Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

lil_tuffy

lil_tuffy

MODERATOR

San Francisco, CA

JAN 09, 2006 11:13 AM

Remember that guy who called you a fag and keeps posting annoying "PWNED" images every time you post to your favorite forum?

Well, you can now thank President Bush for signing into a law a provision that states that you can no longer annoy someone online or via email unless you disclose your true identity.

That's right: "Annoy."

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."


Hey George! I think you are a crappy president!

Hypertextually yours,

Terrence 'Lil Tuffy' Ryan

theseeman

theseeman

Asheville, NC
December 2002

JAN 09, 2006 11:39 AM

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/

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

JAN 09, 2006 11:41 AM

lil_tuffy said:

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name.



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

crispy

crispy

NEWSWIRE

Philadelphia, PA

JAN 09, 2006 11:51 AM

theseeman said:
a bunch of crap


So, your name is?

Margot_Dent

Margot_Dent

Los Angeles, CA
February 2004

JAN 09, 2006 11:59 AM

PointBlank said:

lil_tuffy said:

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name.



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



and how!

figmentation

figmentation

I'm lost
December 2003

JAN 09, 2006 12:00 PM

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

whatever

FridgeMagnet

FridgeMagnet

Chicago, IL
November 2004

JAN 09, 2006 12:05 PM

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

frisinator

frisinator

Forney, TX
May 2004

JAN 09, 2006 12:06 PM

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

MrDaft

MrDaft

Vancouver, BC
January 2005

JAN 09, 2006 12:43 PM

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



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

Noctua

Noctua

San Francisco, CA
February 2004

JAN 09, 2006 12:46 PM

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

starguitar

starguitar

Canada
August 2004

JAN 09, 2006 12:54 PM

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

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JAN 09, 2006 01:00 PM

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.

Nothorian

Nothorian

Rochester, NY
November 2003

JAN 09, 2006 01:04 PM

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.

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

JAN 09, 2006 01:16 PM

Subrosa said:
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.



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

Matthew Ryan B. Crisp

MissTyrios

misstyrios

NEWSWIRE

Allston, MA

JAN 09, 2006 01:43 PM

Subrosa said:
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.



I second this evaluation.

EJR, (soon-to-be) Esq.

[Edited on Jan 09, 2006 by MissTyrios]

Sloane

Sloane

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

JAN 09, 2006 01:57 PM

MissTyrios said:

Subrosa said:
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.



I second this evaluation.

EJR, (soon-to-be) Esq.

[Edited on Jan 09, 2006 by MissTyrios]



You kids are so cute. I think you should open a practice together. It shall be called MissTyrios & Subrosa, Partners at Law.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

JAN 09, 2006 02:04 PM

Sloane said:

MissTyrios said:

Subrosa said:
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.



I second this evaluation.

EJR, (soon-to-be) Esq.

[Edited on Jan 09, 2006 by MissTyrios]



You kids are so cute. I think you should open a practice together. It shall be called MissTyrios & Subrosa, Partners at Law.


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

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

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JAN 09, 2006 02:44 PM

Dead_Ringer said:

Sloane said:

MissTyrios said:

Subrosa said:
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.



I second this evaluation.

EJR, (soon-to-be) Esq.

[Edited on Jan 09, 2006 by MissTyrios]



You kids are so cute. I think you should open a practice together. It shall be called MissTyrios & Subrosa, Partners at Law.


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

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


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

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

JAN 09, 2006 02:45 PM

Subrosa said:

Dead_Ringer said:

Sloane said:

MissTyrios said:

Subrosa said:
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.



I second this evaluation.

EJR, (soon-to-be) Esq.

[Edited on Jan 09, 2006 by MissTyrios]



You kids are so cute. I think you should open a practice together. It shall be called MissTyrios & Subrosa, Partners at Law.


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

-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!

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

JAN 09, 2006 03:13 PM

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

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

JAN 09, 2006 03:20 PM

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

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

bastard

SaucisseDanseuse

SaucisseDanseuse

Italy
March 2005

JAN 09, 2006 03:25 PM

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!

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

JAN 09, 2006 03:29 PM

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)

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

JAN 09, 2006 03:31 PM

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

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

bastard



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.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

JAN 09, 2006 03:32 PM

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

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

bastard


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

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next