|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Julius Civitatus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:46 AM Original message |
Congress passes law to ban anonymous speech in the Internet |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ixion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:50 AM Response to Original message |
1. I will make sure and forward all my spam to them... I've gotten over 40 k |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Julius Civitatus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:53 AM Response to Reply #1 |
5. Knowing the Repugs, they'll use it against DU, Salon, and other forums |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
trogdor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:39 PM Response to Reply #5 |
32. None of the admins at DU are anonymous. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 03:39 PM Response to Reply #32 |
49. Think again. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mom cat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 04:05 PM Response to Reply #49 |
60. Darnn, I always thought that your name WAS Endarkment! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kalisiin (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:39 PM Response to Reply #32 |
101. I Disagree! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bunny planet (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 01:40 PM Response to Reply #5 |
43. Seems like freepaholics should qualify as having 'annoyed' Andy during |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sirjohn (186 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:37 PM Response to Reply #1 |
30. Proposed internet architecture - Technology Review here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
butterfly77 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 01:15 PM Response to Reply #1 |
41. Are these the same MF's who... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TechBear_Seattle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:50 AM Response to Original message |
2. I know the article says this is not a joke, but.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
trogdor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:45 PM Response to Reply #2 |
34. It's real. RTFA, please. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kalisiin (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:42 PM Response to Reply #34 |
102. Can't Do That, Legally...It's Unconstitutional |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OKthatsIT (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 12:14 AM Response to Reply #102 |
110. All that's left to do is get a Supreme Court to agree with you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
emad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:50 AM Response to Original message |
3. LogicAlly, will he extend that ban to anonymity at Alcoholics Anonymous, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
daleanime (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:51 AM Response to Original message |
4. Guess if no one stops them.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Julius Civitatus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:55 AM Response to Reply #4 |
6. Of course. There's no opposition party. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Acryliccalico (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:55 AM Response to Original message |
7. Why, in this case does * think he needs a law? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
liberal N proud (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:55 AM Response to Original message |
8. It helps the government to more quickly identify those they are spying on |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Julius Civitatus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:00 PM Response to Reply #8 |
13. Too many anonymous bloggers. Too many DU users |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sarcasmo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 01:04 PM Response to Reply #13 |
39. I agree, the last true form of free speech is the Internet. Free speech |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Julius Civitatus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 02:07 PM Response to Reply #39 |
44. They've got all other media under their thumb |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kagemusha (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:57 AM Response to Original message |
9. I have nothing about banning cyberstalking... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Viva_La_Revolution (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:57 AM Response to Original message |
10. So basically, unless I give my real name to every person on the internets |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DIKB (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 02:11 PM Response to Reply #10 |
45. I don't think so |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 03:44 PM Response to Reply #45 |
50. "with intent to annoy" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
struggle4progress (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 07:48 PM Response to Reply #10 |
89. Courts will probably read "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass" as .. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Backlash Cometh (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:58 AM Response to Original message |
11. Would it pass a constitutional test? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jeffersons Ghost (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:06 PM Response to Reply #11 |
16. good question |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Julius Civitatus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:10 PM Response to Reply #16 |
18. No.... unless Alito gets in; then all bets are off. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Doctor_J (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:18 PM Response to Reply #11 |
19. Um, look who's interpreting the Constituion these days |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mom cat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:33 PM Response to Reply #19 |
27. That is why we must fight Alito! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Carni (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:52 PM Response to Reply #11 |
77. What constitution? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mike_c (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:59 AM Response to Original message |
12. so does simply posting under your real name solve the problem.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Benhurst (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:37 PM Response to Reply #12 |
31. You'd better be careful. We know who you are now. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mike_c (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:40 PM Response to Reply #31 |
33. lol-- howdy Ben.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Benhurst (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 01:02 PM Response to Reply #33 |
38. Damn! You figured out my first name. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Exit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 03:39 AM Response to Reply #12 |
118. Everyone get down to your local probate court and change your name |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
gaspee (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:01 PM Response to Original message |
14. The bottlneck |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mom cat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:36 PM Response to Reply #14 |
28. Intent is hard to prove, unless a packed Supreme Court changes the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 03:46 PM Response to Reply #28 |
51. No it isn't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mom cat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 03:55 PM Response to Reply #51 |
55. Yor are really annoying the shit out of me Endarkment and I know |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 04:00 PM Response to Reply #55 |
57. That's it we need the sarcasm police. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mom cat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 04:56 PM Response to Reply #57 |
65. What a nifty idea! The Sarcasm Squad would make us all safe from |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:11 PM Response to Reply #65 |
69. We know where your kitties are! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mom cat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:59 PM Response to Reply #69 |
79. Ok. I will send their poopies instead! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kalisiin (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:50 PM Response to Reply #51 |
103. This Is Annoying... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Exit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 03:43 AM Response to Reply #14 |
119. Any/every person who is ever prosecuted under this unconstitutional |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Julius Civitatus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:02 PM Response to Original message |
15. Recommend this post. Pass it along |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Angry Girl (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:08 PM Response to Original message |
17. OMFG! ! A catch-all laws that can be used against any of us at DU! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:19 PM Response to Original message |
20. bush didn't "pass" this law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Julius Civitatus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:28 PM Response to Reply #20 |
24. Thanks. Fixed the title. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TechBear_Seattle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:32 PM Response to Reply #24 |
26. If all but 4 Democrats voted "Aye", the title is NOT fixed. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TechBear_Seattle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:28 PM Response to Reply #20 |
25. Unsurpising, the number of Dems who voted for |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
yellowdogmi (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:22 PM Response to Reply #20 |
72. This was not voted for |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:55 PM Response to Reply #72 |
78. Not so. It was not "snuck" into the law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
yellowdogmi (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 08:16 PM Response to Reply #78 |
92. I was not suggesting |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 08:47 PM Response to Reply #92 |
96. nothing was hidden. the language was given due and open consideration |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
gulfcoastliberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:21 PM Response to Original message |
21. I suggest we alert DHS/TIPS to the freepers on the Yahoo message boards |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bvar22 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:26 PM Response to Reply #21 |
23. I certainly find them annoying! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mongo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:22 PM Response to Original message |
22. I just can't see this passing constiutional muster |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:36 PM Response to Original message |
29. Has anyone found a link to the actual signed law? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
McCamy Taylor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:45 PM Response to Original message |
35. This wont make it to the SCOTUS. Courts will toss this one out.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
toymachines (782 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:49 PM Response to Original message |
36. This is not good |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TechBear_Seattle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 12:57 PM Response to Original message |
37. Reference and confirmation |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 04:41 PM Response to Reply #37 |
64. I don't see "annoy" anywhere in the text. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TechBear_Seattle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 08:26 PM Response to Reply #64 |
93. I think "annoy" is being misinterpreted from "harass." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
democracyindanger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 08:44 PM Response to Reply #64 |
95. Because "annoy" was in the existing law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
buzzard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 01:08 PM Response to Original message |
40. Hmm does this apply to Canadians I can't see how this will work. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sirjohn (186 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 01:35 PM Response to Original message |
42. Maybe I'm just not paranoid enough but I'd like to know... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ArmchairMeme (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 03:15 PM Response to Reply #42 |
47. Anonymous Speech |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sirjohn (186 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 03:30 PM Response to Reply #47 |
48. Annonymous speach is fine, but if my computer security |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 03:48 PM Response to Reply #48 |
52. Huh? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sirjohn (186 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 01:18 AM Response to Reply #52 |
113. I'd be glad to explain it, if the question were not hostile. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txindy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 06:17 PM Response to Reply #52 |
126. Asking him to explain is "hostile," didn't you know that? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-11-06 02:38 PM Response to Reply #126 |
135. I think that qualifies as annonomous annoyance! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txindy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 03:51 PM Response to Reply #48 |
54. We're talking about board postings like here at DU, not email. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sirjohn (186 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 01:28 AM Response to Reply #54 |
114. Annonymous means the message can't be traced |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txindy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 06:14 PM Response to Reply #114 |
125. What are you talking about? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 07:28 PM Response to Reply #125 |
127. Deleted message |
txindy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 09:47 PM Response to Reply #127 |
128. Please point out the word(s) that you consider "hostile." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 10:17 PM Response to Reply #128 |
129. Deleted message |
txindy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 10:22 PM Response to Reply #129 |
130. You forgot to type more. I know my screen name. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sirjohn (186 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 10:57 PM Response to Reply #130 |
131. Sorry, I'm new at this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Julius Civitatus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 03:55 PM Response to Reply #47 |
56. The Bushies would put Ben Franklin in Gitmo, that commie |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
yellowdogmi (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 02:36 PM Response to Original message |
46. You can blame this on me. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
greiner3 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 03:49 PM Response to Original message |
53. A huge sucking sound coming from the Capital; |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Moochy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 04:03 PM Response to Original message |
58. This thread annoys me |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 04:05 PM Response to Reply #58 |
61. Your post is abusive |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
greiner3 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 04:04 PM Response to Original message |
59. I agree that this law will be used to harass specific people; |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ArbustoBuster (956 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 04:10 PM Response to Original message |
62. They can have my keyboard when they pry it from my cold, dead hands! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 04:16 PM Response to Reply #62 |
63. After a few rounds of waterboarding... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
burythehatchet (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 04:56 PM Response to Original message |
66. Right. But knowing who is writing our energy policy is a no-no. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ddeclue (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:03 PM Response to Original message |
67. So unConstitutional it won't last 12 seconds in a court of law.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dunvegan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:06 PM Response to Original message |
68. Well, doesn't this just flat out take the Goebbels Prize for Gall. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vickers (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:15 PM Response to Original message |
70. Is it called the Gannon/Guckert Law? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZBlue (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:18 PM Response to Original message |
71. I honestly think something like this should be in place |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:33 PM Response to Reply #71 |
73. But this is how they always sell you this crap. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZBlue (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 06:36 PM Response to Reply #73 |
85. I think there are ways to limit it so you target just a specific section |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
progressoid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:37 PM Response to Original message |
74. GREAT!! Lets file some complaints against freepers. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Neil Lisst (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:40 PM Response to Original message |
75. Typical. Spammers run wild, but they want to stop dissent. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LittleClarkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 05:42 PM Response to Original message |
76. Enforcement's gonna be a bitch |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Julius Civitatus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 06:06 PM Response to Reply #76 |
81. Doesn't matter. It's not a "practical law." It's for specific uses |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 06:14 PM Response to Reply #81 |
83. again, it was NOT a last minute addition |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
democracyindanger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 08:57 PM Response to Reply #83 |
97. I hear you, but I don't think many others do nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bee (894 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 06:01 PM Response to Original message |
80. jeebus. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kalisiin (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 12:00 AM Response to Reply #80 |
104. Well Said!! n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 06:11 PM Response to Original message |
82. something doesn't add up -- the ACLU ENDORSED this law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cascadiance (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 06:16 PM Response to Original message |
84. Then they should also BAN coverups on security whistleblowers too! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toots (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 06:44 PM Response to Original message |
86. What gives them the authority? The Internet is world wide not just America |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lyonn (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 08:09 PM Response to Reply #86 |
91. Good point - World Wide internet |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Beam Me Up (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 07:27 PM Response to Original message |
87. I find Bush VERY annoying, can I have him arrested? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kalisiin (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 12:01 AM Response to Reply #87 |
105. Only If He Writes To You, Or Posts To You ANONYMOUSLY n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
POAS (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 07:42 PM Response to Original message |
88. Freepers are annoying, are they now illegal? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
snowbear (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 12:11 AM Response to Reply #88 |
108. Yep, that new law will make Freepers Freak... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lyonn (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 08:00 PM Response to Original message |
90. Wonder what the basis of this law was |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sakabatou (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 08:29 PM Response to Original message |
94. Well... at least we still have the Amendment V right...? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MaryBear (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 10:31 PM Response to Original message |
98. This law will be used to annoy , abuse, threaten, and harrass any person |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Orangepeel (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:01 PM Response to Original message |
99. "who receives the communications" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kalisiin (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-09-06 11:30 PM Response to Original message |
100. DOES THIS INCLUDE SPAM EMAIL?? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
incapsulated (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 12:09 AM Response to Reply #100 |
106. If only. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
American liberal (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 12:11 AM Response to Original message |
107. this is a joke. right? right? WTF! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
paineinthearse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 12:13 AM Response to Original message |
109. Bill number, please? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dave123williams (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 12:43 AM Response to Original message |
111. Annoy? Isn't that a little vague? Not to mention unconstitutional? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wiley (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 01:02 AM Response to Original message |
112. Is it Retroactive or just Radioactive |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dr Fate (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 01:36 AM Response to Original message |
115. Un-American. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote under the handle "Publius", |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
autorank (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 03:03 AM Response to Original message |
116. Any political speech annoys millions; even opposing this law. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jim Lane (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 03:28 AM Response to Original message |
117. Proof of intent isn't all that hard |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dunvegan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 08:23 AM Response to Original message |
120. Is a picture now considered... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ComerPerro (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 08:37 AM Response to Original message |
121. So, the Republican-Controlled Congress is creating a Nanny State |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Silverhair (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 08:53 AM Response to Original message |
122. I don't think this will effect message boards, but might effect PMs. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
necso (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 12:08 PM Response to Original message |
123. I've been pondering this carefully, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
earth mom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-10-06 02:59 PM Response to Original message |
124. This is a TOTAL ASSAULT on free speech! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-11-06 06:49 AM Response to Reply #124 |
133. There is reason to think this law doesn't do what people are suggesting |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tsiyu (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-11-06 04:10 AM Response to Original message |
132. The law says the person has to "receive" the communication |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nickinSTL (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-11-06 09:23 AM Response to Original message |
134. "the Senate unanimously approved it" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sat Jun 15th 2024, 04:02 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC