Frank

They want to shut down the Internet. How did I not realize that.

:sarcasm:

onenote

[Selatius]

6. Read up on what Wilson did to anti-war protesters during WWI

Look up the Sedition Act of 1918 and the Espionage Act of 1917. They essentially criminalized dissent and made it illegal to oppose war. Anyone caught doing so was imprisoned. The sad part is the SCOTUS of the era upheld these acts. Read this little piece from here:

http://www.chicora.org/woodrow_wilson.htm

Wilson's government began to compel conformity, controlling speech in ways that had never been known before. Wilson pushed the Espionage Act through Congress in 1917, making it a crime "to willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States," or to "willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service" of the United States." It became a crime to "utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag." The act also targeted those who might "urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of the production in this country of any thing or things necessary or essential to the conduct of the war." In fact, the Espionage Act even made it illegal to teach, suggest, defend, or advocate any criticism of the government. The bill gave the Postmaster the right to refuse delivery of any periodical he deemed unpatriotic or critical of the administration. The Postmaster soon stopped delivery of virtually all publications and any foreign-language publication that hinted of dissent.

[FreedomAngel82]

16. Bush is doing the exact same thing

No privacy. No freedom of speech. We're officially in 1940's Germany now I highly believe. Welcome to fascism.

[leftstreet]

19. With our crumbling economy and infrastructure, more like 30s Germany

[MakeItSo]

32. Stop with the crazy analogies!

We are NOT like Germany in the 1930's! Inflation was so rampant that you needed a wheelbarrel full of currency to buy a loaf of bread. The country was stumbling badly after WWI. Geezus, we really are f-d if people get in a tizzy with false analogies.

[FreedomAngel82]

39. Are you really that ignorant on what is going on?

And while I'm add it try to find the book "Night" by Elie Wiesel.

[leftstreet]

50. LOL - I was just correcting a previous analogy

:rofl:

Comparing us to 40s Germany is inaccurate. Germany was building a strong infrastructure and economy by then.

We're going in the opposite direction.

[proud patriot]

8. My child is why I would continue to post

under those circumstances .

:patriot:

[cdsilv]

33. As a 23 year veteran of the computer industry...

...and as most IP service providers use DHCP to assign addresses to those who connect to their services, it is VERY difficult to place names to individual DHCP assigned addresses after the fact. It can be done if your save all of the logs (alot of space). I think it is more threat than actual ability.

I need to talk with some of my colleagues in the ISP community to see if they retain the mapping. Yeah, they could. But it would require massive amounts of storage, and most of them
try to minimize what they store for archival purposes, they just can't afford to keep it indefinitely.

I know when I was running a LAN/WAN for 3500 folks at a chemical plant, if we didn't catch someone looking at a porn site in a day or two, we could not keep the data online long enough to catch them a month later.

I do know that the NSA has acres (or square miles) of computers underground, including massively-parallel processing coumputers that use fuzzy logic to zero in on key terms.

One of my colleagues used to work for the NSA and he confirms this - but he is adamantly opposed to domestic spying. However he does support snooping on anyone talking to suspected terrorists and so do I. But domestic spying for political purposes by ANYONE is illegal and should be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent.

Oh yeah, George W. Bush eats boogers. I've seen the video on the internet!!! So it must be true!!!

[helderheid]

37. thanks for this. I am not trying to be an alarmist - just feeling

scared for my family and country and IF the scenerio I spelled out turns out to be true, I want to make sure DU knows how much I love all of y'all. :loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:

[FreedomAngel82]

40. And who is a terrorist?

Cindy Sheehan? John Kerry? John Conyers? Mr. Hersh of "The Truth Project"?

[C_U_L8R]

18. A much as I'd hate to lose DU...

it may be the least we have to lose.

At the rate this reich is going...
I expect some sort of "emergency act"
that consolidates the powers of the executive
(i.e. the unitary executive.. just like Hitler did).
At that point, there is nothing to prevent disrupter
internments or some "final solution" program
for terrorists (foreign, domestic or denominational).

If they're gonna do it.. it'll happen before the next election.
(i hope this is totally wrong)

[helderheid]

21. I hope you're wrong too - I really do.

[lonestarnot]

23. We will fucking find a way!

[babylonsister]

24. Slow down and let me go find an 'upper' thread for you!

I know they've been few and far between, but keep the faith, my friend!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x242246

Well, for the most part good, but that could change; consider DU and the differing opinions,
but know that all is not lost! It's just not a very happy state of affairs
at the moment.

[helderheid]

27. thanks

:hug:

I needed that!

[babylonsister]

34. Backacha, helderheid!

:hug: :toast:
I did read an earlier post from you...:evilgrin: Don't give up!
If not today, tomorrow it will happen. Or the next day.
People will wake up!

[helderheid]

44. I think I know what post you're referring to - I had no words that night

but was warmed by all the DU love.

:hug:

[babylonsister]

49. No, I meant this p.m. You got discouraged.

I get discouraged, we all do. It said, "Time to start drinking." It's not a bad thing!! :evilgrin: :toast:

[helderheid]

51. LOL

Oops. Yes. I post. A lot. I wish my other post starters would get as popular as this post this fast. We're already on fire here and yet my post about donating $5 to DU for DU's 5th anniversary dropped like a rock. So did my international outreach to expose the 2004 fraud and MSM slant. Ah well!

[Dunvegan]

30. Time for everyone to Google...

..."anonymous proxy"...used for masking the source IP address...usually done via servers overseas.

[DrDebug]

54. Anonymous proxies are totally useless as far as the alphabet agencies goes

Interception happens either at the local server where dial in to or with which you are connected with your cable/DSL and there is a possibility of interception for the interregional traffic and international traffic is usually picked up by Echelon. In short anonymous proxies don't work to prevent intelligence agencies from listening in. They are to prevent the site from knowing you, but they are totally and completely useless as far as the alphabet agencies go. Your best prevention is with the worst provider called AOL, since they are very cheap and proxy at local server level which means that you can only tell the person before he reaches the local server.

[DrDebug]

41. It just means that we'll soon be part of the resistence

So don't despair and keep on posting. You can tell your grandchildren that you were a member of the Democratic Resistence during the reign of King George Junior.

[FreedomAngel82]

43. If you already don't know

read about the White Rose Society and read "1984" (or listen to Malloy read it).

[SammyWinstonJack]

47. Well, go for it! Knock yourselves out that is! It's been a good run.

Really, I think they are about to do themselves in and haven't realized it yet! :evilgrin:

[helderheid]

48. Hope you're right! I officially apologize for being the voice of doom.

bad night.

[SammyWinstonJack]

53. Thing is , I was agreeing with you!

:-) Sorry if that did'nt come across. :shrug:

[helderheid]

56. No I got that!

:)

[SammyWinstonJack]

58. Kewl!

:-)

[cdsilv]

63. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit....

it IS possible to overwhelm any data mining operation with erroneous data.

Even an NSA data mining operation. Kind of like making the FBI investigate calls to Pizza Hut.

Just drop a few key words into your communications innocuously (sp?).

Just let them come after me - blue eyed, blonde haired, pasty white son of the confederacy.

I'd contact one of the FL tobacco lawyers who LOVES to go after the gov't - pro bono.

Skip the criminal trial, go after them for civil damages.

I'm listening to Sy Hersh's 'Chain of Command' and am appalled at how politically stupid considerations have compromised our supposed 'moral superiority' in the "War on Terror".

How does one wage war on a tactic? Terror has no state, no fixed set of people to focus on.

..so forth and so on... listen or read to the book.

Also, on the same long road-trip I first listened to "Tuesdays with Morrie". Talk about a juxtaposition!!!

Morrie and Mitch really get IT. Bush and the neocons just don't.

'nuff said.

Oh yeah, George W. Bush eats boogers. I saw it on the internet so it must be true!!!!!

[The_Casual_Observer]

66. Yes, they are the "majority" they can do these things now.

[alfredo]

69. I'd rather not live in a dictatorship.

I will resist until my last breath.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

74. Thank YOU very much! nt

[alfredo]

75. Giving up is out of the question.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

77. 3 hours and 49 minutes....

till I add to our Team Score! :)

[alfredo]

78. Great

It seems we have one thing we can all rally around.

[Liberty Belle]

76. Well, you could use your real name and be legal, if worse came to worse.

I would do so, rather than allow these criminals to win by intimidation.
But I fear many would not have the courage.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

79. If that happens

then the government must be overthrown. The Constitution and our founding fathers for saw a time where it might be necessary to overthrow some form of government that no longer adhered to American principles. The Right To Bear Arms is a prime example, and I'll be the first to get mine out of the closet if such a thing were to happen.