Create an e-annoyance, go to jail | Perspectives | CNET News.com
Well, it looks like I need to update my will, and get my affairs in order. It's now a crime to annoy people on the internet if you don't use your real name. (This may come as a surprise to some of you, but my real name is not "ElfNinosMom"). I guess it's still okay to annoy people if you do use your real name, which of course is stupid. If anyone crosses a line into stalking or harassment, it's easy for the government to discover their IP and, thus, their identity.
This new law calls for hefty fines and up to two years in prison for anonymous annoyance. They're probably going to give me the death penalty for all the frickin' 'tards I've annoyed with this blog, ROFLMAO.
Bring it on, boys. The First Amendment grants me the right both to annoy people and to do so anonymously, as the Supreme Court has held more than once. Add to that the fact that I'm a real-life credentialed journalist, and you've got a serious Constitutional problem on your hands.
Look, Congress, let's put our cards on the table. We all know you can write all the laws you want, no matter how asinine they may be - and in fact you write incredibly stupid and inane laws regularly - but the Supreme Court can call bullshit on you by declaring the law unconstitutional. If the president has at least half a brain (which is highly unlikely) he will call bullshit immediately and order the DOJ to not enforce the part of this law which stupidly makes it a crime to anonymously annoy people on the internet. If the members of Congress who passed this law have a brain between them (equally unlikely) they will strike that part of the new law from the books immediately, before their constituents find out just how stupid they really are, call bullshit on them, and throw their asses out of office.
In fact, I call bullshit right now. What annoys one person may not annoy another - so now we have a thought police? Hell, that alone is a lot more annoying than just about anything else I can imagine. The fact is that annoyance is completely subjective, and all you've really done is to create a new category of cyber-terrorists. For example, some frickin' 'tard who posts to Quatloos has already stated that he is going to file complaints against certain volunteers there for annoying him, just because they don't use their real names. It is noteworthy that this particular person is one of the most annoying people I have ever encountered, hands down, and in fact he goes out of his way to intentionally annoy people. He is a disbarred lawyer, a vile racist, and a former acid head. Not a good combination for those unfortunate enough to encounter him on the internet. However, he occasionally posts his real name. That exempts him from this law, no matter how annoying he may be.
My God, this is like the Chewbacca Defense. This does not make sense!
Would it really make a difference if the people against whom he is filing these complaints used their real names when they annoyed this guy? I mean, c'mon. Let's use some common sense.
Look, I expose frickin' 'tards all the time here. Many if not most of them are dangerous. They have hurt people, some financially, some physically, and I warn people about them. I warn people how to spot scams and frauds, and hopefully prevent them from becoming victimized. In the process, of course I am going to annoy at least some people, most notably the ones I'm exposing. It's impossible to do what I do and not annoy someone. Am I to place myself and my son in danger of physical injury by exposing my true identity, just to perform a necessary public service which the government obviously sucks at doing, given that these frickin' 'tards are still walking the streets and targeting new marks? Apparently Congress thinks so.
That's never going to happen. I will continue to do what I do here, and I will never reveal my true identity due to extremely valid security concerns.
So Congress and its new law can both bite me, because anyone who thinks it's a good idea - to make it a crime to simply anonymously annoy someone - is a complete frickin' 'tard. By that, I mean that I honestly don't know how they breathe independently due to lack of functioning brain matter.
Is that anonymously annoying enough for you frickin' 'tards who passed this law? ROFLMAO
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You forgot pedophile
Hiya, Andy. You are correct. The annoying guy, who says he's going to report people on Quatloos for anonymously annoying him, does have some rather perverse views on the age of sexual consent. I almost forgot that, even though it is one of his more annoying traits. Thanks.
That law would wipe out almost the entire "hanger on" sub-genre of the tax protesting world. Visit triallogs comments for a glimpse of that disturbing world where they all post under assumed names.
I just noticed that comments are being moderated - I hope I pass.
Hiya, Frank - great to see you here! Yeah, I had to put the comments on moderation because of (you guessed it) frickin' 'tards. Scroll down a little bit and you'll see an entry where I complain about getting spammed in the comment section. It got past the point of ridiculous, so I turned on the moderation.
However, unless it's spam, I let it through. I even let a threatening and sexually vile message from Tony Limo through, although I did copy it into my own message and edit it first. I had to use a lot of asterisks to make sure the blog doesn't get picked up as porn but, other than that, I left it completely intact.
Obviously, you're welcome to comment here anytime, and I apologize for any inconvenience the moderation causes you.
You're right about the TPs on triallogs. Those guys go entirely too far, advocating violence against the government, judges, jury members .... the list goes on and on. It's really rather disturbing.
Post a Comment