This would have to be mailed to me at 3am, as I was four hours behind on going to bed and therefore not up to a coherent reaction, but does anyone feel like discussing their reactions to this (that's a link, although the text colour isn't good at showing it) little beauty?
Whilst it could make my job here easier, a lot more fun or both... Three cheers for sloppy wording, and how much do they pay people to allegedly avoid turning out gaping holes like this?
I appreciate that it's not as straightforward as it's being presented on the surface (again, I'm having to cut, paste and run on this one - does anyone know much about the relevant Act it's in, and how it's generally enforced?), but still... there's potential for precedent...
First of all, welcome back Sam!
Second of all, you have just arrived in the midle of an evil theme. I hope your love of burgers has not dissappeared with this Burger King nonsense.
Third of all, I'm not surprised that Bush would accept or allow such regulation on his legislation: it's part of his own political views as well as the complains that come from his own buddies (as well as angry people who can't take any more abuse).
What I'm not so sure about the article describes the definiton of "abuse". If it's too broad, it will cause problems: too narrow and the law's as good as a tissue paper (for lack of better imagery).
Don't forget: I come from the country that invented Mad Cow Disease, and its resulting human sub-variant. I haven't eaten beef since the mid-nineties.
It's been so long that when I was in a steakhouse restaurant in the US (abroad for the first time) a couple of years ago and realised that I probably could eat beef there if I wanted to (the US' sole case of vCJD was a girl who grew up in the UK, after all), I didn't even have the desire to any more, and opted for chicken instead.
Lovely.
Are the creators of this lovely theme going to now be sued and imprisoned? 😛
It's also good to see you back, Sam. We were all wondering where you were.
I really hope they put "annoyance" in no small definition.
Saw this article recently, I liked how it nicely slants things to make it look like it's only the fault of Bush and the Republicans, conveniently leaving out the names of any democratic supporters... That said, this has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. I can't believe they're actually trying to say it's illegal to be annoying online. Apparently the First Amendment means nothing anymore. Don't these people (I include everyone involved, regardless of political party) have more important things they should be spending their time on? Also nice how this part was added to an otherwise unrelated bill, one that would cause even more of an uproar had it been rejected, meaning it was a sure thing to get passed.
I noticed that it specifically mentions "intent to annoy". Does that mean those who are unintentionally annoying are okay? (as if something like this could be easily enforced anyway) And as was mentioned there's the whole issue of one's definition of annoying...
I hate politics. >_<
*throws bricks at random politicians*
LOL, if any prosecuter tried to push an "internet annoyer" case on anyone the ACLU would smash it in the courts.
Why? Because Liberal judges embrace freedom of speech, and Conservative judges embrace rule of law, which includes freedom of speech.
However, it is good to remember that freedom of speech is NOT: freedom to blackmail, threaten, stalk, abuse, or intentionally cause harm to people. We still can't go into a crowded theater and yell "FIRE!" unless there really is a fire.
For example, posting Bomb threats on a forum such as this is illegal in every country that I can call to mind.
Jimro
If this is really true, GameFAQs is screwed. =P
This law probably won't be easy to enforce. There are thousands, if not millions of people on the internet everyday, and it's probably going to take a long time to try and find the "annoying" ones.
Sure, people don't want to be harassed (heck, I wouldn't want to be, either), but doesn't this law seem a bit... flawed (for lack of a better word)?
EDIT: I know this is off-topic but... CHEEZYBOARD ATE MY AVATAR!!
This also doesn't take into account the problems with potential hacking of accounts to post messages anonymously, which could also be a viable defence. The only way a successful prosecution could get past a jury, IMO, would be if the individual in question had been seen making the post/e-mail, and so could prove the identity of the person.
Oh, and just being pedantic, but:
Quote:
However, it is good to remember that freedom of speech is NOT: freedom to blackmail, threaten, stalk, abuse, or intentionally cause harm to people. We still can't go into a crowded theater and yell "FIRE!" unless there really is a fire.
Well, you could still yell "FIRE", and you have the freedom to do so, it's just that you would be liable to suffer consequences for your actions. Of course, if Jimro finds this annoying, I guess I'd better get some suitable alibi sorted...
*GRIN*
Advantage, Bayfield!
I can annoy anyone I want and no one can say a thing :3 using your real name rocks, you should try it sometime!
*Starts singing "The song that never ends" while dancing the Macarana and posting hugeass GIFs with flash intros and annoying music all over the MoFo*
Don't forget you live in the UK so the law doesn't affect you anyway. ;D
Funny this should get passed while I'm using my John Barrett account in favour of Nuchtos due to Nuch being on the verge of a kilopost.
Anyway...
I pretty much agree with everything Jimro said. Anyone seriously concerned that this will impinge upon their right to flame people on forums is either an imbecile or completely ignorant of the American Constitution. Heck, I only have a vague awareness of it and even I know about that little freedom of speech clause they've got tucked away somewhere.
This act, as far as I'm aware, was intended to stop serious harassment and I doubt anyone silly enough to take someone to court over anything less than that on the basis of this law would get very far with it.
You think living in the UK can protect you? Think again...
Hmm, Swifthom IS technically my identificaiton, it's my college ID... Swif (first 4 letters of Swift) Thom (First 4 lettrs of Thomas)
So I am using my real identity, albeit shortened and the wrong way around...
AHA!
The black helicopters msut be heading for my window right now if that law actually can be "enforced" on the internet. No one can stop my spreading of pain and suffering.
So [some people] are gonna find SWAT teams at their doorstep?
Stairmaster, I have to say that post irks me quite a bit. Tell me your real name before I give the FBI your IP.
its [fake name] philip aviles[/fake name]. yessss thats it.
Oh no he called me a name. Take him away. *sniffle*
Why don't they outlaw "1337 speak" while they're at it? That's as annoying as it gets. And people who type posts as if they're texting on their cell phones.
"lol u r funi"
That would cut AIM use by half. o.O
(Blinks) Sarah? Is that really you?
But yes... silly legislation. I'd say more, but I'm half-dead at present, so my coherence has sunk severely.
Wow. This is one of the silliest laws I've come across. Annoying is a very broad word... And they're going to be swamped with a whole load of accusations that really don't matter one way or another and are just filed by lazy people who want to sue you and get money. What a waste of paper and reasources. If we slashed every law that was completely useless...
*burns something to be spiteful to politicians and whatnot*
Sammy... u know my SN, sign on to MSN more often :P:P I think my nameis under Glacier or GlacierKitsune or summin like that.
