Is America Burning - a Forum To Discuss Issues

All comments welcome, pro or con. Passionate ok, but let's be civil. ...Pertinent comments will be published on this blog. Air your viewpoints.


Skyline - Houston, Texas

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Be careful what you say

This new law slipped through in the Violence Against Women Act.

Slate gives an overall perspective. The link in the title goes into much more detail.

I'm not a lawyer so be sure to read the fine print but basically it says to use the internet anonymously to "annoy" will break the law.

What's annoying? I post too many recipes over on Granny? I don't know how to end a post? My referring to a link and then forgetting to add it? My annoying habit of moving one of my friends to PA instead of MO when I know full well that's not correct. (sorry Julian). Or, if you look at granny, deciding that Ann Arbor was (or should be) the capital of MI. (Lansing, folks).

What would drive me up the wall could be something you'd enjoy. Where would it stop?

I don't know how anonymous "anonymous" is either. My name is my actual name, I live in Merced, CA, and I'm the easiest person in the world to find, should anyone be interested. My email address is over on granny. "worried", on the other hand uses a pseudonym but I'm sure she's not "anonymous" in the way the law uses the word.

So - what is anonymous anyhow? Is this something we need to worry about or can be just trudge on as true patriots saying what we believe to be true?

I anticipate a long journey through the courts with this latest assault on freedom, disguised as protecting women.

And I campaigned for the Violence against Women Act although I would be happier if the Act were retitled to include anyone who is a victim of abuse. There have been complaints of sexism and I think I agree.


  • At Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:00:00 PM , Blogger JBlue said...

    Someone else had a link explaining the law, and I think you're safe in annoying people in public forums like communities and blogs, etc. At least, I hope so. Otherwise, I'm in trouble.

  • At Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:49:00 PM , Blogger Granny said...

    Check what Slate has to say about their "Fray" section (whatever that is). I'm not sure. I do think we're okay. We're not anonymous as long as there is a way of tracking us back if we break a law.

    I hope they just intended it for personal attack email but then I thought there was a law against domestic spying and habeas corpus was still a part of the Constitution.

    Shows how much I know.

  • At Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:42:00 PM , Blogger Worried said...

    Since Blogger and email accounts carry personal info, finding one who uses a pseudonym really isn't that difficult, so isn't very anonymous. Someone like the anonymous who dissed you would be difficult to find. Using a pseudonym isn't being anonymous in some cases.

  • At Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:59:00 PM , Blogger Mathias said...

    This saddens me greatly. The communists and the Nazis passed the same types of laws under the guise of "protecting" people. We have but a few more decent years left in this country. Enjoy them.

  • At Monday, January 16, 2006 7:10:00 AM , Blogger Progressive Traditionalist said...

    I'm sorry, but this new law annoys me.

  • At Monday, January 16, 2006 9:25:00 AM , Blogger Worried said...

    Mathias, I am so afraid you are too, too right.
    We welcome you to our blog and group of friends. Please do continue to visit us.

  • At Monday, January 16, 2006 12:56:00 PM , Blogger Granny said...

    It annoys me too and I'm a huge supporter of most of this type of legislation.

    The problem isn't with the law in original form; it's the little tidbits that sneak in when no one is looking.

    It happens with every bill that comes before Congress. Can you spell "pork" for example?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home