BF2S Forums Bad News for trolls everywhere!

since when is 'annoy' a real legal term?
they're right when they say it's a fuzzy definition.. bloody hell.

That's stupid.  I've heard of some stupid laws, but this beats them all.  I like America, except for some just plain idiotic laws.  Did you know it's illegal to spit on sidewalks on Friday?  Fun fact.  Wait, I'm complaining.  Complaining = Annoying.  Annoying on internet = 2 years in jail and a big fine.

I'll just plead self-defence.  Or insanity.  Yea.

And EVERYONE would end up in the clink.

atlvolunteer wrote:

That is a bunch of bullshit.  Based on that law, people on this forum could sue each other because their posts annoyed them.

Maybe read up on the law before making an opinion?

TriggerHappy998 wrote:

Yeah, that's pretty fuckin' stupid...

This law is meant to prevent perverts from calling some girl using their computer voice device and harrassing her. I don't believe that's "fucking stupid" What's "fucking stupid" is that Cnet authors seem to be joining the big news reporters in sensationalizing boring news to get readers engaged in what is more or less the same old boring congressional laws.

atlvolunteer wrote:

M1-Lightning wrote:

atlvolunteer wrote:

That is a bunch of bullshit.  Based on that law, people on this forum could sue each other because their posts annoyed them.

Maybe read up on the law before making an opinion?

Well, according to the article:

It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

I assume the part in quotes is directly from the law.  Does that sound reasonable to you?

That law already existed for telephones. This new addition to an already exiting law is to cover computer telephones as well.

That is intended for voice activated telecommunications, not text on a message board.

This author is misleading people with the intent to get something stirred up for ratings. It's bull. Read the already existing law yourself:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html … -000-.html

and the new addition to it:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c … Yu:e96088:

M1-Lightning wrote:

atlvolunteer wrote:

M1-Lightning wrote:

Maybe read up on the law before making an opinion?

Well, according to the article:

It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

I assume the part in quotes is directly from the law.  Does that sound reasonable to you?

That law already existed for telephones. This new addition to an already exiting law is to cover computer telephones as well.

That is intended for voice activated telecommunications, not text on a message board.

This author is misleading people with the intent to get something stirred up for ratings. It's bull. Read the already existing law yourself:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html … -000-.html

and the new addition to it:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c … Yu:e96088:

I guess you saw my last post before I edited it.  I read both of those.  I did misconstrue that the first already had the amended writing. 
After reading it again, it looks like anyone who "uses any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy" is in violation of this law.  Would this be a correct interpretation? 
What exactly constitutes "uses any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy?"  Would someone posting a flame on this forum?  That sounds to me like "uses software that can be used to originate communications that are transmitted by the Internet without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."  Is that what the law was intended to protect against?  Probably not.  Will it be used to prosecute someone for something stupid like that?  I'd say yes.  You find any stupid or mis-worded law, and I'll bet you there is some asshole prosecutor out there who has misused it.

TriggerHappy998 wrote:

M1-Lightning wrote:

TriggerHappy998 wrote:

Yeah, that's pretty fuckin' stupid...

This law is meant to prevent perverts from calling some girl using their computer voice device and harrassing her. I don't believe that's "fucking stupid" What's "fucking stupid" is that Cnet authors seem to be joining the big news reporters in sensationalizing boring news to get readers engaged in what is more or less the same old boring congressional laws.

Excuse me for not being politically savvy.

Don't take it personal.

an·noy   Audio pronunciation of "annoy" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-noi)
v. an·noyed, an·noy·ing, an·noys
v. tr.

   1. To cause slight irritation to (another) by troublesome, often repeated acts.
   2. To harass or disturb by repeated attacks.


v. intr.

    To be annoying.

As a common term, sure - as a legal term??!!! WTF?

Synonyms: annoy, irritate, bother, irk, vex, provoke, aggravate, peeve, rile
These verbs mean to disturb or trouble a person, evoking moderate anger. Annoy refers to mild disturbance caused by an act that tries one's patience: The sound of the printer annoyed me.

Tries one's patience??? How about all the damn bunnyjumpers and dolphin-divers??? How about EA?

Stupid, stupid, stupid...

Somehow... First it sounds as dumb as the law, that in one state (forgot which) it got forbidden to make a tanga visible while ducking/proning -.- Isnt that idiotic? It was to prevent guys from raping women. SO: To prevent someone raping someone, all women should stop wearing tangas... (although hot pants get trendy now....)... Thats dumb... OK: This law is somewhat cleverer but its dumb in some way too...

Just another law that can't or wont be inforced . . Hell with our jails ALWAYS being over flowing with most non -criminals  :-) You won't being doing any real time . .let out in a matter of hours .. Its just another way our goverment will be strong arm robbing us .. As always. .

atlvolunteer wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

Bert10099 wrote:

That's stupid.  I've heard of some stupid laws, but this beats them all.  I like America, except for some just plain idiotic laws.  Did you know it's illegal to spit on sidewalks on Friday?  Fun fact.  Wait, I'm complaining.  Complaining = Annoying.  Annoying on internet = 2 years in jail and a big fine.

I'll just plead self-defence.  Or insanity.  Yea.

I think you are mistaken.  I'm not an attorney, but what State law are you talking about?  I've been around the US and the world and the only place on Earth that I know of where it is ill eagle to spit on the sidewalk with a $2500 fine is Singapore.

fdcp_elmo wrote:

the US already has stupid laws.
like in some states you may not pump your petrol yourself. someone working there must do that.
so this adds another one to the list of stupid laws...

Damn it feels good to be an European

Damn it feels good to be an American! There are stupid people that make stupid comments like you over here, too.  So tell me Bright One, what states is that a law... Right none. Period. There are gas stations that are only full-service, but it's your choice to drive across the street to a self-service station.  And to be fair and accurate every nation on Earth has some pretty stupid laws.
                                                            http://www.dumblaws.com/

Actually, Oregon requires that an attendant pump gas.  I thought it was the most fucked up thing I had ever seen when I went there for a business trip.  You can even read about it on the website you posted:
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/oregon/

New Jersey is the only other one. Complete ignorance in those states' legilatures. They have the right to abortions but no right to pump their own gas. O-K-A-Y idiots. They must attract idiots from all over America.