LMAO!!!!

Go get 'em!

Heavens to Betsy!

As one who takes great pride in anonymously annoying the deserving (and their numbers are legion), I find this turn of events most disquieting (if not altogether surprising), and fear I must now venture further underground, lest the acerebral author of this most noisome legislation and his cohorts in the den of fools succeed in silencing me--as is, no doubt, their ultimate aim.

Pennsylvania's Arlen Spectre has just made Rick "Big Gay Senator" Santorum look good by comparison.

Quite a feat.

there's got to be more to that piece of legslation (only other thing to call it is a 4 letter explicative beginning with s)than what we currently know, otherwise the ACLU would be all over it, on the other hand the ACLU seems bent on destroying the very fabric of the constitution and the bill of rights.

We're doomed...

I like the cut of your jib, Gill. You are to annoyingness what Willie Sutton was to bank robbery.

Man, am I glad I don't live in Pennsylvania. Specter and Santorum are a couple of potent arguments against the Seventeenth Amendment.

Come on, Gill, tell us how you really feel. Hey, wait a minute - I'm feeling ANNOYED. It's the Federal clink for you!

Unfortunately, you put your name on it. You didn't violate the law, which specifies 'anonymous'. Post the same thing under the name "Roonil Wazlib" and WATCH OUT!!!

Respectfully,
Archibald Hethrington Nastyface

you can bring it Gill

And when this faithless turd trades in the loyal wife who gave him her best years for some younger more zoomy model, you give him some of this too:
"Your true love lives. And you marry another. True Love saved you in the Capitol Swamp and you treated it like garbage. And that's what you are. The Prince of Refuse. So bow down to him if you want. Bow to the Prince of Slime, the Prince of Filth, the Prince of Putrescence. Boo. Rubbish. Filth. Slime. Muck. Boo."

No Mercy! This is the stupidest law in American history!

Congratulations on the first wholly appropriate use of "poopy pants" in political discourse.

Though I live in Pennsylvania, born and raised, I have no illusions about the "Honorable" Mr. Specter. I can only rest assured with the fact that I didn't not vote for him in the last election.

I understand hotel dicks caught Specter, drunk, naked and in bed with Ted Kennedy.

Catching.

So, you are pretty much an asshole for that last link which says "DON'T click" for which I decided that rules don't apply to me.

I'm feeling a tad annoyed . . .

So, can I annoy a few of the people here by suggesting that emailing any particular person with the intent of annoying that person, while deliberately concealing one's identity, is just f***ing bogus, crude, and generally not what anyone who truly believes in the concept of civil liberties (as opposed to, "I want to, so I will, so there!") should construe as a legitimate exercise thereof? Hmmm...?

Besides, "Gill," who said anything about "postings"? The quote offered in the preceding post by the clearly pseudonymous "Will Collier" is "receives the communications," not "accesses" them.

This has nothing at all to do with the kind of blog-sourced public ridicule Senator Poopy-Pants so richly deserves, to which he may also publicly respond as he desires and is able (or, I suspect, not), and everything to do with the kind of vicious personal inbox crap that no citizen, private or public, should have to endure from some anonymous cretin whose fondest wish is to spew venom without allowing his victim(s) recourse. Speaking, of course, as some anonymous cretin going by the handle of--

All of you annoy me. How big are the jails?

So...Does that mean that Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and a host of our other Founding Fathers were doing bad, bad things by hiding under pseudonyms and "flaming" the Brits? Or were they wisely concealing themselves from retribution?

This legislation is a betrayal to the principles on which our nation was founded, among them "The right to speak your mind without fear of reprisal."

This bill actually ENCOURAGES stalking, because it forces the writer to disclose his name/identity to those who would take undue umbrage at his statements--and potentially stalk him. I've already had a few death threats myself--and a lot of trash talk. Lord knows I've annoyed people, sometimes without meaning to.

Good thing this bill can't operate ex post facto.

Oh, sorry to double-post...

Out of curiosity, what would constitute "receives" the contents? A lot of blogs allow you to subscribe, so if I post a change to my blog and it sends a change alert to someone, and they respond to the "invitation" and read my changes, does that qualify?

I dislike being a wet blanket or letting the facts get in the way of a good rant as much as the next person, but this isn't really that big a deal. The section in question extends existing law regarding telephone communications to the Internet and is intended to make sure that VOIP can't be used to avoid existing law. In addition, the Supremes have already ruled that the existing law relating to telephone calls is unenforceable if the speech is First Amendment protected. Here is a link. Orin Kerr has more at Volokh. http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/archives/001318.html

You need to add something in there questioning the validity of the public debt.

Orin Kerr (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_01_08-2006_01_14.shtml#1136873535) says there's nothing to worry about because most annoying speech is first amendment protected. But Section 4 of the 14th amendment ("The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.") combined with the enforcement clause of the same amendment ("The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article") pokes a hole in the first amendment.

Don't you know not to say not to do something, because then people will do it? That late one sucked. Which means it's perfect for Spector...

Doc:

To the extent any of the Founders published their views in true anonymity, they were nevertheless publishing them. This is not the same as sneaking up behind someone while wearing a mask and whispering assorted vilenesses in that person's ear. The distinction here is between public (overt) and private (covert) communication.

And if you think one of "the principles on which our nation was founded" is that it's all right to use private communication channels to harass those you dislike, however valid the reason for that dislike...well, I'm just glad you don't know my @dress!

As to the question of "receive" vs. "access," caveat emptor. Subscription is constructively a request for access, and by definition cannot result in unsolicited receipt. Next?!

Maniakes:

You might want to take that remedial course (oh, wait! Was that [public, e.g. non-private] comment annoying?) before your next venture into Constitutional interpretation. "The validity of the public debt...shall not be questioned" means that it requires a constitutional amendment, and not a mere [!] Act of Congress, to invalidate (i.e., repudiate -- or "write off," if you prefer) that debt. But "questioning" whether we should incur additional debt, or repudiate existing debt, or take any other course respecting the debt, has nothing to do with the contemporaneous validity of the debt. I'm just sayin' is all...

Anonymously yours (though never so in private)...

porkopolitan, my interpretation was a semifacetious excercise in textualism, similar to the argument that the Air Force is unconstitutional (because Article I gives congress the power to raise Armies and Navies, but neglects to mention Air Forces). I had thought the intent of that clause was that the public debt could not be questioned in court (important to specify since the same clause goes on to forbid the repayment of Confederate war debt), not that it couldn't be invalidated by Congress. Do you have a link or reference for your interpretation?

Don't search the document for the word "annoy" because you won't find it. The law simply modifies existing anti-stalking law to include internet communications. It's hard to get upset that the state has taken away my right to stalk Chuck Norris; I was never that stupid in the first place.

OK, now that last link was just...cruel. I hope he clicks on it. He'll then have a staffer turn off the PC and his whole OS is trashed. Oh, the humanity...