Careful what you say!
- Thread starter Boyd
- Start date
Ok, the law may need to be tweaked some but is it really a bad idea?
Steve Behrens ~ who doesn't want to annoy anyone.
Steve Behrens ~ who doesn't want to annoy anyone.
BEHR655 said:
Yes, in my opinion, it is a very, very bad idea. There is a saying that goes something like:
"I'd rather see you wrap yourself in the constitution and burn the flag, than wrap yourself in the flag and burn the constitution."
Here the author states it was a must pass bill. So if the president did not sign it he would be bashed for not supporting the Dept of Justice.
“To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. “
“he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.”
Maybe Bush knows it will not hold up because it is not constitutional. If you look at the nature of Justice Roberts and soon to be Justice Alito, you can be sure that since they stictly abide by the consitution they will not support this. The author mentions how Justice Thomas did not support a similar bill, and the new Justices share a lot in common with his views.
If Bush instructed the Justice department not to enforce a law he would be declared a dictator, overeaching his authority.
Why did the author not give Senator Specter a chance to defend himself? Bush and Specter are not exactly buddies and is mostly only a rebublican in name only.
Yes at first glane the law does seem rediculous, but the other side is that people have a right to not be attacked. What if you had a son who died in the War and someone sent you emails telling you he was a killer, emails telling you that he is going to hell, emails with pictures of GI's getting their heads chopped off and the sender hides their identity. I would like a law against that. People who hide their identity our cowards. If you are not willing to take a risk by giving your opinion than maybe you do not have enough conviction and should just keep it to yourself.
Ron
“To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. “
“he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.”
Maybe Bush knows it will not hold up because it is not constitutional. If you look at the nature of Justice Roberts and soon to be Justice Alito, you can be sure that since they stictly abide by the consitution they will not support this. The author mentions how Justice Thomas did not support a similar bill, and the new Justices share a lot in common with his views.
If Bush instructed the Justice department not to enforce a law he would be declared a dictator, overeaching his authority.
Why did the author not give Senator Specter a chance to defend himself? Bush and Specter are not exactly buddies and is mostly only a rebublican in name only.
Yes at first glane the law does seem rediculous, but the other side is that people have a right to not be attacked. What if you had a son who died in the War and someone sent you emails telling you he was a killer, emails telling you that he is going to hell, emails with pictures of GI's getting their heads chopped off and the sender hides their identity. I would like a law against that. People who hide their identity our cowards. If you are not willing to take a risk by giving your opinion than maybe you do not have enough conviction and should just keep it to yourself.
Ron
The main problem here is what constitutes "annoying". That is a broad word, and is up for interpretation. I think we all can agree that what Lauren uses as an example is annoying or harassment, but where do we draw the line? And what designates "giving your identity"?
For example:
On this site there was a problem with a person a few years back. We knew their IP address, their service provider, and their email address, but we had no idea who they were. Now they may be able to say that there was enough information there that they were not anonymous, but trying to find out who they were was almost impossible. The institutions that they were using would not give that info out without a subpoena. So were they anonymous or not?
Guy
For example:
On this site there was a problem with a person a few years back. We knew their IP address, their service provider, and their email address, but we had no idea who they were. Now they may be able to say that there was enough information there that they were not anonymous, but trying to find out who they were was almost impossible. The institutions that they were using would not give that info out without a subpoena. So were they anonymous or not?
Guy
Lorun said:
I'd call that harrassment, not an annoyance. I'm sure there are already laws on the books for that. And really, I don't think it should even be harrassment unless it continutes unabated over a period of time longer than a week or so.
I think anything you say to someone on the internet short of a threat should be allowed. The guy who invented the keyboard gave us a delete key, its a handy tool.
Lets not go down this path of tampering with free speech. Someone complained I harassed them on the internet and I had to go to court. It was not warranted in my opinion, and a real timewaster. If it happens to you, you tend to look at things differently. I started thinking to myself about being at the mercy of an individual Judge's interpretation of harassment. Think how it would be with the term "annoyance". Because I disagree with you on this subject do you find it annoying?
Lorun said:
I agree. Well put. Just leave out the "...maybe..."
Anonymity is the refuge of the coward - whether he speak truth or falsehood.
Unwillingness to openly speak truth that should be told and given credence and the anonymous spread of untruth are equally reprehensible and each is a disservice to society. To speak with covert identity what one knows to be true merely submerges it at once under the cloud of suspicion that it must be false, else why the anonymity. It comes down to being responsible for one's words.
Dave
.....so does this mean I can now learn the identities of all the people who want to sell me Viagra or get me a low mortgage? They're annoying too, you know.
BobM said:
No, I know I will learn more and gain perspective from people who disagree with me than those that agree. That is especially true on this site. I have a lot of respect for many of the people who post often here, because they voice their opinion rather than follow a path of indifference, because they often have a well thought out argument, and because they are sincere and genuinely good people that may have a valid defensible position different than mine. In other words you will have to do a lot better to offend me. I have more respect for people I do not agree with me but use logical argument than those that agree and logical argument escapes them.
My argument in this case is simply both sides were not explained. At first glance assuming there is no other side I agree it is a bad law.
Respect for all
Ron
Lorun said:
Well said Ron, well said. I wasn't really trying to see if I was annoying you by disagreeing with you. I was trying to make the point that if I truly might be (over a simple matter such as this) then in the future you would be within your right to press charges if you did not really know who I was. And that, is where I disagree with the law.
But I know you, you are a canoeing buddy, so all is well........
