Comments for The Weblog Gulag

The Weblog Gulag

2006-01-10T06:29:42Z

"Annoying" someone online--anonymously--is now a felony. Can you say, "First Amendment Rights"...?

Sooo, if you want to rant about your boss groping you at the Holiday Eve party and you want to do it anonymously (so you don't wind up fired--which will work only if there were additional gropees), you *could* wind up arrested.

Best bet--follow my lead. Be annoying openly...

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T19:49:37Z

That's because I've only written about a nickel's worth...

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T19:44:22Z

Bill - I'm not charging you a dime, either...

Comment from Punctilious on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T17:40:11Z

Seems to me that the egregious behavior that ought to be the driving force behind such a law is probably already covered by existing law and this is a needless feel-good legislative act. JTG. No matter what you might desire, bloggers and commenters should have no more expectation of privacy than they would if talking on a park bench. Those listening or reading might not know your name initially but they can probably figure it out in short order. As such one ought not say things that could get one arrested (or fired)in the public square. Then again, the public square is getting to be waaay too sensitive and vengeful. It ought to remember that eavesdoppers seldom hear nice things. But that is another thing entirely.

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T17:37:43Z

Ask SWWBO. All *I* know is I just keep getting recurring e-mails asking why I keep calling him the Boss when he hasn't paid me a dime for doing this...

Comment from Cricket on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T17:27:35Z

John's rotten memory: Is that because he thinks with #82?

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T16:24:25Z

Cricket - Resistance is futile. It also deprives us of keyboard alerts. Snark away, Lady C!

Comment from Cricket on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T16:05:42Z

Why does Bill always inspire me to new heights of snark and why must I resist? John, you have done an outstanding job of editing this blog and have gone one further I think in being a truly free press type of blog.

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T15:40:25Z

John - Put 20,000 (+/-) Republican votes against 20,000 (+/-) Democratic votes and you'll get close. Now add 5,000 deceased -- but still on the rolls -- Dems and *close* reverts to horseshoes 'n' hand grenades... Heh. "It's just another issue that the Republicans have."

Comment from Jon The Mechanic on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T15:10:50Z

There goes my Friday nights...

Comment from C. Van Dis on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T14:56:32Z

Spam annoys me, and it is annoymous too. Can we use this to give spammers several thousand consecutive sentences? With no access to computers. Please?

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T14:51:36Z

As Hugh Hewitt noted, "They can't steal it if it isn't close."

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T14:48:16Z

"In other words, we get the government we want and deserve, because we're unwilling to change it at the ballot box." Kinda tough to do that when the Deceased Democrat vote always squeaks the incumbent. Heh. Former NJ Gov Tom Kean snarked that, when he died, he wanted to be buried in Hudson County so he "could continue to participate in the electoral process."

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T14:04:22Z

Jtg - John's got a rotten memory. That's why we have to keep reminding him about #82.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T11:50:22Z

Well, JTG, yer so scary and annoying I put everything about you out of my head - and DBR everything you've ever sent me. Who are you again? You live where, the Northwest Territories? There have beenc comments posted here anonymously that I have deleted - but that's my editorial choice, I believe. Then there is the case of SWWBO's stalker, or some of Cassandra's more vile visitors, who are the titular focus of the law. But I stand by my first comment in this thread - as described in Bill's post, this strikes me more as "The Incumbent Politician Protection From Annoying Gadflies Act" than useful law - the certainly was not subject to any meaningful debate. Which means it will most likely get settled by the Courts, which is an abrogation of the duties of Congress and a seemingly arrant act of cowardice on the part of the sponsors of the provision. Which, sadly, doesn't seem to be unusual. Many of our glorious representatives blather about the Courts interfering, but the truth is, when it suits their purposes, they want it to be this way, so they can feed us the crap about 'the imperial bench' even as they do carp like this to avoid responsibility. Of course, in the end it's our fault. We won't call them on it and send 'em home - because we're either too lazy/busy to care until our personal ox is gored, or we fear losing our state's clout in seniority (if we think it through that far). In other words, we get the government we want and deserve, because we're unwilling to change it at the ballot box.

Comment from Justthisguy on 2006-01-10

2006-01-10T07:56:45Z

Well, I *had* a really cool comment in preview, but my mouse-finger slipped on a beer slick, so I'll start over: What if you're Semi-Anonymous? I've told The Donovan my actual True Name, and I believe him when he says he hasn't told that to anyone else. Now, in my time playing with this here interweb thingy I believe that I have annoyed some people from time to time, mostly inadvertently, but, yes, there was a time or two when I let my grump out and some might have taken offense. Let's imagine that someone felt annoyed enough by something I wrote to bring charges against me, and got a subpoena to bring John into court to make him tell all that he knows about me. Does he have to co-operate? Tell them my name, and where I live, and all, *JUST BECAUSE OF A FEELING IN SOME STRANGER'S HEAD?!?* Sorry, boys and girls, someone feeling annoyed by something I wrote and posted publicly ain't grounds for criminal prosecution, I don't think, and prolly not even a suit for libel or slander. (IANAL)

Comment from Barb on 2006-01-09

2006-01-10T05:21:59Z

Ack! In addition to being truly stupid, this just makes another reason to keep Arlen Specter on my sh*t list. He continues to make me VERY glad I no longer live in PA. Good category name, Bill!

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-01-09

2006-01-10T04:49:11Z

I think it should properly have been titled the "Incumbent Politician Protection From Annoying Gadflies Act"... Let's see if it survives court review. If I were a Spector constituent, gad, I might find myself voting for Ed Rendell or something...