It's now illegal to post on the Internet anonymously

[azredhawk44]

Maybe we need to pass a law like this:

Every law in america except the Constitution will expire in 7 years. No law may be written to last longer than 7 years. All tax codes, military expenditures, social security law, welfare benefits, nanny-statisms, everything.

That would keep congress so busy re-authorizing and debating existing law that they wouldn't have the TIME to screw with adding new law.

 

[azredhawk44]

Did I offend anyone's delicate arses when I said "nanny-statisms?"

 

[cosine]

Okay, I'll post again. Azredhawk, that's a pretty good idea, but what about existing laws that are just fine? I mean, they would expire, and there is no guarantee that we would get the same law passed again, laws that are genuinely useful and that we might have worked hard to get passed.

No way, dudes. I am like, SO TOTALLY Spartacus.

Do you think we've confused the .gov yet?

 

[cosine]

Did I offend anyone's delicate arses when I said "nanny-statisms?"

Nope!

 

[Kodiaz]

azredhawk +1000


Just 1 other law that doesn't expire though if you don't mind.

Any persons attempting to infringe upon the freedoms given by the bill of rights shall be guilty of treason.

 

[cosine]

Just 1 other law that doesn't expire though if you don't mind.

Any persons attempting to infringe upon the freedoms given by the bill of rights shall be guilty of treason.

+1.

However, one more provision to be added which doesn't expire: The definition of "do not infringe" needs to be settled once and for all, because the concept of "do not infringe" may be interpreted differently by different people. For example, I think that many anti-gun leftists do not believe that they are infringing upon the 2nd Amendment with their anti-gun legislation.

 

[joab]

Some kind of wierd double post here

 

[1911 guy]

No, you're not!

I'M Spartacus!

 

[joab]

Upon further simple investigation

(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

If you go here to page 58 you will see that I can annoy you all I want to on the forums


The term "hook, line and sinker" just keeps coming to mind every time I read one of these "They're taling our rights away" threads

 

[ctdonath]

Hmmm. If someone can be physically located starting with what they have annoyingly posted, are they actually "anonymous" per this law? Where is the line between identified and anonymous? I usually post as "ctdonath" - that's pretty darn close to spelling out my full name, but a case could be made that it's not clear enough under the law; there is at least one other C. T. Donath out there I know of; is that insufficiently clear? I occasionally post under another moniker that looks anonymous, yet with an hour of sleuthing you could still bang on my front door in short order; is that clear enough?

At best, this law will be tossed for being unconstitutionally vague and infringing on privacy & free speech.

At worst, the failing of this law will be used by would-be tyrants as the basis to more strongly push a National ID (next law: no posting anything without giving your SSN lest they raid the wrong house (there are two people with my name in this country)).

OB: Your mother was a hamster, and your father smells of eldeberries.

 

[ctdonath]

Flyboy,
Methinks you're right. <shudder>

 

[Old Fuff]

Oh darn! The Old Fuff just had a "senior moment" and forgot who he is.

 

[joab]

How many here have actually researched the bill as opposed to accepting the word of a reporter.
You know, those press people that are always totally accurate and non-biased with their stories

 

[TexasRifleman]

So what if I am annoyed by something I read on ATF's website?

Can I stop them from annoying me?

 

[feedthehogs]

I for one applaud any laws that throw spammers, telemarketers and other non solicited annoying sales people in the slammer.
If they had any marketable skills, they would have a real job.

 

[longeyes]

chorus of 20,000!

WE'RE SPARTACUS!!!

 

[Standing Wolf]

Heck, at my age, I can't even remember my own whatchmacallit half the time, still less remember to own up to annoying people.

 

[bogie]

I'll have you know that "Bogie" has appeared as my name on a National Benchrest Shooters Association sanctioned match. Hence, I qualify to use it. I answer to it.

Thppt.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Heck, I'm not sure I even know what "annoy" means.

 

[spartacus2002]

WE'RE SPARTACUS!!!

Hah, I've got you all beat. I'm ME!

 

[Phaetos]

So the next time someone sends me an annoying message from a Hotmail account -- using a name that is not their own -- I can report it to the police to both "discover" who they are [/i]and[/i] prosecute them?

Yeh, does this apply to spam?

 

[quaffin1]

So let me get this straight..

We are now supposed to support the ACLU??

seems strange.

 

[Phaetos]

Now.... if you "annoy" someone using a pseudo-name as 99.99999% of people do on the 'net, how do you report it and to whom? Call your local police and have them come look at your computer? They will laugh you outta town ... at least our cops would. Since it IS an alias, and they do find someone to look into it, won't they need a warrant or something to show to the owner of said "forum" or wherever they posted to get their true name? Assuming that the name in the database is their real name anyway. What if you post something to a newsgroup? How on God's green Earth will they find out who it was that posted it? That is the most ANONYMOUS route to annoy someone that I can think of.

Phaetos
annoyed by this stupid law ... can I report Sen. Spectre for for annoying me?

 

[CAnnoneer]

I'm Kornholio! Hrrrmrr!

 

[Preacherman]

Duplicate threads merged.

Preacherman (who must now unmask his true identity - I'm the alter ego of Rasputin... )