NEWS: You Suck Balls! Sincerely, Your Name Here

actually no.
(from same article)
"
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion."

So you see, you will always be pwned on teh interweb.

and this has nothing to do with it
http://theytmndwar.ytmnd.com/

I guess RyanDipietro will continue to fuck our mothers, then.

So, your name is?

and how!

it's my right to annoy other people as long as I don't invade their personal space! fuckers.

Guess I'm going to have to go to the DMV or wherever, and legally change my name to FridgeMagnet.

Bills annoy me and I only see some "company" listed on them...no person's name. I think I'm gonna report them.

Don't forget to add the esquire at the end of it

So... no more posts to the advice crew from 'Random Fuckbag', then? The question might annoy someone!

Move over Singapore! You have some stiff competition in the "ridicuolously over the top penalties" department!

Constitutionally DOA. The classic example of a statute being void for vagueness on its face and un-enforceable under the First Amendment.

Annoy away, kids.

S. Clinton Woods, IV (soon-to-be) Esq.

Even if this were correctly interpreted by the OP how in the world would they intend to enforce this?

"Somebody on teh intarwebnet is annoying me, he keeps calling me a 'n00b'"

Govt: "ummm, who are they? we need to know who they are in order to press charges..."

... doh

What about people in other countries? Can they continue to annoy Americans on the internet? I would think so.

This is almost as good as the CAN-SPAM laws. I haven't noticed any significant decrease in spam since those things came around.

leave it to our lawmakers to not know anything about the law. what a bunch of twits.

Matthew Ryan B. Crisp

I second this evaluation.

EJR, (soon-to-be) Esq.

[Edited on Jan 09, 2006 by MissTyrios]

Problem is, they'll never be accepted into any self-respecting state bar association.

-JMW (soon to be changed to Dead Ringer, Esq.)

Fine. MissTyrios, Subrosa & Dead_Ringer, L.L.P.

Pfff, my name above the door won't improve your chances any!

OMFG this law is teh ghey!!!!11!!!111

how awful - how dare Bush attack the right to anonymously harrass someone.

next thing you know he'll be clamping down on stalking!

bastard

ludicrous to say the least.

i just read the news on italian tech sites.
so the american administration is up for international scorn once again already!

d'oh! sorry!

BTW - e-harrassment is an offense in the UK under telecoms laws.

of course - like with regular telephone harrassment - you need to prove who is doing it (thank you gmail & hotmail for masking the fucking headers, you idiots)

The laws on stalking/harassment/terroristic threatening online are exactly the same as any other communications medium. If someone tells you in an IM that they're going to kill you, that's exactly the same as someone telling you that on the phone or even in person. It's relatively easy to get information from the IP address if you have a warrant.

In short, this is a needless law. Another attempt to limit freedoms to fight crimes that can be fought with existing laws that aren't as restrictive of our rights.

Did you even read the story, or are you just being typically uninformed and reactionary?