New Federal law regarding the internet...Pretty Crazy...

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

Either that, or he's being unbelievably stupid about trying to help people...

BTW:  If someone gets busted for selling drugs to kids over the internet, this one craphead law isn't going to be the first thing to worry about. 

[Pumaman]

President Bush annoyed me by posting false propoganda on his website, therefore I shall now see to it that he is sent to prison for 2 years.

[InCreator]

Unfortunately, it just seems like another half-assed attempt to solve the 'wrong' problems in the worst way.

Hah! No!
It's the oldest trick in the book of politics.
A way to create right to say:

"Stop whining about the spam! Did we help? Yes. We made a law. But you suckers (people) don't follow it, so if you don't like it, stop whining and handle your problems by yourself. We *did* try to make things better."

[vict0r]

Hah! How are they planning on enforcing that law?

I strongly suggest all Americans to flee the coutry. Your president is a dick.

I agree that Bush is a dick, but i seriously doubt that he had anything to do with this law




I'm not american by the way...

[ildu]

I agree that Bush is a dick, but i seriously doubt that he had anything to do with this law

He signed it. But granted, I don't think Bush has any idea what half the papers put in front of him are about.

[Ishmael]

But granted, I don't think Bush has any idea what half the papers put in front of him are about.

Well as a good president he should have some advisor of some sort explain the contents of the papers to him... but apparently no.

[LimpingFish]

The Internet sucks. Technology sucks.

We should revert to a simpler method of communication.

I don't remember carrier pigeons delivering penis enlargement propaganda.

[Erenan]

I don't see how this is an example of Bush idiocy. The article says that the annoyance part of the bill was tacked on because they knew it would pass anyway. It would have been idiocy on Bush's part not to sign an otherwise good and beneficial bill just because of a stupid tacked on section of it that made no sense. It's not like Bush was sitting there thinking, "At last! Those people flaming me at the AGS forums will have to shut their annoying little mouths! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHGHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!111111111"

[Pumaman]

Well, I don't know much about US politics, but surely it wouldn't have been too hard for him to un-tack on that bit from the bill...

[Helm]

"With intent" is important. It's not illegal to "create an annoyance," it's illegal to *try* to pester people. The law does not leave annoyance in the eye of the beholder.

Does not follow. I agree that you might inintentionally annoy someone, and under this bill you would not be tried, but what is annoying and what is not is still very much in the eye of the beholder! Harassment is very clearly defined legally, annoyance not.

Also consider the phrase "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass." Criminal law is interpreted narrowly. "Annoy" lacks a clear legal defintion, but not "abuse" or "threaten" or "harass."

Exactly.

Accordingly, the four words will be interpreted as specifying a single type of action.

If they're a single type of action, and since the law uses terms narrowly and carefully, 'annoy' should not be on that list.

[Erenan]

I agree with Helm.

Well, I don't know much about US politics, but surely it wouldn't have been too hard for him to un-tack on that bit from the bill...

I'm not really up on my governmental policies and processes and such, but as far as I understand it, it's not the President's job to handle that sort of thing. That's what Congress does. If a hundred senators and 435 house representatives failed to do it, one can hardly blame the President for not picking up their slack. He gets a lot of heat for things that really aren't entirely (or even primarily) his fault.

Anyway, this isn't much of a problem. My guess is that this is one of those things that'll go away almost as quickly as it came.

But let's not get away from the real point too much. This isn't about Bush, right? This is about dumb laws and making fun of them.

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

dumb laws and making fun of them.

Let's throw things at it!

[DGMacphee]

On another, but slightly related, topic: Here some irony. A gubernatorial candidate in Florida is "annoying" people with spam e-mail. He's against spam BUT (and this is the kicker) he believes his e-mails are "politcal speech" and not spam.

EDIT: I had a think about the new law and since it was created to stop cyber-stalking, does anyone see any problems with replacing the word "annoy" with "stalk"? For example:

Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to stalk, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

[AlbinoPanther]

Bush is just a puppet

[Akumayo]

Family Guy nods in agreement...

[Radiant]

Oh, but adventure games can be soooo annoying! I think I'm just going to sue all of you.

[bspeers]

I had a think about the new law and since it was created to stop cyber-stalking, does anyone see any problems with replacing the word "annoy" with "stalk"?

I'd be happier if they cut out "harass" as well.  Harassment is bad, harmful and unproductive, but internet harassment should not be an issue of law unless it reaches the level of abuse or threats.  I reserve the right to harass the leader of Halliburton, for example, assuming I bothered to spell it right.  If it gets to the point of threats...

Of course, all such laws are disproportionately used against the poor and less powerful.  I read some stats on hate laws lately, and it seems that hate laws are more often persecuted against people of colour or various non-white ethnicities by a large factor, while the majority of violence and propaganda is perpetuated by white people like most of us here.  In fact, in BC, the province I live in, something like one or two cases of hate crimes had actually been procecuted (before the agency was disbanded by the current crazy neo-liberal government), and at least half were against underprivileged minorities.

So the law is likely to be used to bolster power for those who already have it, rather than the other way around as progressive people would hope.

More state or corporate control over speech is *almost* always a bad thing, IMHO, but that opinion tends to change from situation to situation.

This law just strikes me as consolidation that will probably be poory executed anyway and hopefully be ignored due to hazy definitions.

[Nikolas]

Oh, but adventure games can be soooo annoying! I think I'm just going to sue all of you.

You would probably have to move to the US before doing anything like that!

At least I'm safe in many many ways: I use my real name. I don't live in the US so I can annoy anyone I want.

I really can't believe that there can be so idiotic laws...

But I guess it happens everywhere in the world. America is not the only one with stupid laws. Or with stupid presidents.

On as sidenote, I was sooo annoyed by the previous Helms avatar, but fortunately for him he changed it...

[DGMacphee]

I'd be happier if they cut out "harass" as well. Harassment is bad, harmful and unproductive, but internet harassment should not be an issue of law unless it reaches the level of abuse or threats. I reserve the right to harass the leader of Halliburton, for example, assuming I bothered to spell it right. If it gets to the point of threats...

Of course, all such laws are disproportionately used against the poor and less powerful. I read some stats on hate laws lately, and it seems that hate laws are more often persecuted against people of colour or various non-white ethnicities by a large factor, while the majority of violence and propaganda is perpetuated by white people like most of us here. In fact, in BC, the province I live in, something like one or two cases of hate crimes had actually been procecuted (before the agency was disbanded by the current crazy neo-liberal government), and at least half were against underprivileged minorities.

So the law is likely to be used to bolster power for those who already have it, rather than the other way around as progressive people would hope.

More state or corporate control over speech is *almost* always a bad thing, IMHO, but that opinion tends to change from situation to situation.

This law just strikes me as consolidation that will probably be poory executed anyway and hopefully be ignored due to hazy definitions.

Yeah, "harass" is open to interpretation too. The legislation (I assume) is criminal law. Okay, that's fine but how does the law interpret terms like "annoy" or "harass"? There are many different definitions and contexts one could consider to be "annoying" or "harassment". What about very minor "annoyances", like someone casually writing to someone else "u suck"? Is that simple comment worth the time of the Intarn3t P01ice to come raid your home? Or is there a level of "annoyance" or "harassment" where if one exceeds one can be prosecuted? If so, what device can I use to measure it? (I plan to build my own and call it something generic like "The Annoy-O-Meter". It will use the measurement "annoyics" to measure bothersome content and runs on two AA batteries.)

That's why I suggested "stalk". It seems pretty obvious what stalking is and seems more specific than "annoy" or "harass". Although, could there be any fault with using the term "stalk"? It's still a subjective term, even though a more specific one.

[The Book]

The biggest fluke behind this law is the assumption that the world has to be made a nice place, with no harm, conflict and pain whatsoever. And attempts to make it match this ideal are turning it into prison.