[WMCoolmon]

Okay then, if i'm ever at McDonalds and see a guy wearing a name tag with 'Dwayne WMCoolmon' on it, i'll be sure to say hello... 

With a name like that, it's probably worth it. Even if it isn't me.

[ZmaN]

im pretty sure the constitution gives us right to revolt over this law and have it veto'd... 

*goes and watches National Treasure to make sure*

[Corsair]

[CP5670]

wow, I haven't seen that picture in a while...

[Ulala]

That's a fine lookin' lens flare.

[Sandwich]

http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?part=rss&tag=6025396&subj=news

[General Freak]

I News.com misinterpreted it:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/09/flame_someone_anonym.html

Anyway...
Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer
had a very shiny nose.
And if you ever saw him,
you would even say it glows.

All of the other reindeer
used to laugh and call him names.
They never let poor Rudolph
join in any reindeer games.

Then one foggy Christmas Eve
Santa came to say:
"Rudolph with your nose so bright,
won't you guide my sleigh tonight?"

Then all the reindeer loved him
as they shouted out with glee,
Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer,
you'll go down in history!

If the song doesn't annoy you, the fact that I tried annoying people deliberately MUST work!

[Grug]

*Snort*

I'm guessing its only intended for extreme stalking cases.
But a law in the US means squat to me. So the US government can blow me. ^_^

Stupidly obsessed about the ability to sue people for stupid things. I'm surprised no one has attempted to sue Bush over something or another. Invasion of Privacy?
I bet theres something there.

*shrugs and tries not to give a rats arse*

[eagleclaw]

 

     You guy's need too ready this? There is to links below, Thanks to  ReynenStarfyre for this.
   http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6024695.html 
 and
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060105-3.html
   
    This is true and in affected. Check it out on http://www.starfyrestudios.com   

[Ford Prefect]

Uhhhh, errrrrrr, well...

Ah, somebody else say it.

[Scuddie]

No comment .

[S-99]

hey look eagleclaw is also from alaska
i was born in sitka, but i won't tell you who i am
because you might find me annoying
since i don't have tourette's syndrome
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Tourette%27s%20syndrome
then i shouldn't possibly be annoying.
I wonder if it's a law people can take advantage of?
BTW, what's the other stupid thing called "emotional damage"?
I know people can deal with being annoyed, being annoyed, and having their minds eye burned all to hell because they saw their mother naked.
Seems like this is something politicians are reacting against people with because they can't deal with what's written in blogs about them?
I hope things don't turn more 1984esque (oddly enough the year i was born).
Bush should be considered annoying.
But he should most definitely have tourette's, that'd just be plain funny.

[WMCoolmon]

BTW this has been posted before.

But this hasn't. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060110-5947.html

[Unknown Target]

And who's going to care?
By the way, nice find WM.

[Solatar]

since i don't have tourette's syndrome
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Tourette%27s%20syndrome
then i shouldn't possibly be annoying.

I happen to have a good friend with tourettes. He neither cusses nor screams, and is not in any way annoying. Screw off.

Sorry to drag the thread off topic...

[Nuclear1]

since i don't have tourette's syndrome
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Tourette%27s%20syndrome
then i shouldn't possibly be annoying.

I happen to have a good friend with tourettes. He neither cusses nor screams, and is not in any way annoying. Screw off.

Sorry to drag the thread off topic...

Indeed.

Tasteless, S-99.

[Goober5000]

Threads merged.

[S-99]

lol ok

[Janos]

    Well, there's a hook. It turns out that the statute can only be used when prohibiting the speech would not violate the First Amendment. If speech is protected by the First Amendment, the statute is unconstitutional as applied and the indictment must be dismissed. An example of this is United States v. Popa, 187 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In Popa, the defendant called the U.S. Attorney for D.C on the telephone several times, and each time would hurl insults at the U.S. Attorney without identifying himself. He was charged under 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C), and raised a First Amendment defense. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Ginsburg reversed the conviction: punishing the speech violated the Supreme Court's First Amendment test in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), he reasoned, such that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to those facts.

[Goober5000]

Pah.  Being unconstitutional seldom stops the Supreme Court.  Look at Kelo v. New London, for instance.