(Untitled)

[felisarcanum]

Here's a handy list of 'people' the world would be better off without.

Apparently, annoying someone over the internet is now illegal.
That's sure to have some unforeseen repercussions...Okay, okay! Sheesh, I didn't take the scary talk that seriously, but since I keep getting corrected, I'd like to add some more sane (but less entertaining)

Comments

[felisarcanum]

That's a good possibility too.

I always thought the role of the earth's E-M field was underestimated.

[felisarcanum]

Yes on both.

[dragonguyver]

great post man.

That's some interesting shit about those hurricanes!!!

[felisarcanum]

You had a deviantart account didn't you?
I just started one.
I'm midnightlynx there.

[dragonguyver]

Oh cool. Yeah, mine is biblio-josh. See ya there.

[jeweleddragon]

I hae precisely 60 seconds before I go. I can't read this stuff! *growls*

[felisarcanum]

Then read it another time.
:P

[jeweleddragon]

But now it's today, and I can't, either! *cries* What if I have to sneak up at night to catch up on all my LJ friends? Because I have six minutes left now, and I haven't looked at my f-page.

[netgecko]

The article on internet stalking is long on invective, short on having a clue.

First, it says "intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person..." This is language used in many existing stalking laws, and has a body of case law built around it. Just being annoying isn't enough - you have to be doing it specifically to cause someone else distress.

Second, the law only applies if you do this "without disclosing [your] identity" - note that it doesn't say "true identity" as the author of that idiotic article suggests. In fact, the phrase is nonspecific enough that we really don't know how it will be interpreted in the courts. For example, having an untampered-with return email address might be enough of an identity, though spoofing email addresses to conceal your identity would still be illegal.

I think it's a little too vague for me to be comfortable with it, but it's not the heinous attack on free speech that the doomsayers are making it out to be.

[felisarcanum]

it's not the heinous attack on free speech that the doomsayers are making it out to be.

I agree. Moreso now that I know there's some precedent about what does or does not fall under the category 'annoy'.

I'm still sure it'll be a greatly abused at some point, if only by some disgruntled 'net geek.

[netgecko]

Oh, I'm sure it will see its share of abuse - just like stalking laws do currently. Just not so much as to justify the level of scare tactics being tossed around by the anti-government nutjobs. (Note: Not all anti-government folks are nutjobs, nor are all nutjobs anti-government.)

Probably less abuse than, say, affirmative action. :)

[defiler_wyrm]

two important comments on that annoyance law: [one] [two]

now some of those quotes...no, a lot if not most of them...remind me of just how fucking scary-nuts religious people can really be, and why i hate dogma. such violent things! the idea that enjoying the non-platonic company of one's own gender is worse than murder?! ::reels:: so. much. STUPID.