![[to_xp]Gekko](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/74/74677.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
voted best thread on CFC alongisde with the one with the picture of the worker expressing his love on cattle.
Flame on a message board, go to jail.
- Thread starter Dr. Yoshi
- Start date
snarko said:
That's certainly valid, but be mindful that they might not necessarily want to win in court, they might only be looking to identify the annoying poster in real life. Removing anonymity is potentially a goal in and of itself, and the simple bringing of charges is usually enough to accomplish it.
blackheart
unenlightened
All of you offend me. Be prepared to receive my lawyer's letter in the mail.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
Moderator Action: Despite what many of you may think, Eyrei was not joking.
Discuss the issue, or don't post in the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Discuss the issue, or don't post in the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Well, I need to start a list of CFC'ers I need to sue.
MjM
Deity
Me as well. Guess whos up top? 
I agree with MarineCorps; if this is ever used it will be quickly shot down as a violation of the First Amendment - you have the right of freedom of speech, even when it annoys something. There is no Constitutional Right to be free from annoyance.
This is simply ludicrous.
This is simply ludicrous.
Knowze Gungk
NOT a mushroom
I like this stupid law, simply because it does not apply to me.
azzaman333
meh
If Americans make laws like this, Australia cant be far behind.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
That bit is the reason this legislation won't go anywhere.Tank_Guy#3 said:I am pressing charges on everyone here, you all annoy me!!!!
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Another example of "feel good" legislation resulting in crap legislation.
It really, really is true...the road to hell is paved with all sorts of good intentions.
It really, really is true...the road to hell is paved with all sorts of good intentions.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
What really surprises me is that the system actually allows pieces of completely unrelated legislation to be slipped-in and passed in a package-deal. Shouldn't every bit of legislation (well, topic at least) be considered seperately?
And would that make it open for retaliation? In case the anonymous person wasn't really harassing the person.IglooDude said:
This law stinks and what stinks even more was that it was shoved in the middle of a very important bill.
azzaman333
meh
What happens if i set alight a board covered in messages?
It'll likely be in the dustbin of weird laws until someone gets the bright idea to actually enforce it.MobBoss said:
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
BasketCase said:
Precisely my point. They've got a greater chance at attaining world peace than making this charge stick.
This is one of the biggest issues with the size and magnitude of the U.S. government. To get something legitimate passed, like violence against women and telephone harrassment, there are leigislators who have constituents that want things added to to every bill. This is what we call "pork barrel politics" and this was the particular pork added to this one.ainwood said:
Abaddon
Deity
I know the have signed up a user agreement, but does this bypass Mods authority? Could their "warnings" count as harassment?
Admittedly the Mods can claim they were merely responding to their own harrasment.. but i dont think
"But he hit me first!" Is a valid argument after kindergarten?
Admittedly the Mods can claim they were merely responding to their own harrasment.. but i dont think
"But he hit me first!" Is a valid argument after kindergarten?
The Yankee said:
Yes, but then the burden would be on the "annoyer" to prove that the annoyee never intended to go to trial with it; intentions are always difficult to prove.
Anyway, there is some question as to whether this law would only apply to VOIP (to bring that into line with regular telephone harassment laws) and/or whether there must be the intention to harass/annoy by the annoyer, not just whether the annoyee gets annoyed. This law will probably have less effect overall than the FBI's special task force that is going after sadomasochism on the internet; S&M websites (images, stories, forums, etc) are closing shop left and right out of fear of criminal prosecution and jail time.
And this just shows that common sense amongst our lovely members of Congress is nearly nonexistant.IglooDude said:
It would be fairly obvious in some cases that there is clear harassment, and others where it's clear that there isn't. The confusion should come in the middle, where you could argue for or against. In which case, that's why we have a judicial system and juries (though, let's face it, we get a fair share of whackos in there also). But legislation like this, which is obviously extremely vague, is troubling.
