Democrats have destroyed the First Amendment!

Before you go "getting your panties in a twist", please read the entire post and the entire article. I never said the FBI did anything wrong and neither did the article. The FBI did their job - they investigated. The FBI did not randomly decide to investigate this - they were told to investigate this. The FBI did not decide to take their findings and indicted this person - someone else did that. Your statement - "the FBI is not "Democrat" or run by "Democrats"- and not under control of the federal goverment" is FALSE. The very first letter of FBI stands for FEDERAL. The head of the FBI is a political appointee. They are paid by the federal government with federal funds (taxpayer dollars). "Why defend a person without knowing what they did wrong?" - I am not defending him. His case brought this law to my attention. Before this, I did not know anything about this and I don't think you did either. The specific wording of the law that was in the indictment is very disturbing and very vague! It could apply to most Americans at one time or another. Any electronic communication that has the "intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication" - this is not limited to threats. "without disclosing his identity" - he used a fake first name the last name was real. Neither one of us are disclosing our identities here on mylot and this is transmitted electronically. If I am sending an email to someone I know, I rarely sign it or sign more than my first name - how about you? "whether or not communication ensued" - if you wanted to annoy someone and you sent a email with no subject line and no content or if you wanted to harrass them and sent a 1,000 of these emails - that would fit this discription. Why am I pinning the damage to the 1st Amendment on the Democrats - because the law this was based on was the Communications Act of 1934 - supported and signed into law by FDR - a Democrat. That law was updated and signed into law in it's current form by President Clinton - a Democrat. And, to the best of my knowledge, it was not used in a punitive manner against a individual citizen until President Obama's administration - again, a Democrat. Obama himself was recorded and reported for threatening the press during his campaign - simply for reporting the things he actually said and did during the campaign. No other candidate from either party did that!

I heard on the news that a five year old was arrested a few years back for 'threatening' his teacher with bodily harm. When you read these kinds of things and hear them on the news, you tend to have the opinion that the Federal government has gone completely wacky. A five year old being held for terrorist threatening? Give me a break. This guy may or may not have threatened in the email. If he did, he should be tried. But I can assure you the folks around here where I live are getting real sick of the federal government pushing people around. The laws are not designed with the intent of keeping people safe, they are designed with the intent of keeping people under fear and federal control.

And, that is what I am trying to do here - warn. If you do not know there is a problem how can you do anything about it - either to protect yourself or try to make a change. Right now, as far as we know this law is not being abused; but, the potential for abuse is there. But, this law needs to be fixed before someone in the future starts to abuse it; if, they have not already abused it.

And, since he was convicted, he may lose a lot of other rights - some states will force him to take anger management classes, remove his right to own a weapon, etc.

Since this was originally posted, my son was arrested for refering to his ex wife, who had just broke into the rental house he lived in, as a female dog. [/b]shebroke into hishome, which had never[b]been the marital home, and he was arrested for calling her names. The police officer was apologizing all the way to the county jail to my son, said he had no choice because it was domestic abuse. He had to pay a fine, lost time off work and had to replace the window she broke.

Not defending him - but; this case is what brought the specific wording of this law to my attention. The email was not sent anonomously - he used his real last name and a different first name. Plus, it does not have to be an "email" - writing here at mylot and using pen names would also fall into that category snce it is done on a computer.

The article said he did sign his correct last name - he just used the first name of "Brad" instead of "Bruce". What was in the emails he sent - we probably won't find out until after the court case. Also, the article did not say that he "threatened" anyone; and, according to the specific wording of the law - he did not have to threaten anyone to be guilty under this law. And, what constitues a threat - does "I'll see you in hell" mean you plan to kill someone or that you beleive that hell is where they will eventually end up? How many people just get really upset and make idle threats that they have no intention of carrying out? This guy did time in the past for burglary - unless, he threatened to steal something from the Senator, his home, or office - would it really be anything more than an idle threat? Also, this law does not just cover emails; it covers anything done with a computer - mylot, blogs, etc. and the wording is really vague. When Judge Alex Kozinski was asked about this law and how it applies to the average American; he stated "most Americans are criminals and don't know it". You are right that I don't see it happening yet; but, everything has to start someplace and many people see this case as a test of what the government can get away with.

I'm proud of Judge Kozinski for speaking up and telling the truth.