Left Now Engaged in Criminal Activity to Silence Rush

[The T]

So crazed is the left to silence those who oppose their agenda and dare mock their sacred cows, they have resorted to committing telecommunication crimes to get the word out and silence a private citizen.

Illegal robocalls accuse Republicans over Rush Limbaugh and 'slut' slur - Mail Online - Toby Harnden's blog

The outrage should be towards this tactic, and prosection on those who have undertaken it.

Criminal activity is not protected free speech.

Women of the 99% Robocall Attacks Rush Limbaugh March 8, 2012 - YouTube

Rep Cup runneth over...

MORE will not listen, watch, and read Rush because this; sad tactic.

And one would think we're dealing with adults, wouldn't we?

 

[Peach]

Rep Cup runneth over...

MORE will not listen, watch, and read Rush because this; sad tactic.

And one would think we're dealing with adults, wouldn't we?

Not always. The Afghanistan thread is now devoted to "Liar, Tratior", instead of the increased activity among angered Afghanis.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I don't think this is "criminal". It may violate civil code of some sort but there is no criminal offense here.

No.

Any person who willfully and knowingly violates this subsection shall upon conviction thereof be fined not more than $10,000 for each violation, or 3 times that amount for each day of a continuing violation, in lieu of the fine provided by section 501 of this title for such a violation. This subparagraph does not supersede the provisions of section 501 of this title relating to imprisonment or the imposition of a penalty of both fine and imprisonment.​

47 USC § 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment | LII / Legal Information Institute

So the remedies are civil unless the person "willfully and knowingly" does this. Only then does it rise to a "criminal" fine.

I don't think we have any evidence that shows any will or specific knowledge to intentionally break the law: This is nowhere near the criminal level at this point. We have no reason, at this point, to call this criminal. Again, it's just hyperbole used for effect. We all know this. There have been no charges, much less any official word that this is believed to reach a "criminal" level.

 

[initforme]

Rush has silenced himself for those who are smart enough not to listen to his hatred for the working class. I have gone over the whole scenario. My daughter is on the pill. Therefore she is a slut in his eyes. I give his opinions about as much thought as I give Bill Maher or whatever his name is. Both are the same. Neither is worth the effort to turn the station to listen to them.

 

[The T]

Rush has silenced himself for those who are smart enough not to listen to his hatred for the working class. I have gone over the whole scenario. My daughter is on the pill. Therefore she is a slut in his eyes. I give his opinions about as much thought as I give Bill Maher or whatever his name is. Both are the same. Neither is worth the effort to turn the station to listen to them.

Rush HATES the working class? Really? Where did he say that?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Rush has silenced himself for those who are smart enough not to listen to his hatred for the working class. I have gone over the whole scenario. My daughter is on the pill. Therefore she is a slut in his eyes. I give his opinions about as much thought as I give Bill Maher or whatever his name is. Both are the same. Neither is worth the effort to turn the station to listen to them.

Ok but.... whether or not people like Rush is kind of irrelevant. If you guys want to debate the merits of listening to / not listening to Rush, I suspect there are ample topics here from the Rush / Anti Rush fan clubs.

I think this topic was about the legality of some robo calls. There are some technical aspects that say you can robo call but you have to properly identify yourself. These people did identify themselves but whether or not they satisfied the law is in question. As well, I question any claim of "criminal" activity. I think they have probably violated the regulations but nothing that appears to rise to a level considered criminal.

 

[Si modo]

I don't think this is "criminal". It may violate civil code of some sort but there is no criminal offense here.

No.

Any person who willfully and knowingly violates this subsection shall upon conviction thereof be fined not more than $10,000 for each violation, or 3 times that amount for each day of a continuing violation, in lieu of the fine provided by section 501 of this title for such a violation. This subparagraph does not supersede the provisions of section 501 of this title relating to imprisonment or the imposition of a penalty of both fine and imprisonment.​

47 USC § 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment | LII / Legal Information Institute

So the remedies are civil unless the person "willfully and knowingly" does this. Only then does it rise to a "criminal" fine.

I don't think we have any evidence that shows any will or specific knowledge to intentionally break the law: This is nowhere near the criminal level at this point. We have no reason, at this point, to call this criminal. Again, it's just hyperbole used for effect. We all know this. There have been no charges, much less any official word that this is believed to reach a "criminal" level.

So, they were in some sort of trance when they programmed the calls. They were sleepwalking perhaps?

You do know that ignorance of the law is never an excuse, right?

 

[tinydancer]

Right.

From Section 5:

(B) Criminal fine Any person who willfully and knowingly violates this subsection shall upon conviction thereof be fined not more than $10,000 for each violation, or 3 times that amount for each day of a continuing violation, in lieu of the fine provided by section 501 of this title for such a violation. This subparagraph does not supersede the provisions of section 501 of this title relating to imprisonment or the imposition of a penalty of both fine and imprisonment.

Ergo, criminal activity.

I swear to the good Lord you're gonna make me stroke out laughing. When I go "it's the big one blame Fitz" I hope you have a tinge of remorse.

 

[Sweet Willy]

No.

Any person who willfully and knowingly violates this subsection shall upon conviction thereof be fined not more than $10,000 for each violation, or 3 times that amount for each day of a continuing violation, in lieu of the fine provided by section 501 of this title for such a violation. This subparagraph does not supersede the provisions of section 501 of this title relating to imprisonment or the imposition of a penalty of both fine and imprisonment.​

47 USC § 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment | LII / Legal Information Institute

So the remedies are civil unless the person "willfully and knowingly" does this. Only then does it rise to a "criminal" fine.

I don't think we have any evidence that shows any will or specific knowledge to intentionally break the law: This is nowhere near the criminal level at this point. We have no reason, at this point, to call this criminal. Again, it's just hyperbole used for effect. We all know this. There have been no charges, much less any official word that this is believed to reach a "criminal" level.

So, they were in some sort of trance when they programmed the calls. They were sleepwalking perhaps?

You do know that ignorance of the law is never an excuse, right?

I don't know what they knew or thought they knew. I know that the law you guys cited says in specific that the only thing that elevates this to a "criminal" fine is the qualification that they "knowingly and willfully" did this. So... I would say that the law directly contradicts your claim that ignorance is no excuse. It specifically says that they had to know they were breaking the law in order for this to be criminal.

Therefore, if they were ignorant of the law, they are still guilty of breaking it, yes, but not to rise to the level of a criminal offense.

This still is not anywhere near criminal activity. Yet.

 

[Si modo]

So the remedies are civil unless the person "willfully and knowingly" does this. Only then does it rise to a "criminal" fine.

I don't think we have any evidence that shows any will or specific knowledge to intentionally break the law: This is nowhere near the criminal level at this point. We have no reason, at this point, to call this criminal. Again, it's just hyperbole used for effect. We all know this. There have been no charges, much less any official word that this is believed to reach a "criminal" level.

So, they were in some sort of trance when they programmed the calls. They were sleepwalking perhaps?

You do know that ignorance of the law is never an excuse, right?

I don't know what they knew or thought they knew. I know that the law you guys cited says in specific that the only thing that elevates this to a "criminal" fine is the qualification that they "knowingly and willfully" did this. So... I would say that the law directly contradicts your claim that ignorance is no excuse. It specifically says that they had to know they were breaking the law in order for this to be criminal.

Therefore, if they were ignorant of the law, they are still guilty of breaking it, yes, but not to rise to the level of a criminal offense.

This still is not anywhere near criminal activity. Yet.

I said ignorance OF THE LAW is never an excuse.

The standard is knowingly and willfully did the ACT. It has nothing to do with knowing about the law.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think this is "criminal". It may violate civil code of some sort but there is no criminal offense here.

From the article:

"The automated calls are illegal because they do not state who they are from (there is no known group called The Women of the 99 Percent) or provide a callback number, as required under the US Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991."​

 

[Sweet Willy]

So, they were in some sort of trance when they programmed the calls. They were sleepwalking perhaps?

You do know that ignorance of the law is never an excuse, right?

I don't know what they knew or thought they knew. I know that the law you guys cited says in specific that the only thing that elevates this to a "criminal" fine is the qualification that they "knowingly and willfully" did this. So... I would say that the law directly contradicts your claim that ignorance is no excuse. It specifically says that they had to know they were breaking the law in order for this to be criminal.

Therefore, if they were ignorant of the law, they are still guilty of breaking it, yes, but not to rise to the level of a criminal offense.

This still is not anywhere near criminal activity. Yet.

I said ignorance OF THE LAW is never an excuse.

The standard is knowingly and willfully did the ACT. It has nothing to do with knowing about the law.

Right. I understand. So, if they were completely ignorant of the law, all together, then they could not have possibly "knowingly and willfully" violated that law: Not an offense of the criminal fine variety.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems make the Gambino Crime Family look like amateurs

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Rush has silenced himself for those who are smart enough not to listen to his hatred for the working class. I have gone over the whole scenario. My daughter is on the pill. Therefore she is a slut in his eyes. I give his opinions about as much thought as I give Bill Maher or whatever his name is. Both are the same. Neither is worth the effort to turn the station to listen to them.

being on the pill does not make you a slut. Lots of women use it to control menstrual pain. The pill isn't really that effective either. The Palin daughter who got pregnant did so while on the pill.

The issue is no her use of contraceptives, despite being a student at a catholic college. The issue is she wants the taxpayer to pay for them.

We can't afford to pay for our roads and bridges and the schools are having budget cuts etc etc.

The government is paying way too much and too many priorities are skewed, but paying for a rich kid's contraceptives is not where the money should be going.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Limbaugh, and/or his confederates, are probably behind alot of this, to stir up sympathy for him while trying to make his opponents look bad.

 

[The T]

Dems make the Gambino Crime Family look like amateurs

As they prosecute those as the Gambino Syndicate...Hypocrites. US Government/Congress largest Crime family on the planet.

 

[Dot Com]

Left Now Engaged in Criminal Activity to Silence Rush

lol. You keep believing that. He's the best free advertising for the Democrats in the upcoming election that one could ask for.

 

[Full-Auto]

So crazed is the left to silence those who oppose their agenda and dare mock their sacred cows, they have resorted to committing telecommunication crimes to get the word out and silence a private citizen.

Illegal robocalls accuse Republicans over Rush Limbaugh and 'slut' slur - Mail Online - Toby Harnden's blog

The outrage should be towards this tactic, and prosection on those who have undertaken it.

Criminal activity is not protected free speech.

Women of the 99% Robocall Attacks Rush Limbaugh March 8, 2012 - YouTube

The left always borders on criminal activity, they openly support organized crime. All you need is to look at the justice dept.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I don't think this is "criminal". It may violate civil code of some sort but there is no criminal offense here.

From the article:

"The automated calls are illegal because they do not state who they are from (there is no known group called The Women of the 99 Percent) or provide a callback number, as required under the US Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991."​

Right. And it appears to be a violation, but a violation is not necessarily criminal. The remedies state that only in the case of "knowingly and willingly" violating the law, is a criminal fine imposed. And even then, it's just a fine. It's a technical provision at best. Claiming that "the left" is "criminal" is just an unnecessary over dramatization. There is something here but all this back and forth and trying to criminalize each other wholesale just doesn't help us figure out how to solve our issues.

 

[The T]

I don't think this is "criminal". It may violate civil code of some sort but there is no criminal offense here.

From the article:

"The automated calls are illegal because they do not state who they are from (there is no known group called The Women of the 99 Percent) or provide a callback number, as required under the US Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991."
​

Right. And it appears to be a violation, but a violation is not necessarily criminal. The remedies state that only in the case of "knowingly and willingly" violating the law, is a criminal fine imposed. And even then, it's just a fine. It's a technical provision at best. Claiming that "the left" is "criminal" is just an unnecessary over dramatization. There is something here but all this back and forth and trying to criminalize each other wholesale just doesn't help us figure out how to solve our issues.

Seems to me it is knowingly...and not criminal eh? Can they be subject to civil penalties for the violation?