It's now illegal to post on the Internet anonymously

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is impossible to enforce. 1) Too many people would be violaters. 2) If someone is truly anyonymous, how do you know its anyone in particular?
 
Every time I read "An un-named source" or "Name withheld" in the media, I am annoyed! No longer can there be "An un-named WhiteHouse source", or "A Senior Source within the Administration/ Senator's staff/Governer's staff/Government Committees." All these ANNOY me. Not only Do they annoy me, but I belive that this "Annoyance" is deliberate!

This garners mistrust of my Government as a "Group", and attempts to "Gain" my trust in "un-named" sources. I find this ANNOYING! I demand that these "Sources" be named!!

(Now, using the above cited law), I have a legitimate grievance. Just how long do you think it would take to turn the MSM into a "Howling Mass of Indignation" over this "So called" Constitutional Law, if they were REQUIRED to reveal their sources, because the "Source", "Annoyed" me?

Why if you were "Annoyed" over even ONE news article that qouted a "Un-Named" source, couldn't you (and many others) call the FBI and demand action under this "Law"? And even also demand a case number? Reporting a violation of the "Law", and and asking for information about the follow up on the violation is well within your rights isn't it? Failure to procede with the investigation, would be a violation of not only the duties of a Federal Officer, but a failure to adhear to their "Oath of Service".

The pain of a bad Law dosen't have to rest on "Our" shoulders alone.
 
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice.

It's the darn republicans I tell you, the darn republicans:cuss:


The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

oooops there's 45 Democrats in the senate.
It's the darn Democrats I tell you, the darn Democrats:cuss:

All this BS is just pi$$ing me off. But since I'm not annoyed it's not illegal.:neener:
 
dpesec said:
It's possible, but do you really want to be the test case?
He might not - but i would. Legal bills would hardly be an issue - donations from sources from the ACLU, EFF, NRA, and God knows who else would more than cover it

That kind of attitude is how these laws get passed and enforced - we're all too scared to say "No more"
 
you know they went after king when he spoke out on vietnam
 
Dear Federal Government,

After long and carefull consideration, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one suitable repsonse. That being the case, it is with the utmost due respect that your officers and employees are invited to go engage in sexual congress with yourselves.

With utmost sincerity,

Sindawe

TTBMA
 
You know, maybe its just me but I don't see why this is such a big deal. There are thousands of laws out there that are insane like this one, and well, how often do you get charged with them?
 
HonorsDaddy said:
He might not - but i would. Legal bills would hardly be an issue - donations from sources from the ACLU, EFF, NRA, and God knows who else would more than cover it.

Don't forget donations from THR!;)
 
I bet the Liberals will be the first to try to use this assinine insult of a law first on anyone they don't see eye to eye with....:barf:
 
Optical Serenity said:
You know, maybe its just me but I don't see why this is such a big deal. There are thousands of laws out there that are insane like this one, and well, how often do you get charged with them?
True, but such laws shouldn't exist in the first place to begin with.:fire:
 
carguym14 said:
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand, from the novel Atlas Shrugged

One step at a time..................

Step by step, slowly I turn...
 
I realize I am in the minority on this, but I don't feel people should 'hide' behind a pen name. I think it does prompt some to say things they wouldn't have the courage to say if their own name is posted. I use my name on ALL the gun, and political, sites I use. Each to his own!

Kevin
 
Standing Wolf said:
Heck, at my age, I can't even remember my own whatchmacallit half the time, still less remember to own up to annoying people.
Don't worry, it comes naturally. ;)

Chris
 
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

Thank goodness most vote for the lesser of the two evils. Whew! I just don't even want to think about what a Democrat might have slipped in there...!!! :scrutiny:

Oh, wait, was that last sentence annoying? My apologies if that last sentence annoyed anyone, that was not my intent. :(

edited to add: Please ignore my sig line. Thanks. ;)
 
I think we should all flood the DoJ with complaints. Today.

If the law wasn't meant to be enforced, why did they pass it?

Wait...I wonder if that would "annoy" them...
 
Optical Serenity said:
You know, maybe its just me but I don't see why this is such a big deal. There are thousands of laws out there that are insane like this one, and well, how often do you get charged with them?

Whenever it becomes convenient or expedient to charge someone with the "insane" law who otherwise could not be persecuted . . . I mean, prosecuted.

I've gotten to see archaic laws used like that. It's not pleasant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top