Orwell..Murdoch-Style & Bush's new 'Annoy Law'

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:04 pm

Not sure if anyone's seen this yet or not..Of course we all knew when the purchase was made what the outcome was going to be.. <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article337149.ece">news.independent.co.uk/bu...337149.ece</a> Angry members of MySpace, the personal file-sharing website for young adults, are accusing Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation of censoring their postings and blocking their access to rival sites. The 38 million subscribers to MySpace, which News Corp bought for $629m (£355m) last July, discovered that when they wrote to each other about rival video-swapping site YouTube, the words were automatically deleted, and attempts to download video images from YouTube led to blank screens. The intervention by News Corp in the traditionally open-access world of the web - in particular the alteration of personal user profiles - provoked a storm of angry posts in online "blogs". Guess it's time to brush up on pig latin.. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=etinarcadiaego@rigorousintuition>et in Arcadia ego</A> at: 1/9/06 2:25 pm

by **wintler** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:49 pm

Not like should cop it sweet, but how surprised can you be? Bad mouthing MySpace & NewsCorp seems best tactic, hopefully Ruperts investment in a virtual brand will become virtually worthless.

by **PeterofLoneTree** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:15 pm

WASHINGTON,Jan. 8 (UPI[/i]) -- Aides to President George W. Bush are trying to identify all photos that may exist showing the president and lobbyist Jack Abramoff together. Time magazine reported Sunday that administration officials,bracing for the worst, obtained from the Secret Service a list of all the times Abramoff entered the White House complex -- and were scrambling to determine the reason for each visit. Abramoff attended Hanukkah and holiday events at the White House, said an aide who has seen the list. Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Abramoff might have attended large gatherings with Bush but added, "The president does not know him, nor does the president recall ever meeting him." <a href="http://tinyurl.com/9r7dr">tinyurl.com/9r7dr</a> Bush trying to round up all photos of President with Abramoff <a href="http://tinyurl.com/dh92a">tinyurl.com/dh92a</a>

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:56 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen, you had better take a good look at this one as well: <a href="http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html">news.com.com/Create+an+e-...22491.html</a> Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess. This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison. "The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else." It's illegal to annoy A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language. "Whoever...utilizes 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... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure. ____________________ More at the link above..

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:11 pm

I'm convinced lots of spam is meant to debase the internet as a grass roots activist tool. Afterdowningstreet.org found out that their emails were being blocked by spam-blocking software and I found that obscure web addresses with info about the Bush Crime Family and CIA control of the media were blocked as spam. Fear of paedophiles and porn has parents dumbing down the internet for their precious children with filtering that eliminates most of the world from the world-wide web. Cyber-censorship will get worse and worse as need be.

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:43 am

I agree, but at the core this is a direct attack on the US Constitution... People should be going berserk, but they're not, not over this, or any other given outrage we've seen at any point in the last several years. Are they past the point of caring about their own Civil Liberties? How will I preserve mine when the rest of this country is hopelessly oblivious?

by **anotherdrew** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:00 am

I'm sure the first test case is already being worked on.

Orwell..Murdoch-Style & Bush's new 'Annoy Law'

Orwell..Murdoch-Style & Bush's new 'Annoy Law'

render unto caesar

Good place for this item:

Re: Good place for this item:

Spam as Hegelian dialectic. False-flag annoyance.

Re: Spam as Hegelian dialectic. False-flag annoyance.

this so-called "law" will be gone once it gets to

Who is online