On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:15:04 PM UTC-4, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:35:07 -0400, Meyer wrote:





What crime was broken?


The'll have fun with this one. Snerk


I don't know about Canadian law, but if slammer was in the US, he could
get 5 years. Besides, it's just flat out obnoxious behavior.

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?
id=2064&s=latestnews

Maybe not. One provision of that law is that it must be associated with interstate commerce. Email qualifies because it's a business tool, but I wouldn't think usenet does.

On 8/29/12 12:30 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:15:04 PM UTC-4, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:35:07 -0400, Meyer wrote:





What crime was broken?


The'll have fun with this one. Snerk


I don't know about Canadian law, but if slammer was in the US, he could
get 5 years. Besides, it's just flat out obnoxious behavior.

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?
id=2064&s=latestnews

Maybe not. One provision of that law is that it must be associated with interstate commerce. Email qualifies because it's a business tool, but I wouldn't think usenet does.



The internet itself is considered a form of interstate commerce under
United States Code.


--

What do the Republican Party of the United States and the Muslim
Brotherhood of the Arab World have in common? They're both faith-based
parties, they both deny science, and they both wage war on women.

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 8/29/12 12:30 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:15:04 PM UTC-4, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:35:07 -0400, Meyer wrote:





What crime was broken?


The'll have fun with this one. Snerk


I don't know about Canadian law, but if slammer was in the US, he could
get 5 years. Besides, it's just flat out obnoxious behavior.

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?
id=2064&s=latestnews

Maybe not. One provision of that law is that it must be associated with interstate commerce. Email qualifies because it's a business tool, but I wouldn't think usenet does.



The internet itself is considered a form of interstate commerce under
United States Code.

Cite?

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:47:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


The internet itself is considered a form of interstate commerce under
United States Code.

Cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Baker

On 8/29/2012 5:38 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:47:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


The internet itself is considered a form of interstate commerce under
United States Code.

Cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Baker


Wouldn't it be wild for Mr. Dr. Karen Grear with two sexual predator
convictions to get another felony here. That could be life in prison,
which would probably be less than two weeks for krause...

On 8/29/12 5:59 PM, JustWait wrote:
That could be life in prison,
which would probably be less than two weeks for krause...


If memory serves, you've claimed to be suffering from a heart condition
and you claim to be a cancer survivor, and you're the one who makes
threats and involves "motorcycle gang members" in your threats.

Therefore, your life expectancy probably is less than mine. Oh, and you
don't have medical insurance.

It really must suck to be you...

Oh, how's that losing motorbike racing team doing?


--
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.

In article , says...

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:47:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


The internet itself is considered a form of interstate commerce under
United States Code.

Cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Baker

I KNEW someone would bring up U.S. v Baker, that's why I asked!!! You do
realize that he was aquitted of all original counts, right? The only
thing they could get him for was a trumped up charge when they couldn't
persue the original charges.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:35:49 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:47:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


The internet itself is considered a form of interstate commerce
under United States Code.

Cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Baker

I KNEW someone would bring up U.S. v Baker, that's why I asked!!! You do
realize that he was aquitted of all original counts, right? The only
thing they could get him for was a trumped up charge when they couldn't
persue the original charges.

You wanted a cite that the internet is considered a form of interstate
commerce under the United States Code. I gave you one. His quilt or
innocence is irrelevant to this conversation, but the ibls.com cite,
given above, is completely relevant.

On 8/29/12 7:07 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:35:49 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:47:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


The internet itself is considered a form of interstate commerce
under United States Code.

Cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Baker

I KNEW someone would bring up U.S. v Baker, that's why I asked!!! You do
realize that he was aquitted of all original counts, right? The only
thing they could get him for was a trumped up charge when they couldn't
persue the original charges.

You wanted a cite that the internet is considered a form of interstate
commerce under the United States Code. I gave you one. His quilt or
innocence is irrelevant to this conversation, but the ibls.com cite,
given above, is completely relevant.


You expect the morons here to be able to read for comprehension?

--

What do the Republican Party of the United States and the Muslim
Brotherhood of the Arab World have in common? They're both faith-based
parties, they both deny science, and they both wage war on women.

In article , says...

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:35:49 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:47:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


The internet itself is considered a form of interstate commerce
under United States Code.

Cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Baker

I KNEW someone would bring up U.S. v Baker, that's why I asked!!! You do
realize that he was aquitted of all original counts, right? The only
thing they could get him for was a trumped up charge when they couldn't
persue the original charges.

You wanted a cite that the internet is considered a form of interstate
commerce under the United States Code. I gave you one. His quilt or
innocence is irrelevant to this conversation, but the ibls.com cite,
given above, is completely relevant.

No, it's not. in U.S. v Baker, the "relevant" thing was they proved that
he was innocent BECAUSE the internet was NOT considered a form of
interstate commerce.