|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
Anonymous posters that annoy can be jailed
 Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:02 pm
|
 |
|
The only good thing is now we have the legal means to go after the debunkers who come here
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
By Declan McCullagh
Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST
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.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
A law meant to annoy?
FAQ: The new 'annoy' law explained
A practical guide to the new federal law that aims to outlaw certain types of annoying Web sites and e-mail.Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.
In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"
Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.
"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
He's right. 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.
If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.
And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.
Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
increase 1776
Joined: 07 Oct 2000
Posts: 3097
Location: Bizzaro World |
|
Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:33 pm
|
|
|
BEAM ME UP What's the definition of annoy? Who decides what is annoying? 
_________________
"The police are not here to create disorder.
The police are here to preserve disorder." Mayor Richard Daley |
| |
|
|
darvi o'brien
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 16
|
|
Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:49 pm
|
|
|
BUSH ANNOYS ME!!!!! |
| |
|
|
tranz
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 148
Location: Voter Fraud Central |
|
Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:13 pm
|
|
|
I say we go around to all the freepers and start reporting them. They annoy the piss out of me. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:42 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by darvi o'brien
BUSH ANNOYS ME!!!!!
Yes he does, but he is in our faces, and not anonymous, so therefore we couldn't get him jailed for that. DAMN!!!!
Now Yaak and The Maverick's boys...That's a different story.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
tranz
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 148
Location: Voter Fraud Central |
| FAQ: The new 'annoy' law explained
Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:41 pm
|
|
|
http://news.com.com/FAQ%2BThe%2Bnew%2Bannoy%2Blaw%2Bexplained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html
quote:
Q: Your CNET News.com column on Monday--"Create an e-annoyance, go to jail"--referenced the text of a bill that President Bush signed last week, but I can't find the word "annoy" in it. What gives?
Figuring out exactly what Congress did takes a few minutes. But it's not too difficult.
First, go to the text of the legislation and search for Sec. 113. Note how Sec. 113. amends existing law by changing the definitions in 47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1).
Before the new law took effect last Thursday, 47 U.S.C. 223 explicitly said it "does not include an interactive computer service." The changes override that for the "to annoy" section and now say it applies to the "Internet."
Q: So what does the rewritten law now say?
The section as amended reads like this: "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."
Q: But that section is titled "Obscene or harassing telephone calls." Doesn't that mean only voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, is now going to be covered by the law?
That's one interpretation. But that's not how Congress actually wrote the law, however, and precise wording matters.
If politicians wanted to limit the law to VoIP, they could have followed what they did in other bills and actually used the term. They could have also limited the "annoy" requirement to contacting an individual person.
But they didn't. The law instead covers any types of "communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet"--not just VoIP conversations. Also, it covers any person "who receives the communications" rather than a narrower definition that could have been written as "an individual intentionally targeted as the recipient of the communications."
At the very least, Congress has an obligation to clear things up and fix the ambiguities in this law.
Q: Someone has been annoying me on the Internet, and it's getting serious. What can I do?
Keep in mind that the new law has only criminal sanctions, so you can't sue someone directly (unless they're already violating other laws). Also remember that it only applies to a person who is intentionally annoying "without disclosing his identity."
You'd have to contact your local FBI office or U.S. Attorney. But don't be surprised if they place you way down on their priority list.
Q: Some people, including law professor Orin Kerr, say the existence of the First Amendment means we shouldn't worry.
Kerr says that "if speech is protected by the First Amendment, the statute is unconstitutional as applied and the indictment must be dismissed... prosecutors know that they can't bring a prosecution unless doing so would comply with the Supreme Court's First Amendment cases."
That's correct as far as it goes. But it's not the whole story, because it amounts to trusting what lawyers call prosecutorial discretion.
The U.S. Justice Department made the same argument in its unsuccessful defense of the Communications Decency Act. Prosecutors claimed that the CDA was constitutional because the Justice Department would never apply it in an unconstitutional manner.
Judge Dolores Sloviter rejected that argument, writing: "The government makes yet another argument that troubles me. It suggests that the concerns expressed by the plaintiffs and the questions posed by the court reflect an exaggerated supposition of how it would apply the law, and that we should, in effect, trust the Department of Justice to limit the CDA's application in a reasonable fashion that would avoid prosecution for placing on the Internet works of serious literary or artistic merit. That would require a broad trust indeed from a generation of judges not far removed from the attacks on James Joyce's Ulysses as obscene."
Q: If the law does violate the First Amendment, why would Congress enact it?
There's no good answer to that question. When our elected representatives were drafting this law over the last few months, they could have cleared things up.
The law criminalizes certain acts intended to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person." Deleting the word "annoy" from that lineup would probably have eliminated the free speech problems. But Congress chose not to do so.
An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and only criminalized using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm." That was changed in the final version.
Q: Wait a moment. I'm told this law merely updated an existing prohibition on "annoying" or harassing someone through the telephone.
That's what Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican, claims in a press release, and it's sort of true.
The old law criminalized making an anonymous telephone call that's designed to annoy someone, which sounds pretty reasonable. But the new law applies broadly to any form of Internet communication, and it is not limited to individual-to-individual communications such as e-mail or instant messaging.
It's hardly clear that the federal government needs to criminalize this sort of thing, anyway. State governments are more than capable of doing so.
Q: I read a post by Dan Solove that says the law is just antiharassment, so we shouldn't be worried. Is he right?
Solove, who's a law professor at George Washington University, says: "'Annoy' is part of the intent element of the statute--it requires the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass. Far from an antianonymity provision that applies whenever a person annoys another, it is merely a prohibition on harassment."
If all the law did was target harassment, nobody would care. Instead, it also restricts certain behaviors that "annoy."
Most people realize there's a difference between annoying someone and harassing them. If I stalk someone, impersonate them in chat rooms, and repeatedly call them at 3 a.m. and hang up, that's harassment. Nobody's arguing that should be legal.
But annoyance? If I set up an incendiary Web site that has a single purpose--say, to annoy some politician I dislike--that should be permissible. That's why the law is far more than an "antiharassment" law.
Q: It's not enough for someone to find the site annoying. I have to intend for it to be annoying, right?
Correct. The relevant section of the law uses the phrase "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." A thin-skinned reader becoming irrationally annoyed shouldn't be sufficient to trigger criminal liability.
Q: The law criminalizes certain Internet actions done to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person." That means someone has to do all four things, right?
Nope. It's an or connector, not an and connector. Violating any one of the four prohibitions would be unlawful.
Q: I've read a post by Ann Bartow, a professor at USC Law School, saying that e-mail and blogs may not be covered by the law.
This is a little complicated, but let's walk through it. Bartow writes: "I may be missing something, but I don't think either e-mail or Web logs would be considered 'telecommunications devices' that would be subject to the stated prohibitions (which, in fairness, are awfully vague)."
In general, for the relevant section of the U.S. Code, that's right.
But it seems that Congress intended a broader interpretation for the "annoy" prohibition. The new law sweeps in "other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet"--and the most straightforward reading of that would cover Web logs and e-mail.
If politicians wanted to limit the "annoy" prohibition to VoIP, they could easily have done so. But they didn't.
Q: What does the word "annoy" mean, anyway?
Vagueness is one of the law's problems. The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers two definitions of annoy. One is merely to "disturb or irritate," and the other is "to harass."
Q: Is this going to be challenged in court?
Maybe. Clinton Fein, who runs Annoy.com, has said he might. Fein has challenged a related law in the past.
But lawsuits are expensive, and there's no guarantee of success.
Q: If the "intent to annoy" law already was on the books for phone calls and hasn't been a problem, why should I be concerned?
There are two reasons. First, criminalizing anonymous annoying phone calls is a lot different from criminalizing anonymous annoyances on the Internet. Phone calls are a one-to-one communication to a specific person; blog posts generally are not.
Second, it's worrisome that the U.S. Congress chose to expand the scope of the existing law to the Internet. Instead, they should have limited it to comply with the First Amendment.
|
| |
|
|
m3th0d
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 188
Location: Rijeka, Croatia |
|
Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:22 am
|
|
|
REally, what will beacome of Usenet newsgroups in your country? In my experience almost half of the usenet communication is just pure flame. Croatian usenet has more flamers than 'normal' users - like the people who persistenly use the vegeterian group to annoy vegeterians and vegans with their 'humorous' remarks that are often quite offensive.
_________________
*~Peace&Ganja~* |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:39 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by m3th0d
REally, what will beacome of Usenet newsgroups in your country? In my experience almost half of the usenet communication is just pure flame. Croatian usenet has more flamers than 'normal' users - like the people who persistenly use the vegeterian group to annoy vegeterians and vegans with their 'humorous' remarks that are often quite offensive.
I belonged to a Vegan Forum once, and the moderators themselves were flaming vegetarians, and were pro-Bush. The site is http://www.veggieboards.com
They have a horrible mod called "Tame" that constantly flames veggies. This guy actually emailed me and harassed me on my home account, until I nailed his IP and real name.
The same with Randi Rhodes site. Stallion4, myself, and others were harrassed or banned because of our views on 9/11, OKC, and the NWO. The mods are the worst.
Of course, Maverick's crew have come here, even to the point of hacking into Thermit's machine and grabbing a cookie for CTC and almost deleting the whole site, which I caught while they were in the middle of deleting whole threads.
Even Liberty Forum occasionally gets flamers, but they are delt with quickly, much like here now. The mods at CTC don't hesitate to ban somebody at the first whiff of trouble.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/codeword_cablesplice.htm
Read William Cooper's take on this guy Gary Hunt at the end.
quote:
A second means of countering the opposition's use of computer technology is through the careful placing of disinformation agents. Such agents can take two forms:
a. Agents may be placed who will simply argue against the opposition, using delaying and confusing tactics such as constantly demanding references and "proof" of allegations, referring to obscure and difficult to find documents as evidence that the opposition is wrong, and generally forcing the opposition to waste tremendous amounts of time simply defending itself from spurious and irrelevant attacks.
CODEWORD: CABLESPLICE
(This is a secret document being circulated among Top Government And UN people)
An Aggressive Program to Counter The Disrupters Movement
Recent efforts by The Disrupters Movement to gain political influence are beginning to seriously and adversely affect public perceptions and understanding of ongoing programs aimed at smoothing the transfer of sovereignty and power from national governments to super-national statist organizations unless such efforts are countered and discredited, the task of creating a unified global government under UN control will be far more difficult. The most dangerous element of The Disrupters Movement are those that are part of the Christian Fundamentalist majority. The following memorandum offers a set of policy prescriptions designed to counter-act their, efforts,
ANALYSIS OF PROBLEM
Although there has always been opposition from groups and individuals with a conservative, isolationist attitude, the recent growth of such opposition, and the ability and organizational success of these groups has raised serious concern in recent years. Unless steps are taken to meet the challenge posed by The Disrupters Movement, it is possible that these groups could make serious inroads into the public complacence which has been so carefully nurtured over the past fifty Years, The threat is two-fold. First, there is the traditional conservative political threat, one which can be traced back to pre-W.W.II isolationism and political conservatism. These groups are not of particular concern as their organizing ability and numbers do not suggest the capability for amassing significant political power. It is the second category, the "Christian Fundamentalists," that pose the greatest threat. These people are representative of a massive population of Americans and if allowed to propagandize and organize that base could present serious obstacles to further progress,
I. Overt Programs;
Overt programs to counter growing influence of Christian and other groups should take various forms:
A. An active effort aimed at promoting the benefits of global organizations and institutions. Media stories, books, conferences, and other means should be utilized to get the story out in appropriate fashion.
Appearances
B. Appearances by political figures, well-known celebrities and other influential figures at events connected to international and super- national organizations and institutions. Of particular use are events which involve "feel-good" operations such as UNICEF, Feed the Children, Americare, etc.
C. Promotion of peaceful uses of atomic energy, disarmament as a necessary condition to peace and security, and tolerance and acceptance of non-Christian faiths should be promoted consistently but with enough subtlety so as not to turn off the targeted populations.
1. Under no circumstances, however. should such efforts be allowed to raise fears regarding those goals, nor should they provide substantive evidence of the true objectives of U.S.G. policy.
2. An important means of developing support for disarmament and the reliance on the United Nations to impose global order is through raising fears of nuclear weapons. By playing up the danger of nuclear war, It should be possible to generate considerable public support for further movement towards the disarmament of national states. This diverts attention from the real nature of disarmament effort by portraying it as necessary to world peace, rather than a step on the road to world government.
D. A massive attack on The Disrupters Movement, and especially Christian religion groups. This assault would challenge them as intolerant, hateful, exclusionist, and potentially dangerous. Such a program would include the following:
1. Efforts should be made to falsely portray their objectives as the creation of a religious theocracy and the imposition of strict religious interpretation of the Bible as the basis for political participation in "The New Christian America." This can best be accomplished by focusing on the most outrageous and extremist statements and members, while down playing the more moderate membership.
2. " Christian " groups should whenever possible be portrayed as fringe elements of the country's religious population, not especially numerous and certainly not representative of "most" Christians. 3. At every opportunity these "Christian" groups should be presented as vicious, intolerant, and especially as anti-Semitic. The selective use of quotes, and if necessary, the use of invented statements, can be most effective means of accomplishing this task.
Arrest
4. Arrest either on criminal charges or on mental Inquest warrants certain members of The Disrupters Movement who by their fanatical religious life-styles and/or their EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS would be psychologically and physically prepared to survive outside of the government control.
5. Harassment on criminal charges or mental inquest warrants of those who listen to and/or sympathize with The Disrupters Movement.
II. Covert Programs: Covert programs may be equally as important, if not more so, to countering the increasing effectiveness of The Disrupters Movement.
A. Infiltration of The Disrupters Movement by sympathetic agents is an extremely useful tool in combating their efforts.
1. By carrying out extreme acts, and especially acts of violence, such individuals can bring discredit and public condemnation against The Disruption Movement.
2. By raising confusion , and care fully encouraging splits and controversy within The Disrupters Movement, such agents will be able to reduce the effectiveness and coherency of those groups.
B. Individuals who have been groomed to operate outside the usual channels of political activity should be activated and placed in positions in which they appear to be in opposition to USG policy.
1. These persons would speak out publicly in opposition to our policies, but would be in fact be sympathetic to our long term objectives. By carefully and selectively providing false or misleading information, and information of a seemingly scandalous or dramatic nature, they would seem to be supporting the agenda of The Disrupters Movement. But when the information the promulgated was shown to be patently false, It would further damage the credibility of the opposition.
2. The use of certain talk radio personalities along the lines suggested in paragraph 1 has already proven quite effective and further ventures along these lines could be beneficial.
3. In extreme situations, it may become useful or even necessary for these undercover assets to carry out certain operations against members of The Disrupters Movement who are interfering with CABLESPLICE. In some cases, termination's with extreme prejudice may be called for.
Subversion
C. Subversion and Elimination of the Second Amendment
1. One of the most critical efforts must be the removal of firearms from individual control. The on-going long-term program to accomplish this is to bear efforts along current lines are advised.
a. The use of "agent provocateurs," individuals who are seemingly insane (but who are never taken alive) who create highly publicized mass killings with automatic weapons has been particularly useful in molding public opinion. Similarly, the regular use of random killings in large urban areas as a way of creating a climate of fear and violence has resulted in significant gains for the gun-control point of view. Such programs are extremely useful and should be continued and possibly expanded.
b. On-going efforts to gain small footholds in gun-control are worthwhile as they open the door to further controls later on. The importance of eliminating the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms cannot be stressed too much.
III. DISINFORMATION PROGRAMS:
These programs should be designed to carefully seed the media with false and misleading information about long-term goals and plans, as well as forged and deceptive details about The Disrupters Movement.
A. Careful and selective placement of spurious and potentially damaging news stories in the popular media is an excellent means of raising doubts and fears of the population. Our opponents have made good use of this technique, we should do likewise.
B. One of the most effective disinformation programs has been the selected use of "expose" books and stories, all reputedly written by former government and super-government officials, but in fact developed within the NSA and CIA.
1. Connections to actual government operations, and the bona fides of such expose authors are deliberately vague in order to make tracing and verifying their stories difficult.
2. Although the books and information "exposed" would seemingly be extremely critical of our long-term programs and objectives, the contradictions contained within, the difficulty of verifying either authors or details, and the wild-eyed style verging on the Irrational would all work to discredit and raise doubts.
The presentation
3. The presentation of fringe and extremist religious doctrine and beliefs, or the presentation of Christian religious beliefs in particularly dogmatic and intolerant fashion, would help to turn popular opinion against The Disrupter Movement.
IV. Other Propaganda Efforts
A. Print Media/Publications
1. Appropriate use of popular media intended to discredit and attack opponents is a fundamental tool of countering The Disrupters Movement.
2. While control of the major media outlets is crucial to such efforts, it is through "fringe" media publications that the most damage can be done to The Disrupters Movement. Continued use of assets within the counter media can be beneficial.
B. Electronic/Computer Systems: Electronic computer systems, bulletin boards, and information superhighway in general is an area of considerable importance to efforts to combat the activities of The Disrupter Movement. The ability of opponents to utilize computer bulletin boards to pass information and educate people must be met with an active program of disinformation and attack.
1. One means of countering the effectiveness of such opposition efforts is the simple expedient of overloading their bulletin boards. A single operator with one computer can set a program in motion that will send out thousands of messages. The sheer volume of such messages is more then the content. Most people will give up rather then read through hundreds and thousands of messages.
2. A second means of countering the opposition's use of computer technology is through the careful placing of disinformation agents. Such agents can take two forms:
a. Agents may be placed who will simply argue against the opposition, using delaying and confusing tactics such as constantly demanding references and "proof" of allegations, referring to obscure and difficult to find documents as evidence that the opposition is wrong, and generally forcing the opposition to waste tremendous amounts of time simply defending itself from spurious and irrelevant attacks.
Other
b. Other agents have been placed with a more subtle purpose mind. Such agents would take on the persons WA attitudes of members of The Disrupters Movement, but would present the opposition case in ways that will ultimately discredit them. The necessary effort to correct. the messages posted by these agents, and the resulting appearance of disarray within their camp should present considerable opportunities for further assaults on The Disrupters Movement.
3. In cases of computer networks where it is highly imperative that the efforts of The Disrupters be neutralized, coordinated assaults can be arranged using aliases and multiple membership ID's to present a wide array of negative and meddlesome messages.
C. Diversionary efforts
1. Bread and Circuses
a. Celebrities: The use of celebrities is a proven means of diverting attention from serious political Issues. Moreover, the use of selected celebrity figures as political spokesperson can be a very effective means of getting our message across.
b. Sports: Sports are useful as a means of diverting attention from serious political issues and dulling the minds of the populace. By focusing all their energies on sporting events, we can prevent people from undertaking the intense and serious study necessary to take effective political action.
c. Gambling: The provision of numerous outlets for public gambling serves multiple purposes; it serves to keep the popular attention engaged on sporting events, as well as what has become known as "lottery fever. " Perhaps more important, widespread gambling not only keeps the general public poor, it provides needed income for our own uses-- especially when allowed in the form of state lotteries which purport to provide money for education, senior citizens, or other popular purposes. In fact, through the careful use of accounting manipulation, much of the funds raised are being diverted to support many of the other programs and efforts described in this memo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting the validity of Cablesplice:
Outpost of Freedom
Gary Hunt
November 19, 1996
I have, recently, posted "Informants Amongst Us" and "C3CM" to demonstrate what means are used by government to create as much confusion, criticism and division in the Constitutionalist Community as possible. There are a few more pieces that I have become aware of in the past seven or eight years. Operation Cablesplice is one of those 'items' that, although subject to controversy, should be red for what is said, not, necessarily, for where it comes from. As you read the following 'document', consider that it may have been written by someone other than the government, perhaps as a detraction, perhaps as a spoof. In either event, the government surely has read the document, and if they have not adopted the policies presented therein, they are foolish enough to have relinquished power by now. I first received a copy of Cablesplice back in the earlier days of fax-networking. There were many (among them, myself) who felt that the concepts of Cablesplice were being applied even then. The Internet, however, has opened a whole new forum for the propagation of the time of methods outlined in Cablesplice.
As most are aware, now, Marshall Richards, of the West Virginia militia, was an informant. The means by which the government achieved 'control' over Richards may be as outlines in "Informants Amongst Us", and is definitely consistent with Cablesplice.
Nearly every recent 'bust' of patriots was achieved by an informant and an active agent, working together. We can usually see these situations, after the fact, but we know that they are there. Let's look a little further. Look at the proliferation of information/disinformation circulating, daily, on the Internet. Take, for example, a recent claim that last Friday's (November 22) 20/20 program was going to air some revealing interviews, with government agents, that would blow the cover off of the government's involvement in the OKC Bombing. After the program didn't air, excuses were made, and blames laid. The bottom line, however, is that this is exactly what saps the energy from the movement. Whether the issue be flying saucers, comets striking earth, indictments (how many, how many times now?) against Billary, or any other issue that is not directly relevant to the cause, it is a drain.
Had Mike Kemp or the Georgia Militia, and soon the Viper militia, the energy expended on them that is wasted on this irrelevant crud, perhaps we would begin seeing change.
Start wondering what the Founders did before the events of April 19, 1775, hurled them into war. Were they as ill prepared as we are today? The answer, quite frankly, is NO! They were prepared, and that preparation did not come from bantering about, acting as if the knowledge of all events was evil, and that each was an expert. They organized themselves into Committees of Protection, Correspondence and Safety, and they prepared themselves, mentally and physically, for what they perceived to lie in their future. It is no surprise, when the true history is read, that they were able to achieve what they did. And, more, surprisingly, the odds against them were far worse than they are against us, today.
Now, read "CODEWORD -- OPERATION CABLESPLICE, and begin to understand that the enemy uses his head. It is time that we start doing the same!
Gary Hunt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary view:
Gary Hunt, government agent provocateur, is at it again. He was in Waco trying to sabotage efforts to save the Branch Davidians... he then went to Connecticut and called for Militias to march to combat the State when the State tried to collect cigarette tax from some people on private land they claimed was an Indian Reservation who claimed to be Native Americans. The land was NOT a reservation and the people were not Native Americans... one was Black and the other was White. When the scam was exposed Hunt moved on to more scams each attempting to get Militia members or Patriots involved in activities sure to get them discredited or arrested.
Hunt claims to be a penniless Florida surveyor who runs something called "The Outpost of Freedom", a do-nothing, fund less, front for his activities. Despite being broke Hunt travels all over the nation all the time turning up at every supposed crises and drumming up the Militia to march out and meet the enemy at every moment. Hunt has no visible means of support and has admitted being "broke", yet always has money and travel funds.
We are in possession of a video tape which shows Gary Hunt as a pall bearer at the funeral of an ATF agent some years ago... we are in the possession of a photograph which shows three ATF agents standing together... all wearing ATF "T" shirts... one of the three is Gary Hunt. We are also in possession of many witness affidavits that confirm by positive identification that Gary Hunt was a guest at the Grand Continental Hotel in Oklahoma City a full week before the bombing. We also have a video tape taken by a local TV station that clearly shows Gary Hunt and a companion, each carrying transmitters, walking swiftly away from the just bombed building... Whoooooopssssss! They are clearly surprised and upset that they are being filmed and show no surprise or concern for the dead and wounded behind them.
The so-called "Operation Cable Splice" document that Hunt has put out is an obvious FAKE... FRAUD... PHONY... etc. Operation Cable Splice was a CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD exercise that took place over two decades ago. It was not then and is not now a national or federal operation. You can read about it in my book "Behold A Pale Horse".... as I am the one that exposed the REAL "Cable Splice". It is so easy to prove a fake that I am amazed at Hunt's sheer stupidity.
Gary Hunt is again doing what the government pays him to do... and once again the sheople are falling for it... hook, line, and sinker. Notice the obvious target of this fake document... just like the last fake document that Hunt put out the target appears to be me... and other effective radio talk hosts. But like all of Hunt's $#@#!... and totally unlike Gary Hunt... it won't wash on me... I document and source everything on my broadcasts.
Don't get me wrong... there is some obvious honey in the fake document... but I exposed that honey many years ago... Hegel would love Gary Hunt.
Wake Up ! Hunt is ENEMY all the way.
William Cooper
Director, Intelligence Service
Second Continental Army of the Republic
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
m3th0d
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 188
Location: Rijeka, Croatia |
|
Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:59 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Swamp Gas
I belonged to a Vegan Forum once, and the moderators themselves were flaming vegetarians, and were pro-Bush. The site is http://www.veggieboards.com
Yeah, I've seen some vegans bug the hell out of vegeterians online. I don't understand that, but then again I don't understand most flamers.
I can't be vegan - I like cheese too much 
_________________
*~Peace&Ganja~* |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:22 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by m3th0d
quote:
Originally posted by Swamp Gas
I belonged to a Vegan Forum once, and the moderators themselves were flaming vegetarians, and were pro-Bush. The site is http://www.veggieboards.com
Yeah, I've seen some vegans bug the hell out of vegeterians online. I don't understand that, but then again I don't understand most flamers.
I can't be vegan - I like cheese too much
That's not what I meant. There are Carnivores on the Vegan boards that flame both Vegans and Vegetarians. The Pro-Bushers were Carnivores and NOT Vegans/Veggies. The "Vegans" flaming Veggies are fakes...Not Vegans.
My point is this...CTC had anti-Chemtrail people as moderators such as theseeker and Lulu. The design is to ram a wedge between people on these sites. The Cattlemen's association do not want people being vegetarians, as the milk council does not want people to stop eating milk products. Energy companies and the US Government do not want people to know about Aerosol Mitigation.
Thetaloops and I have been Vegans/Herbivores for close to 35 years. We don't flame anyone. We just give the facts.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
m3th0d
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 188
Location: Rijeka, Croatia |
|
Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:10 pm
|
|
|
The reason why I understood your message the way I did is because there are indeed a few vegans on Croatian usenet that do flame vegeterians.
But you're right about carnivores flaming both vegans and vegetarians.
Meat is a conspiracy too, at least in my opinion. Like other veggies I also get a lot of uninformed opinions from my friends, claiming you can't live a healthy life without meat in your diet. These people are too lazy to read about it. I know some families that raise they children vegan and the kids are very healthy and have no allergies or other problems.
I guessed we turned this thread into a veggie one.
_________________
*~Peace&Ganja~* |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:29 pm
|
|
|
I usually do not flame even meat eaters directly, unless they say some dumb ass statement like "Where ya get yer protein, boy" (in redneck accent), or "humans are ominvorous, not herbivore". I have yet to see or hear a rational reason to be carnivorous in 35 years. The best two are "Plants feel pain too", or "humans have flesh tearing teeth". I was looking at my mother-in-law's Huskie's teeth, and they look nothing like mine.
Just for the record, Linda McCartney was a heavy consumer of milk products and eggs, and some believe she was exposed to Chernoybyl radiation. Damn shame!!!
The best one yet was the argument in a Life Extension magazine. They said that vegetarians get zero Carnosine in their diets, and Carnosine is a Scavenger of de-linked cross-links. So the conclusion was this....You are better off being a meat-eater because meat has a high amount of Carnosine. I spoke to the author of the article, and said all commerical L-Carnosine is created by the combination of two amino acids and derived from yeast. You need to eat literally 5 pounds of Raw meat to get the amount of Carnosine in one 500 mg capsule. The same for B12. Vitamin B12 is abundant in yeast, sunflower yogurt, spirulina, chlorella, blue-green algae, and seaweed.
Ultimately, it is better not to flame someone, because eventually they may see your way, and you would not want to sway them away from a dietary an/or lifestyle change for the better.
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for
survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a
vegetarian diet." --Albert Einstein
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
m3th0d
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 188
Location: Rijeka, Croatia |
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:30 pm
|
|
|
All you have to do is look around you and see that different elements/molecules can be found in different places- so believing that for example B12 can be found only in meat is simplyignorant...but what can you do? I guess 80% of people are....
_________________
*~Peace&Ganja~* |
| |
|
|
m3th0d
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 188
Location: Rijeka, Croatia |
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:32 pm
|
|
|
All you have to do is look around you and see that different elements/molecules can be found in different places- so believing that for example B12 can be found only in meat is simplyignorant...but what can you do? I guess 80% of people are....
_________________
*~Peace&Ganja~* |
| |
|
|
Bhang
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Posts: 641
Location: Classified |
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:09 pm
|
|
|
I think there is something here that goes beyond stopping debunkers from 'annoying' web users.
quote:
darvi o'brien:BUSH ANNOYS ME!!!!!
Swamp Gas: Yes he does, but he is in our faces, and not anonymous, so therefore we couldn't get him jailed for that. DAMN!!!!"
Um, did anyone stop to think this can be reversed? Maybe Bush will read this, get annoyed and send darvi o'brien off to jail (God forbid).
What if the CIA logs on and says "Mr.Swamp Gas, we have been reading your post and we are really annoyed. So off to Guantanamo with you! Unless you expose yourself to the public so we... I mean 'they' can exploit you and smear your name. Don't you guys realize what this means?
Any comment made online that doesn’t match thee Governments idea of "Internet Correctness" means you are an ENEMY COMBANTANT if you refuse to expose yourself to them. Off to jail with the dissidents! They say stuff we don't like! Burn them at the stake! The patRIOT Act uses wordage so vague that they could actually detain you and ship you off to some CIA prison that 'doesn’t exist' (We can not confirm nor deny that statement).
So say what you want (if you are willing to be exposed and hung by the sleeping mob) Or just say what "they" say is ok to say. A big F to the U, to the C to the K, to the Y to the O, to the U, to the @$$holes who thought this crap up...
I understand that there are people out there who debunk, troll or otherwise 'annoy' but this law is stripping away our freedom of expression. We all have the freedom to tell our bosses to go and get f@#$% but we don't do it because of FEAR. Fear of losing our jobs.
Now people will not speak their minds on the net because of FEAR that the neighbor might lynch them because they are liberal or democrat or whatever...
I hope I annoy the s!@# outta these people!
_________________
Paradigms of Vigilance. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu May 24, 2012 11:59 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
