Annoy me and go to jail

Parent Cafe
1

<p>[So</a>, our brilliant government just made it illegal to annoy people over the Intarnets if someone doesn’t use their real name.](<a href=“http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news]So”>http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news) Some of us may be looking at UP TO 2 YEARS of incarceration if we irritate someone.</p>

<p>Who wants to go ■■■■■ hunting? ;)</p>

2

<p>Except, good luck proving something is annoying, that’s way to subjective.</p>

3

<p>Except that the law itself is ambiguous enough that an overzealous prosecutor might just do it.</p>

<p>By the way, stop heckling me or I’ll call the feds and have you detained.</p>

4

<p>Don’t forget to search under the bridges.</p>

5

<p>You mean I might find a SSJGohan or SSJ2Goku?</p>

<p>Sweet. (If you don’t know, ask some other forum vets. They know what I’m talking about.)</p>

6

<p>[url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/archive/index.php/t-58601-p-2.html]Mmm[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/archive/index.php/t-58601-p-2.html]Mmm[/url</a>] gotcha. :o</p>

7

<p>LOL thats great. This type of ridiculous stupidity buried in bills about completely different things is why the line-item veto doesn’t seem like such a bad idea sometimes.
I will be very disappointed in our supreme court if that section of the bill isn’t overturned on first amendment grounds.</p>

8

<p>But I legally changed my name to citygirlsmom years ago, it was gonna be chauffer, but that was taken, and we have outgrown soccermom</p>

<p>Sigh, I will try and be really nice, take that all you annoying people that disagree with me!!</p>

<p>That;s it anyone who disagrees with me is annoying, that is the standard</p>

9

<p>I think we have this one covered: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”</p>

<p>Besides, the founding fathers loved to publish under pseudonyms (Franklin as Poor Richard; John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton published the Federalist Papers under the name “Publius.”)</p>

<p>Under California law, we’ve retained the common law right to change our names just by using a new name consistently. I’m going to tell everyone I know to start calling me Greybeard.</p>

10

<p>Talk about annoying? How about starting a sentence with “So”?! I think a just punishment is to be forced, under dim light, to create the most exquisite piece of lace the world has ever seen.</p>

11

<p>leanid,</p>

<p>Actually, the rule against starting a sentence with a conjunction has pretty much gone by the wayside.</p>

<p>And (see?) now I’m going to file a complaint with the fed that you’re pestering me. Nyah! :p</p>

12

<p>Anyway, [Volokh[/url</a>] over at UCLA Law and [url=<a href=“The Volokh Conspiracy - -”>The Volokh Conspiracy - -]Orin</a> Kerr](<a href=“The Volokh Conspiracy - -”>The Volokh Conspiracy - -) at George Washington decided to weigh in on this. Looks like this law bothers a lot of people.</p>

13

<p>UCLAri,</p>

<p>I do not have a problem with starting a sentence with a conjuction providing that conjuction actually JOINS a previous sentence. But (see that?), when it begins a line of expression then, yes, there is a problem with it. It smacks of theatrics and is thus less real.</p>

<p>I guess I did not make that clear in my first post.</p>

14

<p>You didn’t catch my extremely theatrical air throughout the whole post? C’mon, 'twas deliberate, I says!</p>

15

<p>Does that mean we are in agreement?</p>

<p>I feel that theatrics, while entertaining, is often disappointing.</p>

16

<p>leanid,</p>

<p>Originally, I thought you were getting upset over the conjunction issue. Now, however, I know you’re not, so you’re off the hook.</p>

<p>I still say that for a post as firmly tongue-in-cheek as mine, it’s all in good fun to be theatrical. </p>

<p>But y’know, you are being kinda annoying…;)</p>

17

<p>Glad to know I am off your hook. : )</p>

<p>Now, if you will admit that one should not BEGIN sentences with a conjunction – unless they are preceded by a sentence or expression to which they can be connected – you will be off MY hook. </p>

<p>Am I being annoying? Well, I find that one is annoyed when presented with a persistent argument which cannot be refuted, much as one would like to.</p>

18

<p>I agree…but I did it for EFFECT. The whole point was to make it theatrical and silly. If I had a dime for every time I saw silly grammatical errors on the forums I frequent, I’d have a lot of dimes to take to the CoinStar machine. A lot. </p>

<p>And who cares? That’s not the point. The point is this stupid law further eroding our 1st Amendment rights.</p>

19

<p>It was effective! And, I do agree with your point.</p>