OT - Cyber annoyances

Ahhh, but it's also still legal to use an alias as long as it's not used for an illegal purpose. And how would it be enforced? Will there be a new government agency devoted strictly to internet law enforcement? Sounds like a "feel good" law to me.

Selective enforcement. The same way that 55mph interstate speed limits where traffic flows at 75mph is enforced. It will be enforced where profitable or on people who have angered/annoyed someone in government office.

Word. Key one is "profitable", either directly or indirectly. Otherwise, where's the incentive?

-- Wound Up TS #65

Let's say you are senator and I'm a citizen who disagrees with how your policies, voting, etc. You use this new law to put me in prison or fine me into shuting up.

: >> Selective enforcement. The same way that 55mph interstate speed limits : >> where traffic flows at 75mph is enforced. It will be enforced where : >> profitable or on people who have angered/annoyed someone in government : >> office. : : > Word. Key one is "profitable", either directly or indirectly. : > Otherwise, where's the incentive? : : Let's say you are senator and I'm a citizen who disagrees with how your : policies, voting, etc. You use this new law to put me in prison or fine me : into shuting up.

I think you have that one nailed.

KJK

: : :

But who likes spam but spammers? Who likes harrassment? It's not as if one camp will side with you on party lines or any other, for that matter.

I was actually agreeing, if you read it. And, I think it would be too expensive and impossible to enforce in this manner effectively.

As if things are not bad enough with all the back biting and bickering over who did what to whom, all interfering with getting anything done... now you want to give them a new tool to try to silence each other... a new way to throw mud? And where does it end? As an individual, if you promote Mickey D's over Windy's, I get annoyed and bring charges against you? Should we have a national law that says everyone must run the toilet paper over the top as opposed the down the back just to protect us from people who may be annoyed by those who like the opposite direction. This is insanity.

As if government has time for that nonsense. This law will only be used to curb people's usage of the 1st admendment.

Keep annoying me andy you'l find out!!! (see sig) ROFL!!

Only if you are anonymous

"Wound Up" wrote : > : > Word. Key one is "profitable", either directly or indirectly. : > : > Otherwise, where's the incentive? : > : : > : Let's say you are senator and I'm a citizen who disagrees with how your : > : policies, voting, etc. You use this new law to put me in prison or fine me : > : into shuting up. : >

: > *smirk* : >

: > I think you have that one nailed. : >

: > KJK : >

: : I was actually agreeing, if you read it. And, I think it would be too : expensive and impossible to enforce in this manner effectively. : :

Me too.... You know, an agreeing head nod and a smirk....

Sometimes the printed word sucks.

KJK

wooptie do... And the year after next it's just a little extension. Some of the founders would write anonymously using pen names to argue the case of liberty. This little detail alone would have them spinning the grave.

"Spike" wrote

Should we have a national law that says : everyone must run the toilet paper over the top as opposed the down : the back just to protect us from people who may be annoyed by those : who like the opposite direction.

There IS a law on the toilet paper thing.

If you don't believe me, just ask any one of my children.

KJK

ROFLMAO TWICE!!!!!!

Of course, they wrote anonymously because they would have been hanged for treason if they had been identified by the authorities....

As far as spinning in their graves, I think they are already doing that just because they have seen that what they envisioned has been so bastardized as to be unrecognizable. If they could have seen what has been done to the Great Experiment, they probably would have said to hell with it and just remained as British subjects.

Indeed it does. Very poor at conveying subtleties, no matter how hard you try... I guess that's why someone came up with emoticons

The latter, it's only updating existing law on the books referring to telephonic stalking.

Some are saying it's put on there for VOIP calls.

The signed legislation is far less encumbering than some that was proposed.

And case history shows that the previous version was very difficult to convict on. A notable conviction was reversed on appeal, on grounds of free speech.

Amazing people worry about crap like this, and the FISA crap, in light of people with stated purpose of eliminating free speech, altogether.

Nice screwed up place you live. Lololololololololololol. Where's Hurc Ast when he's needed...