I can't freakin believe this. I'm stupified. http://news.com.com/Create an e-ann...3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news I guess we can force heppah's real name now or sue his ass. Goddamn, I mean LOTs of people are annoying... but now we can be sued for it? LOL. I have to laugh, it's just surreal. I... But.. Wha?????? Goddamn I'm just too shocked at the moment to comment in any more detail. What kind of stupidity is this? How can it be constitutional? If so.... really? Wow.
man, and i thought i heard it all. i'm with you on this wes . . . damn what do you say about something like that? i would never have believed if i didn't read it, i still don't. does that mean all someone has to say is " you annoy me " it's annoying just thinking about it this has to be a mistake or a joke. by what right, who's authority, i know i didn't consent to something like that.
I believe that we always could sue someone for being annoying? I can't see what's changed except perhaps now there seems to be a set punishment listed for the crime. Wes, I don't know how long you've been in the USA, but Americans always could sue others for almost anything ...including annoyances. What, exactly, has changed? Oh, well, perhaps I should have waited until your shock wore off to respond. Just take a few deep breaths, then respond at your leisure. Baron Max
So this means we can now sue muscleman Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We couldn't as it would be a retrospective crime but we can dream. Anyway, that is indeed a bit of a weird law to pass. As someone said in that article "what is annoying to some isn't annoying to others". And, if something annoys someone, it is the problem of the annoyee not the annoyer. Those insurance adverts on TV annoy the hell out of me but I don't go "I'm gonna sue yer asses fer annoying me so!" I deal with it. If people cannot deal with minor annoyances like those found on the internet then it's their inability to deal with the matter which is the problem. Next they'll be suing god for the annoying fact we can't breathe underwater.
Not being the litigious type, I wouldn't know. As far as I'm aware, there are no laws besides this one that specifically use the term "annoy". Emotional distress, etc... yeah, but to me the term "annoy" would seem even more squishy than that. If nothing else, there's another law about it. Yeah I dunno, this seems just a floodgate for frivolous lawsuits. In fact, I find your response rather annoying. Give me your real name or go to jail. What's sad to me is that it would seem by this new law, my request above is now legitimate. IMO, that's pretty fucked up right there. Oh, and it also seems kind of random, unenforceable and unconstitutional. *shrug* So I'm not sure how it could be explained unless of course, our government is now officially retarded. That must be the case.
The particuarly weird part to me is that if one provides their "real name" all of the sudden it's not a crime. How the fuck do I know if you lied about your name? If I doubt you, can I just highjack the FBI electronic forensics team to track your bitch ass down? Hello? What the hell?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The face of the author of that particular article annoys me. Gonna sue him. (shame he put his name there)
i understand. you are rightly speechless. yes wasn't it you who has denied what we are saying about the onslaught of their fascism frpm the beginning... tis shituaton reminds of that saying: first they came for the Black people and i didn't say anything then they came for the Jews and I didn't ay anything Then they came for my neighbours, and I didn'tsay anything. And now they come for me, and thes no one left' it is praphrased, but you get our point now i hope?!
Your condescension is annoying. Provide me your real name or be extradited and jailed, you dirty hippy.
Shit! This is a pretty weird peice of legislation. It goes way to far. If someone is too sensitive to face the fact that the internet can be "annoying" they should just stay off of it. Wow. I can't even say much about this, other than I agree with wes.
Not if you know your name. Of course, perhaps you could bonk yourself real good, go amnesiatic and have at it! Hmm. That's probably a problem though since at least one of the parties has to know their name. Hmmm... And apparently I'm retarded as well, because it just occured to me that it might be rather difficult to sue someone when you don't know they're name... and in this case that's apparently what you'd be suing about. When you go to a lawyer to sue someone you'd have to give their screen name and website? LOL. "Wes Morris vs. happypenishumper@sexaholicsrule.com"?
So. You're going to tell me that I'm the only one who actually went through some of the comments to the article? According to the comments, the law is meant to cover up a loophole where people could use the internet to place phone calls to harrass people. The law reads like a great and savage injustice, but, according to several of these comments, isn't really that bad. The problem is that it seems rather ambiguous in its intent, and it's quite possible that it might be interpreted in a way that will affect your average forum poster. I doubt it though. If it ever came to that, it would get thrown out of court so fast.... (I'd like to think, anyway.) Apparently, 'annoy' is also not what it seems to be either. According to some of the comments, the legal definition of 'annoy' pertains to a persistent sort of harrassment. Also, the law doesn't simply mention 'annoy' it mentions 'annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass.' There is that pesky 'or' in there, but I think that this law doesn't affect annoying forum posters and such. There's a lot of back and forth in the discussion about this though. Here's the link to the comment I started at this morning. http://news.com.com/5208-1028-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=12943&messageID=101496&start=-1