• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Annoy Someone On The Web - Go To Jail

H

hipsterdufus

This one slipped through the radar screen with little corporate media attention. This looks like the beginning of Bush trying to control the internet, the last bastion of free speech left in the U.S.

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
 
This looks like the result of good intentions run amok. The original purpose of the bill was to stop cyberstalking, but the wording got out of control, thanks to bureaucratic lawmakers who know nothing about the law. This will be ruled unconstitutional if put to any kind of legal test. What is annoying to some people isnt annoying to others, hence the lack of any kind of objective standard in this particular law.
 
I can understand the subsection that contains this part when talking about the bill as a whole. It makes sense. Unfortunately, due to REALLY poor wording, we get a mess. I can see this going through the motions to hopefully being ruled unconstitutional in the future.
 
prohibiting the posting of annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

Sounds good to me.
 

There is no problem, of course. This is another attempt to take what the president does, twisting it to mean something corrupt and evil and passing it off as another reason to bash Bush. Predictable behavior.
 
Again, the problem is what is annoying to some is not annoying to others. Because of that, this law is not enforcable. The courts will shoot it down quickly if the law is put to any kind of a legal test. However, the law is still a good one. It just needs to be better worded, and contain an objective standard that defines what the illegal behavior specifically is.
 

I could not find those words in the law, maybe I'm missing something here.
 
Deegan said:
I could not find those words in the law, maybe I'm missing something here.



Define annoy.
 


The executive branch now writes legislation???

Someone needs a refresher course in American Government, maybe you should listen to School House Rock's take on the subject:


or this classic childrens favorite:

 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
[/I]Define annoy.

I missed that, but it goes on to define it, when it continues, threatens, abuse, and harass. To me, annoy and harass are really the same thing, I assume it's up to the court, or a jury to define "annoy", if you're suggesting that anyone can be charged with this, you're probably right. One already only needs go down to the court house, swear out a warrant, and have you arrested, I don't see what is changed by this law.
 

Not exactly. Annoy is a lot different than harrass. Here is an example:

1) You and I have gone at each other for over a year now. Clearly we are not harrassing each other.

2) Sometimes we have annoyed the crap out of each other. <RUH ROH> We are busted.

3) Here we are in prison doing a 2 year stretch for annoying each other over the internet. Unfortunately, we become cell mates. The story picks up from here:

Danarhea: Hey Deegan, am I annoying you yet?

** Kicks Deegan in the groin. Deegans balls go bouncing down the cellblock hall **

Deegan: Yea, that was damned annoying, but not as much as this.

** punches Danarhea in the face. Danarhea's nose goes flying out the window of the cell into the yard, where it lands on a basketball court and is immediately squished by a sneaker worn by an inmate who is on his way to scoring a slam dunk **

And so the debate between the 2 continues, but dont worry, folks. Lucky for them that they are only annoying each other in real life now, and since the law against annoying only applies to the internet, no more time will be added to their sentences. Both Deegan and Danarhea will be out in time for Christmas 2007, when they will have the opportunity to *debate other issues.

* Betting on World Series outcomes is excluded

:2razz:
 

Like I said Dan, by the by, I had a good laugh at your response:rofl , the law is not clear, but what laws are? Many have loopholes, and almost anyone, save a Kennedy or a Bush, can be brought before a judge. What say you on this, and how does this law, differ from the many passed this year?
 

Annoying is so subjective. What one person finds annoying, another finds fascinating. There's no arguing murder or theft or assault. But whether something is annoying depends completely on who is being annoyed. The law should be cut and dry, not different for different people.
 

Hmmm.... You think you could agree that the ABA might have lobbied to have the undefinable wording inserted in the bill? LOL.
 
I like the core of this bill, TO PROTECT WOMEN FROM STALKERS, the rest will play it's self out, I just thought I would play devil's advocate.
 
Hey Navy Pride... is anybody knocking on the door yet? :2wave:
 
KCConservative said:
prohibiting the posting of annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

Sounds good to me.

So what's your name then KC? :roll:
Don't answer that.
 
hipsterdufus said:
So what's your name then KC? :roll:
Don't answer that.

Ha ha. That's kind of funny. :lol:
 
Come on folks, we all know that the internet can be a tool of mass destruction, and can be used to be a way of hurting others, or why would we have moderators?
 
I DEMAND ATTENTION GOD DAMNIT NOW STAND AND REVEL IN THE FUNNY THAT IS I:

Re: Annoy Someone On The Web - Go To Jail



Me which was either ignored or overlooked said:
The executive branch now writes legislation???

Someone needs a refresher course in American Government, maybe you should listen to School House Rock's take on the subject:




or this classic childrens favorite:


 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I DEMAND ATTENTION GOD DAMNIT NOW STAND AND REVEL IN THE FUNNY THAT IS I

Re: Annoy Someone On The Web - Go To Jail
or this classic childrens favorite:



Bush signed it into law, Specter was one of the bill's sponsers.
Conjunction Junction, what the hell is your function?
 
hipsterdufus said:
Bush signed it into law, Specter was one of the bill's sponsers.
Conjunction Junction, what the hell is your function?

Congress still wrote the Bill so it's hardly Bush's doing and correct me if I'm wrong but Bush hasn't vetoed any Bill's as of yet has he?
 
God-damn these f_cking c_ck-suckers in Washington! All I want is for government to stay the hell out of my daily life. That's all.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…