Here's a link to a new law that may come into affect. . . .


http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyanc...1&subj=news

I don't know that this is a very good idea.

I didn't take the time to read the law in it's entirety, but if resembles the description given by the author of that article, we're all guilty. No matter how much you try, someone is always going to disagree with you and depending on the subject matter, sometimes that means they're annoyed by you.

I seriously doubt that a prosecutor is going to come after me because some PETA freak was annoyed by something I said about prong collars, but still...

And on another note, how on earth do they reconcile this with the first amendment? Seems to me that this is in direct opposition to the concept of freedom of speech as I understand it.

Oh boy, if being annoying is illegal I am in biggggg trouble....

I'm sure that one would have to be going really crazy on someone before law enforcement would bother getting involved, but laws like this look to me like slippery slopes that we probably shouldn't walk down.


Honestly, anything that chips away at our constitutional rights scares the poop out of me.

Not a lawyer, but I think the Constitution has a vote here. Not all laws are upheld, this is why we have a tripartate government. This one sounds way too vague to be legal. Anyway, on this site, we use our real names, so I guess we still get to annoy anyone we want.

Yes, I've managed to annoy people on this board about 3900 times.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

While I think a law against this subject is ridiculous, it goes after "anonymous" messages" - so the PETA freaks are the ones that should be worried, as they all hide behind anonymous screen names and *never* have the courage to reveal their real names ( unlike Ed and all the posters here on the forum that have their real names and sometimes even pictures posted )

Yes, I've managed to annoy people on this board about 3900 times.

VC, Dont sell yourself short <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Just what the police need...having to arrest cyber nuts because of a paranoid geeks who think everyone hates them. At least it should get rid of the spam problem <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

This law won't last a New York minute if challenged. After all, it regulates speech, so it will be subjected to a very strict standard of review. And it's vague, which tends to present a problem when strict scrutiny is applied.

For example, I don't think it will stop Spam, because a spammer's intent isn't to annoy: it's to sell, or convince, etc. By contrast, it may have a chilling effect on folks like VC, who need a forum to rant or they'll explode <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />. Some do it anonymously and, while I may disagree with their position, I'll defend to the bitter end their right to stupidly advocate their mindless ends.

The real story here is last-minute, back-door legislation hidden as a rider in a bill which appropriates vital funds for essential law enforcement activities. If they want to regulate this type of speech with reasonable time/place/manner restrictions, they ought to do so by confronting the issue directly. I think my gripe in this regard is the same as the one Will makes about the PETA nastaritos who won't raise their issues using real names. You either leave it all on the field, or don't play.