Flamers got owned =O

wow i find the camels back law more amuseing. but yeah this law is crap and anyone who thinks otherwise can fuck themselvs.

if i get to go to jail for this post im going to sing the weels on the bus go round and round on my way lol.

there is an pld law in california that says if you detonate a nuclear device within city limits you might get fined up to a maximum of $200,000.00 there is also a law in north carolina that says you can't tie your elephant to a parking meter. whoever attached that law and others like them is stupid. ohshi- i just annoyed someone

mofo should read before he signs. If it was present before the bill was given to him, it's responsibility to either read it all the way through or have his staff do it and then report back.

lolz i r teh press chargez!!!1111111!!11!
or maby i will just sue the people who make some of these laws for makeing me fall out of my seat from laughfing

I like how people are blaiming the absentminded president who signed it without checking it, and ignoring the losers who actually decided to enact such a law in the first place.

Who said he was absentminded? I would bet that he knew it was there.

He can't just veto the Justice Department funding bill. They kind of need money. Like the article said, Clinton signed a ridiculous bill into law because it was bootstrapped to a far more important bill. After that, though, he told everyone to forget about it because it was unconstitutional.

Again, President Bush is NOT at fault by any means for this getting passed into law, only, as I've said twice before, Arlen Specter and co.

--Guido

RE: Re: RE: Flamers got owned =O

Well, I was gonna put that it would be enforced as poorly as music downloading laws, but I'm not so sure how unharshly that's enforced :P

It doesn't really scare me, personally, but it's a nice addition to the big `o list `o laws.

It's a damn shame the president can't do a line-item veto :/ Bootstraps suck.

Everything is Bush's fault, including the holocaust and the extinction of the dinosaurs. Duh.

I love how our world of technology is controlled by people who know so little about it...

Listen, Guido, I'm not sure you get it:

President Bush signed the bill. He signed it. There was signing. Probably, a pen was invovled. You can't count the pens out. He's an evil, wacky, cooky, criminal mastermind, absentminded president all at once that has a hurricane machine. Of course he knows what he's doing.

No, the people on this board just like jumping on bandwagons sometimes.

Mal

Guido, I don't know much about the exact powers of a president and how this would work, but I'm sure he could say, "I'm not going to sign this until this passage is removed because I disagree with it [if he disagrees with it]" and then get a friend in Congress to reintroduce the bill with the requisite changes and go from there.

talisman, I'm not too sure about all of his powers either (been three years since Government), but even if he could do that, the Justice Department wouldn't get no money until the slow wheels of Congress put it back through, all for this puny little bill which can be dealt with in many other ways.

Also, as most people don't seem to realize (and I only recently discovered), this law only applies to telecommunications devices, i.e. Skype or GTalk or any other telephone-like services. It's already harassment to call someone a billion times and hang up over a telephone, so now it's just illegal to do it over the internet.

To quote the law:
[list=a][*]Prohibited acts generally
Whoever—[list=1:4646e99539][*]in interstate or foreign communications—[list=a:4646e99539][*]by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—

1. makes, creates, or solicits, and
2. initiates the transmission of,

any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;[*]by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—

1. makes, creates, or solicits, and
2. initiates the transmission of,

any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;[*]makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;[*]makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or[*]makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or[/list:4646e99539][*]knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,[/list:4646e99539]shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.[/list:4646e99539]

--Guido

Would that include AIM? Or AIM talk conversations? Or not at all?

telecom wouldn't include instant messaging, but possibly AIM talk. Also, one of the sections explicitly says using a telecom device to make a telephone ring a hundred times. AIM talk can't call telephones, from what I know, but there are programs (Skype) that can.

--Guido

RE: Re: RE: Flamers got owned =O

Because the Internet sure does listen to and respect what Bush and co. think.

internet reform watch out