Illegal to annoy?

[thaddius]

Shamelessly stolen from TES CD, it seems that a new law has been signed into law making it illegal to annoy someone on the Internet. Here is the relevant article.
Combined with the Bush's NSA spying program, it seems that Bush has absolutely not respect for civil liberties.

[Randalf]

That is completely ridiculous and I consider it a violation of my constitutional rights. In fact I just wrote an essay describing the reasons exactly why things like freedom of speech should never be denied. I would share it with you but it is going through online plagurism screening.........

The justification for the law doesn't even have a solid base. Some of the things Bush has signed (patriot act for instance) had at least some merit (even if I didn't agree with them) in "protecting" us... but this is just ridiculous.

I really don't think this law will stand for long... too many ridiculous cases will make it into court probably (if anyone actually realizes this law exists).

EDIT: I am starting to reconsider my decision in the Bush v. Clinton thread... who earns the greater dislike?

[thaddius]

My thought is that it will be used as more of a threat to get people to stop what ever they are doing, the people fully knowing that a court case would never hold up. My biggest fear is that we have lost even more civil liberties, which are extremly hard to gain back once they have been lost.

[Randalf]

thaddius said:

My biggest fear is that we have lost even more civil liberties, which are extremly hard to gain back once they have been lost.

Exactly. That was one of the main points of my paper, the rights we do have are things that we need to secure for ourselves.

[darkhelmet]

thaddius said:

Shamelessly stolen from TES CD, it seems that a new law has been signed into law making it illegal to annoy someone on the Internet. Here is the relevant article.
Combined with the Bush's NSA spying program, it seems that Bush has absolutely not respect for civil liberties.

Question: Why blame Bush? Yes, this runs contrary to my position in "Clinton versus Bush", but people blame too many things on Bush. The legislature is more and more acting without him (since supporting him could be a bad move if they want to succeed him as prez).

[Randalf]

Aye, but Bush didn't need to sign it did he? I don't blame Bush so much for it's passing as I did for him not finding something wrong with it and at least trying to slow down it's passing. I guess he could've tried, but it doesn't look like it.

[thaddius]

Not to mention his adamant support of the PATRIOT Act and they spying conducted by the NSA, so I would conclude that he does not care much about the constitutional rights.

[Ratwar]

Wll, as long as you identify yourself, such as an IP address, you're fine. It isn't a violation of free speech.

[eek]

Wait... isn't this utterly pointless? You can annoy someone, as long as they know who you are?

Or have I misread?

[TheStranger]

So, if you are secretive of your identity, they are going to be annoyed if you post annoying messages?



*Looks at user name, and many of his previous posts*



*Whistles*


I guess America wasn't litigious enough.

[thaddius]

Two thing, I wonder how the government could enforce this if the "annoyment" came from overseas. Seccondly how would they conform the person that commited the "crime", supposing the problem came from a shared computer such as a library one?

[illicit]

thaddius said:

Shamelessly stolen from TES CD, it seems that a new law has been signed into law making it illegal to annoy someone on the Internet. Here is the relevant article.
Combined with the Bush's NSA spying program, it seems that Bush has absolutely not respect for civil liberties.

I believe bush is going farther and farther from the true Conservative ways to accomadate the liberal population Thats what sucks about Bush.

[Hunessai]

If they don't know who you are, how are they going to prosecute you anyway?

illicit said:

I believe bush is going farther and farther from the true Conservative ways to accomadate the liberal population Thats what sucks about Bush.

Destroying civil liberties has nothing to do with being liberal, Yawmwen.

[illicit]

By tracking your IP.

Hunessai said:

If they don't know who you are, how are they going to prosecute you anyway?

illicit said:

I believe bush is going farther and farther from the true Conservative ways to accomadate the liberal population Thats what sucks about Bush.

Destroying civil liberties has nothing to do with being liberal, Yawmwen.

Yea it does, true liberal ideals believe in the government controling the lives of people and using taxes to pay for everything rather than having little taxes and spending how you want.

[Hunessai]

illicit said:

Yea it does, true liberal ideals believe in the government controling the lives of people and using taxes to pay for everything rather than having little taxes and spending how you want.

www.libdems.org.uk/media/documents/policies/11CivilLiberties.pdf

[illicit]

I read a paragraph then realized it was written by a liberal. If you want to use that then you have to believe that when bush says there are WMDs there are, and that the patriot act is the best idea that it is. And I even know where WMDs are, or at least were BTW.

[Hunessai]

Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where the ability of elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law and moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities (also called constitutional democracy and constitutional liberalism), and which places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised. -Wikipedia

Are we on the same planet, Yawmwen?

[illicit]

Obviously not if thats what it says, I have yet to see a liberal who supports civil liberties. They are all for affirmative action, the most rascist and sexist thing I have ever seen in my life.

[thaddius]

illicit said:

Obviously not if thats what it says, I have yet to see a liberal who supports civil liberties. They are all for affirmative action, the most rascist and sexist thing I have ever seen in my life.

I hold some liberal views, but in not way do I support affirmative action. Making a generalization, the Conservatives prefer not to interfere in business (gilded age) and like to meddle in the moral and social affairs of citizens, while Liberals prefer to regulate business (Sherman act) and stay out of controlling morals.

[illicit]

Conservatives dont care about moral and social affairs they believe in conserving(conservative anyone?) tradition.

[thaddius]

The Conservatives prefer to inhibit the natural progression of human socity through the implamentation of laws to maintain the current status quo.

[illicit]

What do you mean by that? How would that be a bad thing anyways?

[Hunessai]

I believe that you should do your own research concerning the widely-accepted definitions of the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative," considering that you immediately invalidate all the sources I have provided you.

Here are some sample questions to ask a member of both parties (preferably ones that know what they are talking about):

Do you seek to create laws to put restraints on personal freedoms in order to foster a good moral environment?
(Conservatives would generally say yes, Liberals would say no. Keep in mind that personal freedoms are civil liberties.)

Should corporations have restrictions placed on them in order to protect small businesses and individuals?
(Conservatives are supporters of a laissez faire view of the market.)

Do you believe that people who do not believe in God are bad Americans?
(Judging by their morals, a Conservative would most likely agree to this one.)

Do you support healthcare / welfare?
(Conservatives are opposed, Liberals support.)

----

This is necessary research if one wishes to proceed in a debate without petty arguing. Know the ground on which you stand.

[mastab]

illicit said:

Conservatives dont care about moral and social affairs they believe in conserving(conservative anyone?) tradition.

Lynching free blacks was once a tradition. Should we keep doing that? And that is not why they are called conservatives.

[illicit]

Hunessai said:

I believe that you should do your own research concerning the widely-accepted definitions of the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative," considering that you immediately invalidate all the sources I have provided you.

Here are some sample questions to ask a member of both parties (preferably ones that know what they are talking about):

Do you seek to create laws to put restraints on personal freedoms in order to foster a good moral environment?
(Conservatives would generally say yes, Liberals would say no. Keep in mind that personal freedoms are civil liberties.)

Should corporations have restrictions placed on them in order to protect small businesses and individuals?
(Conservatives are supporters of a laissez faire view of the market.)

Do you believe that people who do not believe in God are bad Americans?
(Judging by their morals, a Conservative would most likely agree to this one.)

Do you support healthcare / welfare?
(Conservatives are opposed, Liberals support.)

----

This is necessary research if one wishes to proceed in a debate without petty arguing. Know the ground on which you stand.

I answer no to all of those, so what am I?