T Nation

Flaming Can Get You Jail Time


#1

Nope, not a joke, read the article here:

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

and the bill here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03402:


#2

You've got to be kidding me! If this is the case, T-Nation forums may as well shut down now.


#3

What dripping wet pussy of a bitch came up with this nonsense. How fucking insecure and babyfied can one be as to prompt such an action? I say we kick the fuck out the person responsible just out of principle. People are losers, wet, oozing losers.


#4

Well, there is your Republican "We of the small government" Party, now dictating what can be said on the internet. Fuck Bush.

Wait, so is it a crime if I say that, being as if he sees it he may be annoyed? Hold on, I hear a knocking at my door...


#5

I didn't see the Dems protesting it either.


#6

he he, he said bush he he he (Butthead voice)


#7

That's because the Dems have no balls either. They have demonstrated that time and time again. Fuck both parties! I've said it before, we need to clean house!


#8

It would probably have to be some serious harrasment to warrant legal action. Stuff like death threats, disgusting pictures and the like.
Not anything that a normal or even mildy screwed up person would need to worry about.

So what are you guys worried about?


#9

AlDurr, who is that as your avatar? Spawn? Evil Ninja Batman? An Avenger?

As I've declared my new party as Conservative Anarchist (CA), I've been calling for revolution for years, my man! It's not just the boneheads in office, it's the lobbyists buying our freedom away from us for political favors. Take the money out of politics, and what do you get? No incentive for abuse of power. Responsible government. rant over.


#10

I'm pretty sure that this law was misunderstood by news.com.com

You can't put someone in jail because he's is "annoying".


#11

So does this mean we should start organizing our prison gang?

Given that intent to annoy is enough...
Wanna read the most annoying sound in the world NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


#12

It's the Black Panther. A Marvel Comics character. He was one of my favorites because he was a strong, proud King of the African nation of Wakanda (It doesn't exist, but it sounds cool) that was totally devoted to the welfare of his people. According to the comics, that nation was one of the most technologically advanced in that comic world.

I realized I just geeked out on you. It happens on occassion. LOL!


#13

I would hope not, but the trend these days is when censorship is applied, it is to the max.


#14

Is that a professional legal opinion?

You sound like a girl I dated once. We were talking about traveller's checks, which you generally have to pay your bank for, and that you are generally charged to cash in whatever country you present them. Her: That's not legal!
Me: Yeah, yeah it is.
Her: No, it can't be. My dad's a lawyer, and he always says 'they can't get you coming and going.'
Me: Yes, they can. Is there some legal precedent I'm unaware of?

Moral of the story: just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't true.


#15

Clearly the law is missing an important piece!

Somewhere is should state that if you "annoy" the wrong person you are in fact a "terrorist".

Fuck, I think "terrorism" has replaced the "bogeyman" as the main instrument of fear in the 21st centuery.

P.S. Extra kudos to Zap for pointing out that democrats didn't catch this little republican addition. That's putting the blame where it belongs alright! Good work talking point boy.


#16

whoah


#17

Not at all. I'm a current Marvel member, Hulk being my primary interest (but knowledgeable in X-Men, Spiderman, Avengers...) 37 and still loving comics more than ever.


#18

Seriously, everybody in this thread is annoying... go report to the nearest police station please.


#19

Wait, wouldn't this also send our beloved TSBers to a cell date with Bubba?


#20

Without drudging through the statutory text, if it's as represented, the law would likely be ruled unconstitutionally void because the definition of the crime is too vague.