If this were April 1, I would be certain this was a joke: It is now illegal to be "annoying" in blog comments without using your true identity. (Sing Sing, here I come!)
Here's to the United States Congress for having its priorities firmly in the right place. (Oops, am I being too e-annoying? I'm so scared!)
For the record: I will in no way seek to assist those who would try to enforce such a ridiculous and officious law on readers of The Malcontent. Although I might consider it for anyone who flouts my two general guidelines regarding comments – no spamming, no threats of actual physical violence.
And the countdown to when this legislative turkey is struck down by a federal court starts ... now!
(In the "for what it's worth" department, cheers to reporter Declan McCullagh for pointing out Clarence Thomas's past "magnificent" defense of our First Amendment right to be annoying. So the next time Harry Reid says anything, he'll have Justice Thomas to thank for it.)
UPDATE: Leave it to an idiot like LaShawn Barber to actually favor locking up trolls. That any self-respecting blogger could favor such a thing should call into question their entire blogging legitimacy. (Oh, well, there goes my New Year's resolution.)
Well that's the most god damned dumbass thing I've ever heard. It's gonna force Ridor off the internet.
Posted by: Queer Conservative | January 09, 2006 at 07:06 PM
No - Ridor is not anonymous.
Posted by: Downtown Lad | January 09, 2006 at 10:04 PM
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
Posted by: Chad | January 09, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Two thouhts:
1) These people have your best interests at heart, and they know what's good for you.
2) No threats of physical violence? What are you, some sort of tree-hugging hippie?
Posted by: Jack Malebranche | January 10, 2006 at 12:40 AM
Are we there yet?
Posted by: Chad | January 10, 2006 at 12:43 AM
You think that's annoying? This is annoying.
Posted by: Malcontent | January 10, 2006 at 12:48 AM
Well that's true DL, he isn't anonymous. Annoying, yes, anonymous no.
Posted by: Queer Conservative | January 10, 2006 at 10:45 AM
How are annoying non-US posters to be dealt with? A special eGuantanamo eBay perhaps?
Posted by: Mike | January 10, 2006 at 11:14 AM
Oh, it's not like this administration has ever felt constrained by international treaties or sovereignity of other nations :)
Posted by: Dan | January 10, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Orin Kerr fisks this one at VC. First Amendment trumps it.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_01_08-2006_01_14.shtml#1136873535
PS. Are we there yet! (Thanks Chad)
PPS. Did... you... get... that... thing..... I..... sent...you???
Posted by: sonicfrog | January 10, 2006 at 11:31 AM
Harvey Birdman ref... nice :)
What I want to know is who the hell wrote this thing? My money's on some dessicated old fool who's only recently figured out how to use his 'telephonic device'.
Posted by: Dan | January 10, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Instapundit has an interesting update on this tempest in a teapot: "Orin Kerr, posting at 1:12 A.M., parses the statute and informs us that Declan is wrong. "It looks funny if you don't know the relevant caselaw, but in practice it simply takes the telephone harassment statute we've had for decades and applies it to the Internet." It's aimed at VOIP, apparently."
Posted by: Aatom | January 10, 2006 at 12:57 PM
Hmmm, good point.....although I question its applicability there, since even VoIP calls usually have to go through standard phone lines at some point to complete the call (if you're calling a non-VoIP phone). I could definitely see it being applied to things like Instant Messenger.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | January 10, 2006 at 01:09 PM
this is all way above my head technically-speaking, but the provocative nature of the explanations I've been reading leads me to believe that we may be blowing this out of proportion a bit. regulating the internet is an exercise akin to the old line about herding cats. it is a medium of infinite possibilities and very few restrictions that can't be worked around somehow. that's what makes it such a powerful anti-totalitarian tool across the globe.
so my response to Hatch and other would-be nannies on Capital Hill would be: good luck.
Posted by: Aatom | January 10, 2006 at 01:18 PM
I figured this was the origination of the law (preventing phone harrassment). I still think it's a stupid law. It sorta makes sense to prevent harrassing phone calls: picking up a phone and hearing somebody prank you is relatively invasive. Ignoring an obnoxious email's a little easier to handle. I know it's fundamentally the same thing, but I'd prefer to err in favor of the first amendment here.
Posted by: Dan | January 10, 2006 at 01:23 PM
I agree, Dan. Erring on the side of liberty over regulation is a classically libertarian mindset, and one that is rarely seen within the confines of the Beltway.
Posted by: Aatom | January 10, 2006 at 01:28 PM
Volokh has the most complete exegesis of this, natch: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_01_08-2006_01_14.shtml#1136923654
Posted by: Aatom | January 11, 2006 at 12:23 PM
GayPatriot wants to sick his $500 lawyer on me. So just so I don't "annoy" them risking jail time, I've posted my response on my own blog.
Posted by: GayCowboyBob | January 13, 2006 at 04:53 PM
Well, first off, Bob, let's start by pointing out that your latest post shows quite well the fact that your research department needs to be sacked.
Second off, you forget that you advertise the fact that your sole online reason for existence is to annoy GayPatriot.
Given that, it IS obvious that GP's $500/hr lawyer would make hash of you. But knowing GP, I doubt he thinks you're worth the bother of spending $4.17 to make you go away.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | January 13, 2006 at 05:20 PM
Bitter much ND30? It seems to suit you though.
Posted by: GayCowboyBob | January 17, 2006 at 02:45 PM
LOL....and there, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of the pot calling the kettle chartreuse. =)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | January 17, 2006 at 03:28 PM