I wrote about this at a bit more length here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/lederhosen/368476.html#cutid1). After looking at the rest of the amendment, I think the most misleading part of DM's editorial is the claim that Specter 'slipped it into an unrelated bill'.
The change in question (Section 113) is part of a subtitle dealing with programs on domestic violence, stalking, etc etc. The following sections in that subtitle are concerned with:
* physical stalking * repeat-offender stalkers * dating violence * making anti-violence laws applicable in special maritime/territorial jurisdictions of the US as they are elsewhere (loophole-plugging, presumably), and * updating definitions of protection orders.
'Unrelated', my ass. Either McCullagh is being downright deceitful, or he hasn't actually read the laws he's talking about (which really isn't much better). The article's insinuation that Specter added the word 'annoy' to the definition of the offence is also somewhere between 'terminally clueless' and 'bald-faced lie'; it's been there since 1934!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-01-11 09:43 pm (UTC)The change in question (Section 113) is part of a subtitle dealing with programs on domestic violence, stalking, etc etc. The following sections in that subtitle are concerned with:
* physical stalking
* repeat-offender stalkers
* dating violence
* making anti-violence laws applicable in special maritime/territorial jurisdictions of the US as they are elsewhere (loophole-plugging, presumably), and
* updating definitions of protection orders.
'Unrelated', my ass. Either McCullagh is being downright deceitful, or he hasn't actually read the laws he's talking about (which really isn't much better). The article's insinuation that Specter added the word 'annoy' to the definition of the offence is also somewhere between 'terminally clueless' and 'bald-faced lie'; it's been there since 1934!