Subject: RE: IS THIS A DEATH THREAT?
Sent: 01/04 1:28 AM
Received: 01/04 10:38 AM
From: Stormfront-l, [email protected]
To: [email protected]
From: Jeff Dranetz
Return-Receipt-To:
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 20:28:43 -0500
Subject: RE: IS THIS A DEATH THREAT?
Your advice is well taken. I shall refrain from such acts that could be =
construded as criminal or some sort of Civil Rights violation. I am =
sorry to hear of your imprisonment, I am surprised, I had thought this =
was America. All the more reason to vote for candidates that would seek =
to protect our First and Second Ammendment Rights.=20
I hearby recommend to all readers not to take part in any such email =
terrorism. This is now my official position on the matter. =20
Jeff
———-
From: Stormfront-l[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 1996 6:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: IS THIS A DEATH THREAT?
From: [email protected] (Don Black)
Date: Wed Jan 3 1995
Subj: RE: IS THIS A DEATH THREAT?
->From: Jeff Dranetz
->Return-Receipt-To:
->Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:41:11 -0500
->Subject: RE: IS THIS A DEATH THREAT?
->What is Curt Bolder’s email address, I’ll have a surprise for him in =
=3D
->his email box. I have devised a way to sign people up for 993 email =
=3D
->lists from Netcom with one simple email message. This should silence =
=3D
->Curt Bolder for a while.
Jeff, I know you don’t think these kind of juvenile games are illegal, =
but
I’m not so sure. Since many of us on this list have also been subject to
e-mail bombs, I’ve spent the last hour re-reading parts of the =
Electronic
Communications Privacy Act 0f 1986 and commentary on related statutes.
Though “spamming” isn’t mentioned, an ambitious federal prosecutor might =
be
able to claim spamming, regardless of the method used, constitutes =
malicious
destruction of data. I’m sure they wouldn’t go to 0the trouble, of =
course,
unless the defendant was someone they really wanted to make a case =
against…a
“hater,” for example. I spent two years in prison for violating the
Neutrality Act, a vague eighteenth century law which hadn’t previously =
been
invoked in fifty years.
If spamming is illegal, the penalty would presumably be determined by =
whether
or not the offense was conducted “for purposes of commercial advantage,
malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain.” In this =
case, “a
fine of not more that $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than one =
year, or
both, in the case of a first offense,” and “a fine or imprisonment for =
not
more that two years, or both, for a subsequent offense.” Otherwise, “a =
fine of
not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or =
both.”
Keep in mind sentences can be stacked for each offense, and that anyone
discussing commission of any illegal act can also be charged with =
conspiracy,
regardless of whether the act was actually committed. That’d be another =
five
years. Not to worry, though, Jeff, I found federal prison a great =
learning
experience :-).
Since I’ve already “graduated,” though, and since others here may want =
to
remain “uneducated,” don’t post any more of this stuff on this list.
Regards,
Don
————————————————————————
To: Multiple recipients of the Stormfront Mailing List
Host: [email protected] (Don Black)
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to ‘[email protected]’ with the
line ‘unsubscribe Stormfront-L’ in the message BODY.
————————————————————————
Processed with Listserv v2.77 for Wildcat v4
————————————————————————
To: Multiple recipients of the Stormfront Mailing List
Host: [email protected] (Don Black)
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to ‘[email protected]’ with the
line ‘unsubscribe Stormfront-L’ in the message BODY.
————————————————————————
Processed with Listserv v2.77 for Wildcat v4
