News > Politics > You Suck Balls! Sincerely, Your Name Here

news
MONDAY JANUARY 9 2006 11:13 AM

You Suck Balls! Sincerely, Your Name Here

Submitted by lil_tuffy

Edited by MissTyrios

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

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 7

Comments

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

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

NEWSWIRE

Philadelphia, PA

JAN 09, 2006 11:51 AM

theseeman said:
a bunch of crap

So, your name is?

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

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.