Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Check this out.

I'm looking for an article with a less biased standpoint, but seriously. It's now against the law to use the Internet to annoy, unless you use your real name. I guess that means no devating, 'cause some people could get annoyed. Of course, the chances of this law actually beling enforced are pretty slim, but still, it makes you wonder about the next three years.

_________________

Wait a minute, in that case...

Anyways, is anyone actually going to obey this? Hackers, spammers, and trolls won't, that's kind of obvious.

_________________

holy crap...... the internet is supposed to be annonymous(sic), i mean, without that, then everyone would know that jack o'Mchersonterten would look at such and such, and that MR. Betheninator had written that statement opposing the army. also, this is an infrigment(sic) of the first amendment. hell, what am i saying, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT ON THE INTERNET!

_________________

As if the internet wasn't authoratarian enough. Imagine all the poor emotionally messed up kids that will end up with criminal records for this. This is an example of why a republic doesn't work in it's current form. You can't have people vote over something when they don't know the implications.

What's amazing is how they got that from this -

"There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm.""

That sounded like a pretty fair deal. That means that rule benders and owners of messageboards who use their boards to call people all kinds of grief. It was on the side of people that NEEDED it. This way, if say, two friends have a severe falling out and end up attacking each other online, BOTH parties come into question. Now it's only the "Persuing" party which opens the door to all kinds of crappery and putting a big smile on the face of Internet girlfriends who love to call harassment.

Now it's on the side of people who have enough on their side as it is. Thank the gods I don't live in America.

You can't be annoying, but hate speech is okay. Yay.

_________________
CLOCK

wait... are you canadian???

this law is stupid and should be abolished. well, before it becomes in effect, im gonna go annoy some guys on the antdogs.net forum, so ill be back later.

_________________

Yeah, I'm gettin' a bad feeling about this. Like a lot of things, I think this one had good intentions, as it tries to keep people from using the internet to "anonymously" harass others, however, like the ACLU guy said "annoy" is kind of subjective.

I really don't like gray areas like that in law, it's a bit dangerous.

As I understand it, though, if you don't harass anonymously, you're just fine.

I don't think this law is meant to curb harmless pranks, although if enforced, it most certainly would. Unfortunately, the courts don't go by what lawmakers "MEANT" when they wrote a law.

Ty Martin
Huntsville, AL

Now it's all legal

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

StrongRad, if that's what you call yourself, your avatar is SERIOUSLY annoying me right now.

_________________
CLOCK

hrmm... maybee theres a way to use this to my advantage......

Clan?? wheres clan?? this is gonna be great! j/k

_________________

So this means we can have Clan arrested?

_________________

You see, this is exactly why the law is a dumb idea

If they understood the mentality of internet peoples at all they'd know this.

_________________
CLOCK

I'm anticipating the e-concentration camps packed with 14 year olds I'm also interested in the US will enforce this given a majority of the intarwebs are, well, overseas.

Until next time, this is Dan Walker saying everyone is worthless and stupid.

</end hopefully obvious sarcasm>

Note: User was arressted for this post.

_________________
OMG BEES DOT COM is all up in the hizzy, fools!

Anyways, I'm going to say that this is one of the most over the top, stupid laws ever. Seriously.

_________________

" and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person"

Everyone seems to ignore this part, including the article. We have problems with others being annoyed when we speak our minds, but I'm sure we don't have a problem with people who do so without the aim of annoying others.



See, this is where we run into problems-people like COLA think it's denying us the freedom of speech because they don't actually take the time to read the finer points, and as such come out with a less-than-full understanding.




It's not 'supposed to be anonymous'. It is anonymous only because there's no way to make it otherwise, and even if it were, saying there's no government is like saying you can't do anything illegal on the Internet. The Internet is supposed to be an exchange of information-even if it's not completely like that, at its heart, it is the exchange of information. And information is not without its contributors and owners, all of whom live in-guess what? A country ruled by a government. As such, the government is justified in controlling the information, and as such, I fail to see the logic of your statements, and merely see someone rebelling against what they think is oppression...

Now, I grant you, in many cases, the courts may ignore the distinction, but in that case, it is not a problem with the law, it's a problem with the courts.

Suckers, this is only for the states. I can be as annoying as I want. ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY, ANNOY. (Like a digital poke.)

_________________

I thought stuff could still happen to us canucks even if it is only for Americans. I almost definitly wrong though.

_________________

yes, it is the free exchange of information, but what of Socializing? all the time on the internet and AIM and Yahoo and several chat rooms i like to annoy my friends and some random people i know of whom i dont give a care about. and yes, this is sort of a breech of the first amendment, our freedom of speech is at hand because you never know if someone really means to annoy, or if they dont know that theyre annoying.

Rambleon......rabble,rabble,rabble

Adrian Tsalazar Trevino
Corpus Christi, Texas,
78411,
Blood type: O
Social Security Number: 6146_0760

_________________

It won't be enforced.

What I find odd is, how on earth are they going to find the person who violates this law, when the person sending the spam to someone doesn't put up his or her address?

This is just silly.

At first, I thought "IP Addresses, DUH!!!", but, you know what? Those are so easy to fake that it's not even funny. It would be really hard to catch someone on this.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I refuse to believe this is real. Or at least refuse to take it seriously.

Plus, I post with my real name on several other boards I'm on, anyway! Like I'm scared.

Nick Karn
Riverside, NJ

Then only the people who fake their IPs should be caught(which doesn't include ban dodgers if you find out who there are) as nobody is truly anonymous online.

Sui, I'm really surprised at you. You're very nearly defending one of the barmiest laws in existence. As someone who ends up being on the "annoying" end of the spectrum even if I don't intend to it's people like me that will end up getting punished.

_________________
CLOCK

Rose, you're outside of the US.. I don't think you have to worry about this law, unless, of course you own oil, in which case, a link to Al Qaeda will be found (even if we have to make it up), then you'll be in trouble!

Seriously, it's an internet law, so it's going to be hard to enforce. Even then, it's only enforceable if you hide your identity.

I would think that not masking you IP would be enough to constitue "not hiding your identity", as, supposedly, it's pretty easy to track you with your IP.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Internet laws aren't hard to enforce, people just respect the unwritten rule not to involve the outside world. I once got legally threatened by a messageboard of mostly adults(very snooty adults, they though they tried to look nice, except as soon as anyone challenged their ideals...) for "harassment". Now, harassment is one of the most vague definitions and almost always abused. Apparently I was emailing people from the board that "didn't want to be emailed", and couldn't email me myself to tell them that. I was banned for a stupid reason after being ganged up on, tried to register a second account on the forum to contact some people which he removed, and then tried to email some of the other staff I was half friendly with, which is "harassment", apprently. I actually got an email from their lawyer(a relative, no doubt). It would never stand up in court, but what can I do? I'm just a kid. He's a bully. He even lied about me attacking the server; I can't even use Telnet, let alone hack a website.

The server owner turned out to be a complete nut... I went back and looked at his profile, and he had a picture of him grimacing madly while holding two double barreled shotguns, one in each hand. The emails I exchanged with him showed him to be a powerh ungry individual obsessed with a twisted sense of justice. They knew that I was disadvantaged, poor, emotionally unstable and living a crappy life because I'm a transsexual. They didn't care. They wanted some sick sense of revenge for an event that they themselves imagined based on me challenging their ideals. Apparently that guy is a bit of a troll on oher boards too.

That is what I call evil. Do you think I was in the wrong?

I know I don't have the best reputation here, or anywhere where else in fact, but there are people like this who will JUMP at the opporunity to destroy someone.

Yes, this law will cause a lot of real people a lot of real pain. Most of the people who are "annoying" are people like me who are going through al ot emotionally in real life and end up using the internet to vent. It is delivering power into the hands of some truly evil people. I feel for other people in my position and I know nothing but bad will come from this.

_________________
CLOCK

Um... is there any room for personal responsibility in there?

Somehow I doubt it.

Rose, judging from the posts you make here "challenging our ideas", I have serious doubts as to whether their problem was THAT you were challenging their ideas. I think it was probably more HOW you were challenging their ideas.

You come on way too strong, using heavy words like "bigot", "evil",etc., and are totally against any idea that conflicts with how you see the world.

That's the only problem I have with you. Not that you have ideas that are terribly different from my own (there are tons o' people I interact with EVERYDAY that are completely different from me), but in the way you express them.

But, I don't want this to turn into a flame war, so, ummm.. I painteth yon toast, or something like that..

I really haven't been able to see a real version of this story that doesn't involve tons of "George Bush just signed more of your privacy away!!!" rhetoric.
Personally, I don't feel like I've lost any freedom. Then again, I don't anonymously harrass people on the internet, either.
The ACLU guy was right, though, "annoy" is kind of a dangerous way to define a law. What you call annoy, I might call a joke, or vice versa.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

StrongRad, they threatened to sue a poor kid over stuff they DID lie about. If you want me to respect you, don't make assumptions like that.

And Lahi, watch it.

_________________
CLOCK

Watch what? I'm just wondering if you take any personal responsibility for the fact that you "live a crappy life" or if you just blame it on things beyond your control.

It's been my experience that it's nearly impossible to be happy while counting on things beyond your influence to make you so.

Consdiering it's mainly to dow ith the way I was born and my current mental state, no, I don't take responsibility for it.

_________________
CLOCK

I was afraid of this... Well, I have this to say in response:

No, that last part of your statement misrepresents my thoughts on the matter. That, however, would be based on the error of the courts-the actual law wouldn't have you punished, as the intent of 'people like [you]' is to provide your points, and I have no qualms with that (in other words, I haven't gone and switched sides). In doing so, you do sadly tend to end up on the annoying end of the spectrum (to most), but your intent is not to annoy. As such, the law indeed wouldn't have you punished (as it stipulates intent to annoy, not whether or not you're annoying). It would only be so if the court misinterpreted it, which is a sadly likely case... for that, I don't support it, as it makes it a really bad idea, because, in the end, it's the court's interpretation, not the law, that matters, so a law like this that's easy to misinterpret, and will likely be misinterpreted, is a bad idea.

What the person claims their intent is only becomes a very small influence on the overall verdict.

"Annoying" is too vague and does allow for complete and utter relavtism.

_________________
CLOCK