Well, I suppose this means that President Bush and the proper authorities will have to request that the Muppetmaster be extradited from Spain so as to stand trial in America. :wink:
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. Source
Full Version: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
Time to move to Brasil, but then maybe not...
[quote=CNet]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.
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[/quote]
BTW - it is best to quote excerpts you take from the article, so they are not confused as to be yours.
[quote=CNet]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.
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[/quote]
BTW - it is best to quote excerpts you take from the article, so they are not confused as to be yours.
[quote=muppetmaster]Time to move to Brasil, but then maybe not...
[quote=CNet]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.
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[/quote]
BTW - it is best to quote excerpts you take from the article, so they are not confused as to be yours.[/quote]
Hmmm ... If I post anonymously [using various techniques] how can I be prosecuted? Way to pass a law that can't be enforced!
[quote=CNet]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.
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[/quote]
BTW - it is best to quote excerpts you take from the article, so they are not confused as to be yours.[/quote]
Hmmm ... If I post anonymously [using various techniques] how can I be prosecuted? Way to pass a law that can't be enforced!
The whole thing is absolutely absurd. I actually like Muppetmaster and enjoy annoying him, just as he enjoys annoying me. It is all good fun. Many people take things far too seriously, both on the internet and in real life. :wink:
The current political climate in America is simply amazing. This law is obviously unconstitutional and of course is unenforceable. As Granger pointed out, if someone really wished to annoy someone it is very easy to remain anonymous using "certain techniques".
The current political climate in America is simply amazing. This law is obviously unconstitutional and of course is unenforceable. As Granger pointed out, if someone really wished to annoy someone it is very easy to remain anonymous using "certain techniques".
WoW. I think somebody in the senate need more job. Passing such laws is in itself annoying. Dont the lawmakers have better problems to takle.
[quote=Ocelot]Well, I suppose this means that President Bush...[/quote]
Odd that you should be laying this stupidity at the feet of Bush. Most of the legwork was done in the House. As for the Senate, there are several leaders that pushed it through... Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold, and Kennedy... hardly a conservative gang. Bottom line though is that it was a big complicated bill, and without a line item veto, Presidents can hardly be blamed for signing bills with less-than-perfect craftsmanship.
Odd that you should be laying this stupidity at the feet of Bush. Most of the legwork was done in the House. As for the Senate, there are several leaders that pushed it through... Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold, and Kennedy... hardly a conservative gang. Bottom line though is that it was a big complicated bill, and without a line item veto, Presidents can hardly be blamed for signing bills with less-than-perfect craftsmanship.
[quote=garnet_stone][quote=Ocelot]Well, I suppose this means that President Bush...[/quote]
Odd that you should be laying this stupidity at the feet of Bush. Most of the legwork was done in the House. As for the Senate, there are several leaders that pushed it through... Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold, and Kennedy... hardly a conservative gang. Bottom line though is that it was a big complicated bill, and without a line item veto, Presidents can hardly be blamed for signing bills with less-than-perfect craftsmanship.[/quote]
I am not blaming Bush for drafting this law. Every educated individual knows the process in which legislation is created.
On the other hand, George W. Bush is easily the worst president in my lifetime. He is an economic and financial illiterate and a deceitful liar who perhaps would be qualified to run for mayor of Crawford, Texas but certainly not the presidency of the United States. How this man graduated from Yale and Harvard Business School is beyond comprehension.
Should you think that I am a liberal moonbat, you would be wrong. I am a former investment banker who has lived and breathed economics and finance my entire life. I retired in the year 2000 at the age of 52 and my only regret is that I did not move to Europe for the duration of Bush's presidency.
I despise George Bush as well as the fundamentalist religious right which put this sad excuse for a man in office. George Bush simply does possess the capacity nor the experience and knowledge so as to appreciate the subtle shades of meaning in a complex world full of nuance.
Odd that you should be laying this stupidity at the feet of Bush. Most of the legwork was done in the House. As for the Senate, there are several leaders that pushed it through... Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold, and Kennedy... hardly a conservative gang. Bottom line though is that it was a big complicated bill, and without a line item veto, Presidents can hardly be blamed for signing bills with less-than-perfect craftsmanship.[/quote]
I am not blaming Bush for drafting this law. Every educated individual knows the process in which legislation is created.
On the other hand, George W. Bush is easily the worst president in my lifetime. He is an economic and financial illiterate and a deceitful liar who perhaps would be qualified to run for mayor of Crawford, Texas but certainly not the presidency of the United States. How this man graduated from Yale and Harvard Business School is beyond comprehension.
Should you think that I am a liberal moonbat, you would be wrong. I am a former investment banker who has lived and breathed economics and finance my entire life. I retired in the year 2000 at the age of 52 and my only regret is that I did not move to Europe for the duration of Bush's presidency.
I despise George Bush as well as the fundamentalist religious right which put this sad excuse for a man in office. George Bush simply does possess the capacity nor the experience and knowledge so as to appreciate the subtle shades of meaning in a complex world full of nuance.
hi all:
My comment about this subject is very simple:
How can a nation like the USA have such a president ???How is it possible ??
hilario.
My comment about this subject is very simple:
How can a nation like the USA have such a president ???How is it possible ??
hilario.
[quote="Ocelot"][quote=garnet_stone]I am not blaming Bush for drafting this law. Every educated individual knows the process in which legislation is created.
On the other hand, George W. Bush is easily the worst president in my lifetime. He is an economic and financial illiterate and a deceitful liar who perhaps would be qualified to run for mayor of Crawford, Texas but certainly not the presidency of the United States. How this man graduated from Yale and Harvard Business School is beyond comprehension.
Should you think that I am a liberal moonbat, you would be wrong. I am a former investment banker who has lived and breathed economics and finance my entire life. I retired in the year 2000 at the age of 52 and my only regret is that I did not move to Europe for the duration of Bush's presidency.
I despise George Bush as well as the fundamentalist religious right which put this sad excuse for a man in office. George Bush simply does possess the capacity nor the experience and knowledge so as to appreciate the subtle shades of meaning in a complex world full of nuance.
[/quote]
Mr "Looney Bin" Ocelot and I have consensus, at least on some points.
On the other hand, George W. Bush is easily the worst president in my lifetime. He is an economic and financial illiterate and a deceitful liar who perhaps would be qualified to run for mayor of Crawford, Texas but certainly not the presidency of the United States. How this man graduated from Yale and Harvard Business School is beyond comprehension.
Should you think that I am a liberal moonbat, you would be wrong. I am a former investment banker who has lived and breathed economics and finance my entire life. I retired in the year 2000 at the age of 52 and my only regret is that I did not move to Europe for the duration of Bush's presidency.
I despise George Bush as well as the fundamentalist religious right which put this sad excuse for a man in office. George Bush simply does possess the capacity nor the experience and knowledge so as to appreciate the subtle shades of meaning in a complex world full of nuance.
[/quote]
Mr "Looney Bin" Ocelot and I have consensus, at least on some points.
[quote=Ocelot]Should you think that I am a liberal moonbat, you would be wrong. I am a former investment banker who has lived and breathed economics and finance my entire life. I retired in the year 2000 at the age of 52 and my only regret is that I did not move to Europe for the duration of Bush's presidency.[/quote]
Hmm! I'm just wondering, since you're clearly not a liberal moonbat, what might have provoked you to post partisan political comments, by your own admission wrongly pointed at Bush, to a Skype forum where its relevance would be exactly zero. Or were you just trying to set yourself up as a test-case for what constitutes an "e-annoyance"? Next time, take it elsewhere.
Hmm! I'm just wondering, since you're clearly not a liberal moonbat, what might have provoked you to post partisan political comments, by your own admission wrongly pointed at Bush, to a Skype forum where its relevance would be exactly zero. Or were you just trying to set yourself up as a test-case for what constitutes an "e-annoyance"? Next time, take it elsewhere.
[quote=garnet_stone]Hmm! I'm just wondering, since you're clearly not a liberal moonbat, what might have provoked you to post partisan political comments, by your own admission wrongly pointed at Bush, to a Skype forum where its relevance would be exactly zero.[/quote]
That's most likely because the other billion or so of us on the planet find it so christian_god_be_damned refreshing when an American has the balls to admit the truth about their leader.
That's most likely because the other billion or so of us on the planet find it so christian_god_be_damned refreshing when an American has the balls to admit the truth about their leader.
and do not forget "the shrubbery" claims to have conversations with Gawd telling him to go and kill things ecause Gawd is on his side...
This shrubbery's sounds are just like many other addicts (cocaine and booze problems well documented) fresh from some form of 12-step program where they trade one addiction for another addiction to some Gawd...and that is all "the shrubbery" is...a brain addled addict...
He is worse then Warren G. Harding and that is saying something for sure....
This shrubbery's sounds are just like many other addicts (cocaine and booze problems well documented) fresh from some form of 12-step program where they trade one addiction for another addiction to some Gawd...and that is all "the shrubbery" is...a brain addled addict...
He is worse then Warren G. Harding and that is saying something for sure....
[quote=garnet_stone][quote=Ocelot]Should you think that I am a liberal moonbat, you would be wrong. I am a former investment banker who has lived and breathed economics and finance my entire life. I retired in the year 2000 at the age of 52 and my only regret is that I did not move to Europe for the duration of Bush's presidency.[/quote]
Hmm! I'm just wondering, since you're clearly not a liberal moonbat, what might have provoked you to post partisan political comments, by your own admission wrongly pointed at Bush, to a Skype forum where its relevance would be exactly zero. Or were you just trying to set yourself up as a test-case for what constitutes an "e-annoyance"? Next time, take it elsewhere.[/quote]
The comments have relevance to the topic, and the topic has relevance to this forum. If you do not appreciate the debate do not participate.
Hmm! I'm just wondering, since you're clearly not a liberal moonbat, what might have provoked you to post partisan political comments, by your own admission wrongly pointed at Bush, to a Skype forum where its relevance would be exactly zero. Or were you just trying to set yourself up as a test-case for what constitutes an "e-annoyance"? Next time, take it elsewhere.[/quote]
The comments have relevance to the topic, and the topic has relevance to this forum. If you do not appreciate the debate do not participate.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.