×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lying Online No Longer a Crime In Rhode Island

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the who-would-lie-on-the-internet-anyway dept.

The Internet 127

stevegee58 writes "In a sudden outbreak of common sense, Rhode Island repealed an obscure law enacted in 1989 that made it a crime to lie in online postings. Violations of this law carried a maximum penalty of $500 and up to a year in prison. From the article: '"This law made virtually the entire population of Rhode Island a criminal," said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union. "When this bill was enacted nobody had any idea what its ramifications were. Telling fibs may be wrong, but it shouldn't be criminal activity." The law aimed to stop fraud, con artists and scammers, but also outlawed the "transmission of false data" regardless of whether liars stood to profit from their deception or not.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

127 comments

This is awesome news for me (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40464977)

and my 16" cock! Any lonely Rhode Island girls out there?

Re:This is awesome news for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465079)

Not sure you'd want the ones that would take all 16cm.

eula (0, Troll)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#40464979)

now if it is legal to lie on the internet, does that than mean lying about agreeing to a eula or other digital contract is valid if said agreement unlocks software after key exchange over the Internet?

Re:eula (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#40465461)

now if it is legal to lie on the internet, does that than mean lying about agreeing to a eula or other digital contract is valid if said agreement unlocks software after key exchange over the Internet?

Lying on the internet is not a crime per se anymore in this state, but fraud would still be a crime, including fraud that was committed by lying on the internet. You can't lie about agreeing to a Eula - you can only click on a button without agreeing, in which case you usually have no rights to the software in question, which makes every single use of the software copyright infringement. If there is an unlock of DRM restricted software, then there is a DMCA violation. Of course if things went to court, nobody can prove that you didn't agree, so you can always claim that you _did_ agree, with all the consequences of that. Which in the end means it doesn't matter much whether you agree or not when you click. (And of course if things went to court, you could always say that you didn't agree, even if you did, whatever is better for you. Copyright infringement + DMCA violation vs. whatever the EULA said).

Re:eula (3, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#40466909)

You can't lie about agreeing to a Eula - you can only click on a button without agreeing, in which case you usually have no rights to the software in question, which makes every single use of the software copyright infringement

While I know that some companies would like to push this notion on everybody, this probably depends on where a person lives, and whether or not violating terms of an EULA is considered to be against the law. In most places, afaik, it is not... and *CERTAINLY* does not cause every use to be copyright infringement... it only causes the usages to be unauthorized. Copyright infringement involves unauthorized copies, not unauthorized use.

Re:eula (0)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#40467471)

While I know that some companies would like to push this notion on everybody, this probably depends on where a person lives, and whether or not violating terms of an EULA is considered to be against the law. In most places, afaik, it is not... and *CERTAINLY* does not cause every use to be copyright infringement... it only causes the usages to be unauthorized. Copyright infringement involves unauthorized copies, not unauthorized use.

You confuse a few things. You either agree to the EULA, or you don't. In many cases, acceptance of the EULA is part of the contract between you and the seller. Without acceptance of the EULA there is no valid contract. Without valid contract, you have no right to copy anything. Using software copies the software into RAM. That copy is legal if you have the right to use the software, it is copyright infringement if you don't. That's the part when you don't agree.

If you agree, that is of course not against the law, but it is a breach of the contract that you entered, and it will have consequences as the EULA says.

How do you propose using software without copying it into RAM? And it is absolutely known to the law makers that using software involves copying it into RAM, which is why they stated that a EULA cannot disallow to make certain copies (copying into RAM to run the software, and copying to a backup device) if you are authorised to use the software.

Re:eula (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#40467791)

The issue of RAM copies being subject to the permissions applicable for copyrighted works is highly questionable, since a copy made into RAM is necessary for the work to simply be USED. Since usage is not governed by copyright, it follows that copies that are made merely as a consequence of trying to use the work normally cannot be either.

Admittedly, in some jurisdictions, this is a fairly hot issue. Again, it depends on whether or not regional laws have determined that EULA's have any legal weight to them.

Ends for Means (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about 2 years ago | (#40464987)

If you think lying is a morally un-praiseworthy activity (a negative of what we philosophers call morally sufficient), then you are rather near-sighted indeed.

Re:Ends for Means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465065)

But my optometrist said my eye sight was fine!!!!

Re:Ends for Means (5, Funny)

FhnuZoag (875558) | about 2 years ago | (#40465151)

Well, I for one have never lied on the internet!

Re:Ends for Means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465201)

THAT IS A LIE!!!

Re:Ends for Means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40467201)

Well, I for one have never READ a lie on the Internet. The Internet NEVER lies.

Re:Ends for Means (2)

dark12222000 (1076451) | about 2 years ago | (#40465763)

Someones breaking out Hume rather early.

Clearly lying is a morally un-praiseworthy activity since lying is most likely to harm you in the long run while also harming the general good. Lying benefits no one except the person telling the lie (making it a selfish act) and always harms at least one other person. It is, at best, a more or less neutral act, and more often then not, an un-praiseworthy moral activity.

Re:Ends for Means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465869)

What about a surprise party?

Re:Ends for Means (5, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 2 years ago | (#40465935)

When I teach my child about why she shouldn't lie, what I tell her is this:

Yes, when you lie, your peers will punish you when they find out. But that's not the real issue.

When you're a liar, you're projecting a false self as a problem solving tool. This forces you to keep multiple versions of reality in your head.

Carried systematically across a lifetime, this will cause you to become a person made up of many people, none of whom are you.

Eventually, you will not know who you are, or what you believe, and when you meet a strong person with integrity, you will be unable to hold a form of your own in their presence.

This is a road to hell on earth, a hell contained within ones own mind, where the wind can blow your identity to and fro at a moments notice, and you live in a constant state of fearful reactionary adjustment of self.

What it all boils down to is this: people are not worth lying to.

Re:Ends for Means (1)

Chibinium (1596211) | about 2 years ago | (#40466371)

If I had mod points, I'd use them all. Rather than a moral frame, you take an economic frame. I think everyone understands the concept of "pain in the ass."

Re:Ends for Means (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#40466827)

That seems like your reason for behaving good in society is "it is what is best for ME". Is there no room for altruism, or good for good's sake, in your philosophy? What happens when you weigh the balance, and lying really does benefit you more than truth?

Re:Ends for Means (1)

idontgno (624372) | about 2 years ago | (#40467395)

When you're a liar, you're projecting a false self as a problem solving tool. This forces you to keep multiple versions of reality in your head.

The less nuanced but catchier way I've heard this expressed is "There are many lies but only one truth."

Re:Ends for Means (1)

trevc (1471197) | about 2 years ago | (#40467723)

Your child understood everything you said? Wow - at what age to you give them this lesson?

Re:Ends for Means (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 2 years ago | (#40468017)

Your child understood everything you said? Wow - at what age to you give them this lesson?

When she was 9. And yes, she understood everything. I know this because she intelligently paraphrased me to someone else while I was in earshot.

Re:Ends for Means (1)

Herr Brush (639981) | about 2 years ago | (#40467731)

While this may be true for really big lies, I would imagine that most persistent lies that people tell fall into the exaggeration or truth twisting category. Over time with consistent telling, they become the truth in your mind. I highly doubt that anyone has a truly accurate memory of their past.

Re:Ends for Means (1)

rednip (186217) | about 2 years ago | (#40467757)

When you're a liar, you're projecting a false self as a problem solving tool. This forces you to keep multiple versions of reality in your head.

Actually lying doesn't 'make' you do anything. The reason why most liars are easy to spot is that they tend to be inconsistent. You'll also find that once they are confronted with their lies, most often they'll either 'lie more' or get angry. An honest man is generally concerned with offering a consistent narrative, a liar only begins to care when their ass is on the line. Fortunately for those looking for the truth, a dishonest man can be shown as such through ancillary activities even when they careful with their 'main story'.

Re:Ends for Means (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#40466451)

If you think lying is a morally un-praiseworthy activity (a negative of what we philosophers call morally sufficient), then you are rather near-sighted indeed.

The world is in a sad state if you or people in general believe that. There is something wrong with lying, there is nothing wrong with finding the act of lying to be objectionable. I'm not saying I've never done it.

That kind of attitude is one of the signs of a major failure in society.

Interesting... (3, Interesting)

bratwiz (635601) | about 2 years ago | (#40465005)

One wonders if this would have covered all of those "Campaign Promises" made by politicians in their zeal to get elected... or any of the other spewage which regularly emanates from their persons...??? If so, this law might have had a useful purpose after all. What would it take to get such a law enacted in Washington D.C.?

Re:Interesting... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465197)

Only an act of congr... oh, wait..

My god i did not know this (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about 2 years ago | (#40465015)

Good I ain't from Rhode Island anyway.

People from Rhode Island are so honest (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#40465057)

Good I ain't from Rhode Island anyway.

People from Rhode Island are so honest that this law was just a formality, nobody there would ever lie. I know this is true because someone from Rhode Island told me, and people from Rhode Island are so honest ....

Re:People from Rhode Island are so honest (1)

MrP- (45616) | about 2 years ago | (#40465315)

It's true. I'm from RI and still live there and I've never lied in my life.

Except just now, by saying I've never lied in my life.

Re:My god i did not know this (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about 2 years ago | (#40467185)

Hey... just used my Rhode Island proxy and I'm able to access both RIAA.com and MPAA.org again!

Is that true? (5, Funny)

wzzzzrd (886091) | about 2 years ago | (#40465017)

Is that actually true? Because I read it online in a blog from Rhode Island...

Re:Is that true? (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | about 2 years ago | (#40465295)

Is that actually true? Because I read it online in a blog from Rhode Island...

Then it most likely must be. Because the overwhelming majority of the population actually is law abiding. Even in Rhode Island.

Come to think of it, how ever are going to tell a joke on line? The chicken with almost absolute certainty did not cross the road!

Re:Is that true? (4, Funny)

Kidbro (80868) | about 2 years ago | (#40465429)

The chicken with almost absolute certainty did not cross the road!

Why didn't the chicken cross the road?

Re:Is that true? (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | about 2 years ago | (#40465913)

The chicken with almost absolute certainty did not cross the road!

Why didn't the chicken cross the road?

IANAL but with Rhode Island legislation even I could stand a fair shot at getting you behind bars. Not that I would of course. 'Cause that would consist in me getting my finger prints taken at the US border. And I'm generally speaking a jovial sort of chap. If I may say so myself. As it were. So to speak.

Re:Is that true? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 2 years ago | (#40465437)

Come to think of it, how ever are going to tell a joke on line? The chicken with almost absolute certainty did not cross the road!

"Under which circumstances or with what purpose would a hypothetic chicken have crossed a road, if such chicken had indeed crossed such road, hypothesis with no known basis on any fact or occurrence? The character hereby presented as "the chicken" does not represent any specific existing or imaginary chicken nor, metaphorically, any other being. Notice that the nature of the road has been purposefully excluded from the question to enhance it's humorous nature."

Re:Is that true? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40466887)

This statement is true.

This statement is a lie .

I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in court (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#40465041)

I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in court anyway. Surely it would be unconstitutional. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to lie.

Re:I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in cou (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465085)

No, it doesn't.

Re:I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in cou (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40465115)

It does if you simply call it "freedom of speech" and then list no exceptions.

Re:I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in cou (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#40466853)

Freedom of Speech is always limited in some fashion.
Yes, people are allowed to lie, but there are still exceptions to our freedom of speech (because in the law books they are followed by a list of exceptions).

Re:I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in cou (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40467871)

...because in the law books they are followed by a list of exceptions...

In the Constitution they are not... The amendment is perfectly clear. If you wish to legally restrict speech (in the USA), you must amend the constitution.

Re:I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in cou (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#40466861)

Which, in reality, is not what happened.

Everyone seems to forget that the first amendment has specific words in it with specific meanings, and they arent "you have the right to say whatever you want under any circumstance".

Re:I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in cou (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40468051)

Which, in reality, is not what happened.

It isn't? If you're going by what it literally says, it really doesn't list any exceptions. Whether you think that's a good idea is another matter.

Re:I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in cou (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465227)

lying is your freedom...
unless of course you live in a nazi empire, oh wait, you live in America? yup you do....

Re:I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in cou (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40466151)

Yes, it does.

Re:I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in cou (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | about 2 years ago | (#40465833)

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to lie.

Yes, you're free to do so...you're not free to do it without consequences in certain circumstances, though.

Re:I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in cou (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40466483)

I suspect that it wouldn't have stood up in court anyway. Surely it would be unconstitutional. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to lie.

Not at all. A lack of prior restraint certainly includes the freedom to say things that may be lies, but...you don't have any explicit right to lie or deceive.

Otherwise you couldn't be punished for it, if somebody caught you doing it.

You don't have the right to lie, no matter what Jon "Not intended to be a factual statement" Kyl says. He could, and should have been censured in Congress for letting his over-inflated rhetoric trespass into the area of deliberate misrepresentation.

Can you be punished in all circumstances? No, but if somebody in a position of authority does choose to punish you, they can. Or they can just call you out on it, and if you protest, you just reveal the worth of your own character.

Because you do NOT have the freedom to lie.

Fiction is truth! Libertarians rejoice! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465177)

How is this an outbreak of common sense? What is common sense about deciding that society should generally tolerate lying proven beyond reasonable doubt? Lots of good things are "common sense", but "common sense" is also used to justify all the worst things.

There might be a subtle and sophisticated argument - and merely crying "freedom of speech!" isn't subtle or sophisticated - but the argument needs to be presented. It needs to be supported by both logic and historical evidence. Either lying is not morally wrong or, despite being morally wrong, society must usually allow it. Neither claim is straightforward to justify. So go at it. Imagine someone who doesn't know much about America has just arrived on your shores. They come from a completely different cultural background to you. Tell them why your society thinks that people should usually be allowed to lie.

captcha: condom. Bonus marks if you include this word, I guess.

Re:Fiction is truth! Libertarians rejoice! (2)

Xenx (2211586) | about 2 years ago | (#40465205)

"Does this make me look fat?"

Re:Fiction is truth! Libertarians rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465245)

Is that an argument for or against lying? Surely lying to people to make them feel good about themselves has caused great harm over the ages. Since people are used to being lied to this way from a young age, they consider it so shocking when someone is honest to them - but imagine a society where we started off with honesty from the start.

As to zephvark's response, *justify* it. Explain why freedom of speech in the sense of freedom to lie is necessary. "The freedom to say whatever you like" does not trivially follow from "the freedom to many forms of speech". You need to present an argument.

Re:Fiction is truth! Libertarians rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465275)

It's not the cloth.

Re:Fiction is truth! Libertarians rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465317)

You can honestly answer this, "no" because the article of clothing isn't the cause. Fat makes you look fat, not a pair of pants.

Re:Fiction is truth! Libertarians rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465367)

You mean that you can /dishonestly/ answer this "no", in the sense that you are being intellectually dishonest.

Lawyering your way around language or context with intent to deceive or subjective recklessness as to deception is still dishonest.

Re:Fiction is truth! Libertarians rejoice! (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#40467513)

"Does this make me look fat?"

For the (untrue) answer to that question, you might claim self defence.

Re:Fiction is truth! Libertarians rejoice! (2)

zephvark (1812804) | about 2 years ago | (#40465225)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ..."

Re:Fiction is truth! Libertarians rejoice! (2)

Sique (173459) | about 2 years ago | (#40465409)

The common sense is that most of the consequences that can come from lying (betrayal, fraud etc.pp.) are already punishable, and this law would then just penalize those lies which had no further consequences. And the common sense was that about everything smalltalk can be deconstructed to be purely lying: "Good Morning". We lie all the time, imagine contractual talks without small or big lies ("$1000 will be my last offer.", and then they finally agree to $1100). Why this should be punishable per se if it happens online is not clear.

Re:Fiction is truth! Libertarians rejoice! (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | about 2 years ago | (#40467955)

Let's define terms here: Lying means intentionally making statements to lead people to believe something that the liar knows isn't true.

We lie all the time

Speak for yourself.

And the common sense was that about everything smalltalk can be deconstructed to be purely lying: "Good Morning".

False example. In common parlance, "Good morning" is a short form of something like "I wish you a good morning", not a statement that it is, or has been, a good morning.

imagine contractual talks without small or big lies ("$1000 will be my last offer.", and then they finally agree to $1100). Why this should be punishable per se if it happens online is not clear.

It looks as if part of your point is that because many people in our society lie in order to advance their desires (as in your example of contract negotiation), lying is therefore required and therefore acceptable.

Lying is NOT necessary. However, many people fear that the consequence of being truthful may be greater than the consequence of lying.
The rationale for lying not being against the law most of the time is that it would be nearly impossible to enforce, the most obviously damaging instances of lying are already illegal (fraud, slander, libel, etc), and people presume that most lies are not harmful, because the negative effects are not immediately visible.

Re:Fiction is truth! Libertarians rejoice! (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#40466839)

How is this an outbreak of common sense? What is common sense about deciding that society should generally tolerate lying proven beyond reasonable doubt? Lots of good things are "common sense", but "common sense" is also used to justify all the worst things.

Because there's a difference between society generally tolerating something, and society passing an overly broad draconian law.

And what exactly is wrong with me lying to prevent my wife from finding out about the surprise Birthday party we're having for her? Lying is not always wrong, despite what you might have been told by your parents when you were three years old.

Re:Fiction is truth! Libertarians rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40468095)

There might be a subtle and sophisticated argument - and merely crying "freedom of speech!" isn't subtle or sophisticated - but the argument needs to be presented. It needs to be supported by both logic and historical evidence. Either lying is not morally wrong or, despite being morally wrong, society must usually allow it.

No. No, it needn't. Those who wish to prohibit it need to present an argument.

Imagine someone who doesn't know much about America has just arrived on your shores. They come from a completely different cultural background to you. Tell them why your society thinks that people should usually be allowed to lie.

Rather than trying to explain to them why each of a million and one things "should usually be allowed", I might make far more effective use of my time explaining that my society recognizes a distinction between the society and the state, and addressing why we demand a higher level of justification for any proposed law than "society doesn't accept that behavior".

Then again, they'd probably be baffled by the mismatch between the distinction I'm explaining (as taught in every American civics text) and the post-FDR erosion of that distinction to meaningless, and would ask me why we keep voting for lizards.

So the everybody in RI is a liar? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 2 years ago | (#40465263)

From the article: '"This law made virtually the entire population of Rhode Island a criminal," said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union

Does he claim all of them are liars? Good thing it was Rhode Island. Them fighting words in Arkansas and Texas.

Re:So the everybody in RI is a liar? (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#40467583)

He's wrong, to boot. As a former Rhode Islander I can say we were mostly all criminals before this law was enacted anyway.

Registration (4, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#40465281)

One part of protecting one's privacy is not to give real data on registration forms. Technically, a sort of lying.

Re:Registration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40466029)

My penis is 12 feet long.

This law made virtually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465415)

the entire population of Rhode Island a criminal...

It wasn't this law. The entire population of Rhode Island has always been a criminal.

(I grew up in South County, Rhode Island)

Back in 1989... (5, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#40465457)

RI resident here...

Let me think about what we had back in 1989...

In South County RI, we had a handful of BBSes and URI's access to Bitnet if you had an academic account or begged for one, not even the Internet. Everyone was still at 300, 1200, and a few at 2400, and almost nobody had v32 (9600bps) modems because they were new in 1989 and ridiculously expensive.

If you had more money than sense, you subscribed to CompuServe, Prodigy, or GEnie (to be called AOL later) and paid by the minute and also paid for the long distance to the Warwick or Providence numbers (Yay in-state long distance in a state only 47 miles the long way!). BBSes were free.

The community was so small. You could literally visit all the boards from Block Island to East Greenwich and read all the messages in an hour if you ignored the redialling. We also didn't have OmniNet or LOCNet yet to tie north/south RI and the Islands/East Bay together yet. That had to wait for the heyday of BBSes in the early 90s, and even then, you could fit everyone who cared about OmniNet administration (north AND south!) into one Baskin Robbins ice cream parlor (we couldn't meet at Casey's because half of everyone was under-age).

And everyone knew each other.

There wasn't much to lie about online at all. Really, there wasn't. It puzzles me as to what prompted this legislation that far back.

The only big whopper of a lie I remember was Matt saying his BBS couldn't be hacked, some time in the early 90s. This was a challenge to everyone at the meeting and pissed off his co-sys, who gave him up to the rest of us hyenas.

Shout out to LizardKing on here, who is the only RIer I know on here from that era.

--
BMO

Re:Back in 1989... (1)

bindir (63128) | about 2 years ago | (#40465685)

Great breakdown of how things were in your state. One of the perks of having a state the size of RI, everyone in your online community could actually know each other!

Re:Back in 1989... (1)

BaronM (122102) | about 2 years ago | (#40466575)

Former RI resident here.

I remember way too many hours logged into IDS and Off Broadway BBS and, yeah, actually meeting up with the community IRL. That and Commodore Users' Group meetings in Hoxie Four Corners.

Re:Back in 1989... (1)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#40468579)

I was in North Kingstown, so I also called up IDS and Off Broadway, but anything in Warwick was TOO FAH. LizardKing on here ran The Lair of the Lizard King BBS in 884-land and thus was the node for OmniNet that allowed traffic to northern RI from South County.

Many hours dialled into the MicroVax at IDS before Andy went legal and many hours after, into the used Vax 11/781 washing machine. Some nice IDS and LOCnet cookouts at Ft. Wetherill. "Hey, let's go watch those people jump off the cliff." - soon to find myself doing same. Never leave your camera alone with TwoFace unless you want a SPB in the roll of film.

LOCNet Rock&Bowl every Saturday until they closed and tore down Aquidneck Lanes and many RHPSs at the Meadowbrook with the Mike H., Jennifer J., the Dermanualians, etc.

The local scene was pretty nice. Then the public Internet happened.

Signing with my full alias from back then:

--
Boyle M. Owl
AKA, danielpi on IDS.

Re:Back in 1989... (1)

operagost (62405) | about 2 years ago | (#40467373)

I find it terribly amusing that a state government renowned for its corruption would pass legislation against lying.

What a pity (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465529)

That would mean, unfortunately, that Scientology is allowed again in RI. Certainly they were prosecuted in Rhode Island for their blatant lies and deception?

Hail Xenu!

Curt Schilling's happy now (1)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#40465665)

This is awesome for Curt Schilling. Now he can embellish his bloggy arse off until the cows come home about what a heroic job creator he is and not have to worry about getting nicked for it.

island (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465689)

as Eddie implied I'm blown away that a person able to profit $7977 in four weeks on the internet. did you look at this site NuttyRich.com

crime (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465735)

my roomate's aunt makes $83/hr on the laptop. She has been without work for 8 months but last month her pay was $8682 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site...NuttÿRîçhDÖtcom

Prohibition, strike three (thousand) (4, Informative)

retroworks (652802) | about 2 years ago | (#40465927)

It was one of many examples of democracies trying to "simplify" our decisions with a rule or law. If you ask a majority of people what should be "allowed" they will create a set of rules which not even Nazis and Maoists can successfully regulate. Three strikes and you're out laws lead to medical marijuana and Supreme Court "cruel and unusual" laws overturned. Society desperately needs "depth perception", the ability to implement laws and regulation based on 1) priority of risk, and 2) feasibility of regulating. The "risks" posed by X (lying on the internet, gay or interracial marriage, immigration, piracy, smoking pot) are nothing compared to the risk of society with a power to ban them or the power of the mafia to corrupt that regulation. Society's cognitive risk dissonance has created thousands of laws just as silly as this Rhode Island example. We need to start at the top and prioritize real risks and feasible enforcement.

http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk,nike free run 3.0 (-1, Offtopic)

lincici9 (2671681) | about 2 years ago | (#40465937)

http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk/nike-free-sko-c-277.html [brand-onlinerabat.dk] http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk/nike-shox-sko-c-188.html [brand-onlinerabat.dk] nike free run 2 herre billigste nike free run billigste nike free sko billige nike free run sko billige nike free skio nike free run 2 purple/white nike free run 2 shoes gray orange nike free run 2 sko nike free run 38,6 nike free run 46 nike free run 7.0 herre sko nike free run 2 dame + pink nike free run 2 fluorescent green nike free run 2 grey and green nike free run + 2 nike free run + 2 damer nike free run kvinder nike free run lunarglide sko

http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk,billigste nike fre (-1, Offtopic)

lincici9 (2671681) | about 2 years ago | (#40465957)

http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk/nike-free-sko-c-277.html [brand-onlinerabat.dk] http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk/nike-shox-sko-c-188.html [brand-onlinerabat.dk] nike free 5.0 men blue/orange nike free 5.0 v4 st?rrelse nike free billig nike free billigst nike free billigt nike free black and pink nike free black and white woman nike free black orange nike free blue and pink nike free b?rnesko nike free dame pink nike free fit tr nike free herre nike free kvinde nike free orange grey nike free piger nike nike free 3.0 v3 nike free sko til m?nd nike free sko+pink nike free til herre nike free til kvinder nike free tr fit 2

Transmission of false data? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465967)

Does that mean sending a 0 over the internet was illegal?

http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk,nike free run blac (-1, Offtopic)

lincici9 (2671681) | about 2 years ago | (#40465971)

http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk/nike-free-sko-c-277.html [brand-onlinerabat.dk] http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk/nike-shox-sko-c-188.html [brand-onlinerabat.dk] nike free 5.0 nike free 5.0 herre black... nike free 5.0 men blue/orange nike free 5.0 v4 st?rrelse nike free billig nike free billigst nike free billigt nike free black and pink nike free black and white woman nike free black orange nike free blue and pink nike free b?rnesko nike free dame pink nike free fit tr nike free herre nike free kvinde nike free orange grey nike free piger nike nike free 3.0 v3

True Story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40466131)

Lied about my favorite colour. Go thrown into a chasm.

You don't understand what lying is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40466335)

the "transmission of false data" is not lying. You can believe in false data and transmit it without lying.

First Post!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40466641)

OK. I lied.

But I'm in RI, so it's OK.

Hm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40466685)

So, if i lived in RI, said i "laughed my ass off", will the cops come to check to see if my ass is actually still in tact?

So ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about 2 years ago | (#40466871)

... the argument is that the facilitation of falsehood, generally quite strictly proscribed in philosophical contexts, is simply a nod-nod-wink-wink affair?

It's even worse if you think about it... (1)

tilante (2547392) | about 2 years ago | (#40467345)

Actually, the law said it was a misdemeanor to "intentionally send false data". Now, you could parse that as "(intentionally) (send false data)", but you could also parse that as "(intentionally send) (false data)". Under the second parsing, it would be a crime not only to lie, but even to be mistaken about something!

A good law, sad to see it go... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40467383)

What! No politicians we prosecuted under it!?

CAPTCHA = prosper (not now - we need to keep this great law)

Outlaw the transmission of false data?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40467909)

You mean we are allowed to transmit all the 1's (logically true) we like, but go to jail for sending any 0's (logicall false)??

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...