The Eye of the Beholder
Only Republicans could screw up an act protecting women.
Last Thursday, Bush made it illegal to post annoying messages on the Web or send annoying emails anonymously. He buried this nonsense in the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act.
Since when is ‘intent to annoy’ an offense so grievous it deserves fines and jail time? The people who created reality television better watch out! A certain website sends anonymous emails to people who singe nose hairs with their bad breath, telling them toothpaste is their friend. Are these good samaritans helping the rest of us deal with Milk Mouth subject to arrest at this point? What about bloggers who use an initial and post obnoxious messages that belie their true feelings of love for an ideologically-opposed writer? Surely such a lack of original thought annoys someone, right?
People who hate the American Civil Liberties Union certainly give this valuable organization more reason than ever to stick around and fight.
The law's exact language: "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 annoy, 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."
I’m not sure when President Bush decided the Constitution wasn’t important enough to uphold, but enough is enough. First torture, then spying, now this? Our personal freedoms are at stake (yes, we are and ought to be free to annoy) and Dumbya, the one against a growing government (remember?), ought to direct Justice not to enforce this ridiculous law.
I like annoying emails and posts so keep them coming. I promise not to have you arrested 'til you go after my hair.
20 Comments:
It is funny that you would mention your hair. I have been lurking on your blog lately and thought it looked nice (your hair and blog) :)
I am sure I could whip up some annoying emails if you start to have withdrawals.
-Ben
Your try so hard to prove you hate Republicans and conservatives that I am starting to wonder if it's like a secret mancrush or something.
I feel the love...
Additionally, please provide a link to where that quote of the legal language came from. I can not find it and from what I am reading the amendment did nothing of what you imply. The amended language I am raeding is found under HR 3402 engrossed by both the Hosue and Senate and signed by the President SEC. 114. CRIMINAL PROVISION RELATING TO STALKING.
The exact language in the bill can be found all over the internet. One source (along with an interesting take) is: http://objectivejustice.blogspot.com/2006/01/no-right-to-anonymity-in-us.html
Yes, there were many architects to this needed legislation, I simply object the hidden agenda added with this language. Of course it was passed, Justice needs funding. And as is often the case, leaders have to swallow amendments tacked on to certain bills because of the overall good of the bill. Clinton did this with legislation and then directed Justice not to enforce the particular law in question. Bush should do the same.
That way, the overall bill gets passed as is and the offensive provision is ignored and our civil liberties remain intact. Everyone wins.
I'm sorry Kate, but you are confused, again.
The language "with intent to annoy" has been law for years. That part is not new.
The new part is that it is now illegal to "annoy" using the internet. Some would say this legislation is catching up with the technology of the time. While I want to give you the benefit of the doubt on this misinterpretation, your statement, "Since when is ‘intent to annoy’ an offense so grievous it deserves fines and jail time?" leads me to think otherwise.
Sure, there are plenty of sticky situations and questionable ways this could be interpreted, but thank your ACLU and liberal judges for opening up he court to rulings that defy common sense. And your statement, "I’m not sure when President Bush decided the Constitution wasn’t important enough to uphold," would imply the wording "intent to annoy" originated with Bush and this amendment, and it most assuredly did not.
This language, and the intent, is clearly aimed at protecting women from stalking and potential violence. I am shocked you would instruct our President to direct, "Justice not to enforce the particular law in question," a law intended to safeguard women.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them confused.
(You just want me to call you an infant or something equally fitting so you can then accuse me of being emotional. Hate you. Mean it.)
Usually the intent to annoy that you're talking about requires something more than just intent. It usually requires repeated offenses or abusive language right along with it. Just intent doesn't cut it.
And this law wasn't meant to protect women - that's something else - otherwise there'd be language about our genders and how men can take care of themselves but women need a law, etc.
Seriously? Or are you arguing just to argue?
First of all, I'm not so sure we disagree on the substance.
But, don't change the subject. When you thought Bush wrote it, you were all against it, now that you know the truth you want to imply something different? Just say you were wrong and we can move on. You think I enjoy this?
"And this law wasn't meant to protect women - that's something else - otherwise there'd be language about our genders.."
I can't believe you said that when the name of the bill is the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act.
Admit it... Mr. C Rocks!!!!!!
No, we don't really disagree on this, yet you continue to annoy. Which means you might be facing jail time.
The name of the bill is Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. However, the cyberstalking bullshit is an amendment to it. The main thrust of the bill is to fund the DOJ and one of their departments is the Office on Violence Against Women. All for the main bill. Deserves to be funded etc. Just not thrilled about the piece on anonymous email, etc.
Once again for the mouthbreathers: an attached amendment and the main bill are two separate entities.
Anymore tutoring and it's gonna cost you.
I've popped a bag of popcorn for this one.
Seriously, do you two know each other in the real world or what?
Mr. C found me when googling: "Liberals make me hot."
He's been darkening my doorstep ever since.
Great post! I think he's is going too far. I look forward to 2008. I just can't vote for any DLC deomcrats.
round 2: Mr. C
Kate, I believe you are talking out of your...
Yes, I do believe it would be wrong to go after anonymous posters just for being annoying. Enforcing that part of the bill would be unconstitutional. 'kay, sunshine? We clear now? ;-)
I stand by my argument that this is another example of Bush's trampling of civil liberties and his support for such trampling...annoys...me. He supports this amendment and I do not and therefore will speak out against it.
The stupid-head argument is beneath me.
Thanks for the advice, though.
Truth or Death has become an official contributing author at PEER Review FL. Under the handle "Mr. G" joining the ranks of Mr. C, Man in Black, and Blogger X in the battle for Truth.
Handle?
Ranks?
Some people really think their turds don't stink.
They probably all share the same dorm room with facing bunk beds. They "battle truth" with their laptops out and Diet Mr. Pibb.
Don't hate the players... hate the game.
Play on playa.
Fight nice, kids.
(That "Diet Mr. Pibb" line is good stuff.)
Post a Comment
<< Home