Trying To Maintain Rationality

Monday, January 09, 2006

I'm Sorry - Did I Abridge Your Freedom With An Asinine Bill That Was Signed Into Law? My Bad.

From cnet.com: "Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime."

Our retard-in-chief just signed off on H.R. 3402, the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act, which contains the inane provision. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the chimp line-item veto some of this crap? Not that he would. And not to presume that he even knows WTF "line-item veto" means.

*sigh*

Again, from the cnet.com article:

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant 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."


That's right. Now the concept of "annoying" someone is being legislated. Have fun proving "intent to annoy," federal prosecutors.

How does idiotic shit like this become law?

Wellllll. You can thank Sen. Arlen Spector, et al, for sneaking it "into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure. The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16."

Don't even get me started on multi-faceted (i.e. sneaky shit, just like this) congressional bills and political logrolling.

*shaking head*

2 Comments:

  • Yeah, I see your point. But I also think this is a good thing. Wasn't it intended to put some teeth into prosecution of spamming? I mean, chrikey, how many low low low mortgages or Viagra does one gal need?

    By Blogger Juliane, at Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:42:00 PM  

  • Nope - spammers are likely completely off the hook... unfortunately there's the whole "without disclosing his identity" part of the statute, too.

    I should've highlighted that part of the law; my angry typing got in the way.

    So sorry!

    =P

    By Blogger EconAtheist, at Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:32:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home