What can I say?

[Michael Fanelli]

Good grief, how can anyone fight this mind-bending full scale attack on freedom in the United States by the suddenly warped Republican party? Bush last week signed a bill passed by the Republican majority that might directly affect these forums. No, it's not the new revelations of the executive branch opening US mail "for our good". It is...

"Annoying" internet postings and email that don't clearly identify you can send you to jail. That's right, all of you using nicknames can now be thrown in jail if you post something that "annoys" someone else.

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...2491&subj=news

Wording from the bill:

"Whoever utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Repeat the new party platform after me:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU

This country gets scarier by the minute. I wonder when Democrats will grow some b****s and start defending our freedoms?

[Photo-John]

That bill, it's vague wording, and the way it was passed, make me nervous. I heard a radio announcer defending it today. It appears almost to be designed to errode our civil rights. If it was worded to protect people from slander, I would be sympathetic. But the word "annoying" is so vague and open to interpretation and manipulation. It's very disturbing.

[Sebastian]

It also ignores something very basic. Using a phone or mail or even email to constantly send messages to harass is inherently different than posting a message on a forum telling someone "you are teh suck."

This administration has absolutely no concept of what the internet is.

[adina]

Uh oh.

I'm pretty sure that all my posts in that gasoline thread were meant to annoy. Oh but wait, I'm using my real name....or am I?

That vagueness is there for a reason. So it can be interpreted any way they want to, depending on the situation.

He may be stupid, but he's not a dummy.....

[Asylum Steve]

Yeah, disturbing stuff. I'm particularly drawn to this quote from the article:

"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..."

The fact they we may have to rely on the common sense of law-enforcement, procecutors, and judges not to exploit this law at every opportunity also worries me.

Like many other aspects of legal self-defense, these matters may often come down to how much money you can spend on a lawyer to argue your case...

BTW, my immediate solution to this development may be to simply have a judge add all my online usernames to my legal one...

[masdog]

While the wording of this bill is vague, and it can be used to crack down on political opponents, I think this bill has a different purpose. It seems like this bill can be used to go after cyber-stalkers and spammers, both who use annoymous internet communication to annoy, harass, abuse, and threaten.

However, this vague wording means that the law could be turned on others who post something the administration doesn't like under a pseudonym. I find this very discomforting as well, and I highly doubt this will stand up under judicial review.

[Angelo Victor Mercure]

Excellent points, all.
My dear old Uncle Felix was a barber who instructed me to avoid two subjects:
Politics
Religion
His reasoning:
"A guy tells you what he believes, you tell him what you believe, bla, bla, bla, and before you know it, you are hating each other."
So, I approach this discussion with much anxiety.
Okay, get out those stones and get ready to toss them my way:
I am a libertarian with a small "l". Do what you like unless doing what you like definitely and grossly deprives another person or persons of his or her rights.
There, I said it, and I know I will catch some hell from somebody.
Uncle Felix, I am sorry.

[Michael Fanelli]

Excellent points, all.
My dear old Uncle Felix was a barber who instructed me to avoid two subjects:
Politics
Religion
His reasoning:
"A guy tells you what he believes, you tell him what you believe, bla, bla, bla, and before you know it, you are hating each other."
So, I approach this discussion with much anxiety.
Okay, get out those stones and get ready to toss them my way:
I am a libertarian with a small "l". Do what you like unless doing what you like definitely and grossly deprives another person or persons of his or her rights.
There, I said it, and I know I will catch some hell from somebody.
Uncle Felix, I am sorry.

Well, I'm a libertarian, only disagreeing with the party's open borders stance. Government has gotten too big. Government has become overly invasive. Government has taken a radical swerve to the extreme left under Bush. Government has become a way for politicians to accumulate power and line their pockets with our money. And Government still won't do what it is supposed to do under the Constitution: protect our own borders.

Yes, religion is a matter of faith that people keep trying to prove logically. It gets you nowhere to compare notes but can be fun. Politics, however, requires discussion and action. Without action and discussion, we remain in the dark. Just where politicians want us....

For the first time in my life, my vote this year will be simple: if you are an incumbent, I vote agaisnt you. I will keep doing this until something changes or I am sent to the Ministry of Peace for reprogramming.