Gay Patriot Header Image

New Federal Law Brings Demise To GayCowboyBob and Dismal Lord

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:58 am - January 11, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,General

Anonymous attacks on the internet are now against the law? – The Home of Uncommon Sense

Attention Bloggers and Blog Commenters! Are you tired of receiving personal, sometimes libelous attacks by anonymous posters? Well last week, President Bush signed into law a bill that could make such anonymous attacks illegal.

Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail – CNET News

It’s no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it’s OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

PS – I have a great $500/hour attorney who would be happy to take on anyone’s cases in regard to this area!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

24 Comments

  1. George W. Bush Hates People Who Make Anonymous Internet Attacks!

    Comment by V the K — January 11, 2006 @ 8:40 am - January 11, 2006

  2. By the way, there’s interesting news out there on the wire-tapping and Alito fronts today.

    The fellow who exposed that the Bush Administration was wiretapping calls made to or from Al Qaeda affiliates — the guy lefties have been praising as a courageous and principled patriot — turns out to be a Mentally Unbalanced Unemployed Bureaucrat With an Axe to Grind.

    Also, Opinion Journal Examines the Legal Beliefs of the People Who Call Alito “Out of the Mainstream”. Surprise, surprise. They turn out to be liberal elitists who don’t give a rat’s ass about working class people.

    In 1997, Tulane’s environmental law clinic got a planned plastics plant barred from a predominantly black township between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. The clinic claimed that it was fighting “environmental racism,” but many town residents, backed by the NAACP, had worked for years to win the Shintech company’s new PVC plant for their parish.

    In the mid-1990s, [Yale’s legal-services clinic] wanted to stop a police plan to evict vagrants from the New Haven train station. Director Stephen Wizner encouraged his students to spend the night with them to experience their plight and to dissuade the police from taking action. The students did camp out in the station, and the police left the “homeless” in place. Mr. Wizner calls such interventions “human learning.” But did the students learn about the addictions, mental illness and social disaffiliation that keep these people on the street? Did they bond with the maintenance men who must clean up the feces, urine, and discarded paraphernalia left by the “homeless”

    And if you check out yesterday’s Best of the Web, it turns out one of the law professors who signed the petition against Alito was convicted of assault for trying to run down a bicyclist in her Passat. (ah, Fahrvergnugen.)

    Comment by V the K — January 11, 2006 @ 9:13 am - January 11, 2006

  3. My rate is now $530 an hour.

    Today I bumped into some homophobic comments made by Senator Biden back in 2004. Check them out here: http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/01/08-week/index.php#a000989

    Comment by PatriotPal — January 11, 2006 @ 10:07 am - January 11, 2006

  4. I just read some more on this new anti-cyber-annoynace law. I’m no Sam Alito, but my guess is that when and if anyone is prosecuted under this statute for comments left on a blog or message board, it will be tossed out as vague. The word “annoy” is way too open ended. It reminds me of most anti-harassment rules at colleges and universities that would punish a 20-year old male for calling his soon-to-be ex-girlfriend a “bitch” after finding out that she cheated on him.

    Comment by PatriotPal — January 11, 2006 @ 10:19 am - January 11, 2006

  5. Full Disclosure: I’ve not read extensively on this, as I am enjoying a week skiing in the High Country (yes, feel free to eat your hearts out). Just didn’t want to at least put in a place-holder here and make some comment.

    That said, in commemoration of his 300th birthday next month, I’m doing some reading of Ben Franklin. The Patriots who founded this Nation and formed the type of democracy we enjoy today were considered “annoyances” to the throne, and it was behind the curtain of anonymity they were able to advocate for Freedom and Liberty.

    I’ve been bothered by My President’s disregard for broad political speech in the past (i.e., signing McCain/Feingold). If this turns out to be what it appears at first blush, I’ll once again have to disagree with W, who has done so much to defend our Nation and Way of Life, but for political reasons, I believe, falls from time to time to those career politicians with whom he has surrounded himself. I guess we’ll see.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — January 11, 2006 @ 10:19 am - January 11, 2006

  6. Thats our Georgie, striking another blow against limited government intrusion into the lives of Americans.

    Soon the GOP is going to be saying “Thank God for the ACLU” when they start challenging these stupid, invasive and above all, anti-conservative laws that have been passed under this Congress and approved by the President. Too bad the ACLU can’t sue for out-of-control spending habits. Or as George Will described the GOP spending, “incontinent”.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 11, 2006 @ 10:20 am - January 11, 2006

  7. Your $500/hr attorney? You must be loaded or something.

    Comment by Hello Moto — January 11, 2006 @ 10:39 am - January 11, 2006

  8. #6 GranpaGryph, what the heck is wrong with the ACLU? Here in Ann Arbor, nearly half of the ACLU’s board (that isn’t Jewish) is GOP-active/friendly. Granted, most of them (the GOP ACLU Bd members) are lawyers and that’s an issue all by itself which merits real scorn. I play racquetball with one of those ACLU Board members and he’s a decent civil libertarian –in fact, he was marching for gay rights before I knew I was missing ’em. And he’s str8.

    Gheez, the LibLeft wants everyone to stay in little narrow categories and wear their respective “pity the victim” shirts. Grandpa, you gotta get a new act.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 11, 2006 @ 10:56 am - January 11, 2006

  9. I think the Institute for Justice can handle the internet ‘annoyance’ cases(the ACLU doesn’t give a crap about certain free speech rights anyway, such as those of anti-abortion protesters) and leave the ACLU to outlawing crosses in National Cemeteries and banning Christmas Carols in public schools.

    Comment by V the K — January 11, 2006 @ 10:58 am - January 11, 2006

  10. LOL….one of these days when I get one of these summons and the ACLU shows up, my answer, to the media, will be this:

    “Given that I’m not antireligious, I’m not a pedophile, and I’m not a Democrat, why would I want them to represent me? They’re probably here to make sure I get punished MORE, not less.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2006 @ 11:16 am - January 11, 2006

  11. #9 — Oh, and don’t forget, the right of NAMBLA publish instructions to help paedophiles rape and murder children. That’s a very important Constitutional Right if you’re an ACLU-er.

    Comment by V the K — January 11, 2006 @ 11:28 am - January 11, 2006

  12. Um…..NeverARepublican, when have YOU ever made your identity public?

    And actually, Mike Rogers’s attempt was to knock GayPatriot out of existence by exposing GP’s identity. Instead, what it’s done is make GP even more prominent and exposed the tactics used by Rogers and other gay liberals, including threatening phone calls to peoples’ workplaces, homes, and mobile numbers, falsely representing yourself to news outlets, and falsely representing yourself as acting under law enforcement orders. That’s part of the reason, among others, that many of his former allies now refuse to have anything to do with him.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2006 @ 12:57 pm - January 11, 2006

  13. Doesn’t this strike anyone as an infringement of basic First Amendment rights? I mean, the key word here is “annoying.” That’s pretty subjective; I generally find this blog highly annoying. : ) Secondly, no one gets “annoyed” to death. “Annoying” is, by definition, not that bad. What is so threatening about anonymous comments, as tacky, offensive and irritating as they frequently are? (Also, this Mr. Anonymous never seems to be able to spell.) Does this really require a law with jail time as punishment? (And, qusetion for the techie folks, if a comment is “anonymous,” how do you prove who made it?)

    Comment by Andy — January 11, 2006 @ 2:34 pm - January 11, 2006

  14. #13 – Good one. NAR, here’s laughing at you 😉

    Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2006 @ 3:19 pm - January 11, 2006

  15. Note to all — My posting doesn’t say what I think of this law. A lot of you are making a lot of assumptions. (NAR… your ears ringing?)

    Comment by GayPatriot — January 11, 2006 @ 5:43 pm - January 11, 2006

  16. Maybe this is just one of those bills so blatantly unconstitutional, Bush just signs it expecting the Supreme Court to strike it down.

    We all know how well that worked with perpetual incumbent protection “campaign finance reform.”

    Comment by V the K — January 11, 2006 @ 5:56 pm - January 11, 2006

  17. And actually, as far as I’m concerned, you don’t have to identify yourself even if you ARE writing a blog.

    However, since you are demanding that people voluntarily identify themselves before they criticize others, regardless of the circumstance of the criticism, it seems odd that you fail to apply it to yourself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2006 @ 7:11 pm - January 11, 2006

  18. File the constitutional right not to be annoyed with the constitutional right to privacy and the constitutional right never to be made uncomfortable, including the right not to be made uncomfortable by the public display of someone else’s religion.

    Coming up next: the constitutional right not to be inconvenienced.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — January 11, 2006 @ 9:24 pm - January 11, 2006

  19. After reading NAR’s comments, does anyone know if the law has enhanced penalties ala RICO for being both annoying and stupid?

    Comment by Bobo — January 11, 2006 @ 11:42 pm - January 11, 2006

  20. If this law is enforced as well as the law against Internet spam the whole thing is meaningless. No one need worry.

    Comment by Jack Allen — January 12, 2006 @ 1:48 am - January 12, 2006

  21. You mean conservatives, indeed Republicans, are behind this scheme of speech police? Shock! I thought that PC crap was elite liberalism?

    Comment by Stephen — January 12, 2006 @ 4:24 am - January 12, 2006

  22. Coming up next: the constitutional right not to be inconvenienced.

    And the Constitutional Right to eat all the chocolate cake you want and never get fat. (After all, liberals do believe people should be insulated from the negative consequences of bad choices, right?)

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2006 @ 6:47 am - January 12, 2006

  23. Just lump it all together as a constitutional right to someone else’s liberty, time and property.

    Comment by Hello Moto — January 12, 2006 @ 10:35 am - January 12, 2006

  24. It seems the sword swings both ways as

    http://gaygoproundup.blogspot.com/

    has done a whole lot of deleting in the comments section on all his recent threads about GP. I enjoy them all.

    But as I feel dirty for posting here, I bid you all a Happy New Yer.
    =

    Comment by chandlet in hollywood — January 12, 2006 @ 4:04 pm - January 12, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.