Did you know you can go to jail for being annoying

[Lairston]

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyan ... 22491.html

I find this unbelievable. I'd expect this around April 1 but then I remember who's running the country now. The same people that defend freedom by limiting it with a Patriot Act.

Down with Incumbants!

[Daveosaurus]

This looks like one of those laws that's so silly that nobody will actually take it seriously.

There's a bit about it in Peter David's blog and about half way down the page (at the moment) there's a post that puts a bit of perspective on the situation.

So it looks like the Sinister Duck is safe for the time being...

[Jason Sanborn]

Actually, reading the comments on the site that Dave linked, I came across an interesting comment:

Instead of taking PAD's word for it (or some hack columnist), why not go to the actual text. What a concept! So here we go: the original text. As you'll see, the word "annoy" (caps mine) was in the U.S. Code before the new law was passed:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... -000-.html

TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part I > § 223 Prev | Next

§ 223. Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications

(a) Prohibited acts generally
Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications—
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to ANNOY, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
( by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to ANNOY, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

The new bill that Bush signed into law amends the above thusly:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/F ... e7D:e91030:

SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (, by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.

As near as I can tell, what the amendment does is make it clear that a "telecommunications device" can be a device that uses the Internet. This strikes me as an uncontroversial bit of news, although in the hands of one in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome, it of course becomes scandalous.

-Dave O'Connell

Sounds to me like people are just being paranoid, considering this law has been around since 1934.

[Lairston]

Sounds to me like people are just being paranoid, considering this law has been around since 1934.

Actually I've been against incumbants for a while now. This just adds more ammunition.

[Lairston]

This looks like one of those laws that's so silly that nobody will actually take it seriously.

It may be silly but its laws like this that annoy me.

This and laws against fireworks.

Laws that force people to wear seatbelts. Even though I would wear a seatbelt regardless

Laws that require helmets. And I think only a complete idiot wouldn't wear one.

Laws that require permits to build on YOUR property.

[Jason Sanborn]

No, you're just anti-Bush, and if this same thing happened with someone else in office, you wouldn't be complaining.

[Lairston]

No, you're just anti-Bush, and if this same thing happened with someone else in office, you wouldn't be complaining.

Yes I'm anti-Bush. But I hate the Democrats tendency of thinking they need to protect someone from themselves. It would be nice to have a moderate just once. One that's not going to go conservative crazy or liberal crazy. Most of those laws that I list in my reply to Dave are Liberal handholding.

[Xetal]

Your spelling of incumbEnts is annoying me.....

Good job you've changed your name to the real thing! * * *

[Lairston]

Your spelling of incumbEnts is annoying me.....

I was overcome with annoyance...

Good job you've changed your name to the real thing! Â* Â* Â*

Yes. I figured I'd confuse everyone

[Qwaring's clone#1]

Pffft, I'm not worried. I've watched enough Dukes of Hazard to know how to outrun the law for at least a season.

And my real name is available to anyone who is willing to answer a series of riddles, each one more baffling than the last. Or, y'know, you could just ask for it. Either way works fine for me.