{OT} anonymous flaming illegal

By Declan McCullagh
[url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022[/url]
491.html

Story last modified Mon Jan 09 04:00:00 PST 2006

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a
prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail
messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog
as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small
favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet,
is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and
two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv
Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
"What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet,
you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes 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, abuse, threaten, or harass any
person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title
18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit
called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone
harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

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. The plan:
to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by
voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House
approved in September had radically different wording. It was
reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive
computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely
annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write
something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors
wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring
pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to
send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying
about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed.
That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't
file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial
discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site,
says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane
postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said.
He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post
Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that
outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the
courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com
didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday.
"I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple
point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something
that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995
case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing
anonymous political pamphlets.

Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0eh1bzb5kew1l000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> By Declan McCullagh
> [url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022[/url][/color]

That'll never last. ACLU will have a field day

Natalie

In article <xn0eh1bzb5kew1l000@news.readfreenews.net>,
"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> By Declan McCullagh
> [url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022[/url]
> 491.html
>
> Story last modified Mon Jan 09 04:00:00 PST 2006
>
> Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
>
> It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a
> prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail
> messages without disclosing your true identity.
>
> In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog
> as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small
> favors, I guess.
>
> This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet,
> is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of
> Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and
> two years in prison.
>
> "The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv
> Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
> "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
>
> It's illegal to annoy
>
> A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet,
> you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
>
> "Whoever...utilizes 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, abuse, threaten, or harass any
> person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title
> 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
> Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit
> called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone
> harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without
> disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
>
> 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. The plan:
> to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
>
> The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by
> voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
>
> There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House
> approved in September had radically different wording. It was
> reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive
> computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
>
> That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely
> annoying someone be illegal?
>
> There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write
> something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
>
> Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors
> wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring
> pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to
> send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying
> about reprisals.
>
> In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed.
> That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't
> file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial
> discretion is hardly reassuring.)
>
> Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site,
> says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane
> postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
>
> "Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said.
> He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post
> Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"
>
> Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that
> outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the
> courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com
> didn't have to worry.
>
> "I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday.
> "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
>
> He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple
> point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something
> that annoys someone else.
>
> It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court
> Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995
> case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing
> anonymous political pamphlets.
>
> Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.[/color]

who do report annoyances to, the department of annoyances?
--
"Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit."

Vince Lombardi

In article <dpufmu.1to.1@news.evilcabal.org>,
"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958DIEspammersDIE@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0eh1bzb5kew1l000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=green]
> > By Declan McCullagh
> > [url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022[/url][/color]
>
> That'll never last. ACLU will have a field day
>
> Natalie[/color]

no question about it. This will keep the ACLU attorneys in work for at
least the next generation, LOL.
--
"Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit."

Vince Lombardi

The beneVolent dbu wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <xn0eh1bzb5kew1l000@news.readfreenews.net>,
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> By Declan McCullagh
>> [url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022[/url]
>> 491.html
>>
>> Story last modified Mon Jan 09 04:00:00 PST 2006
>>
>> Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
>>
>> It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a
>> prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying
>> e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
>>
>> In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a
>> blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for
>> small favors, I guess.
>>
>> This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of
>> Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and
>> Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties
>> include stiff fines and two years in prison.
>>
>> "The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv
>> Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
>> "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
>>
>> It's illegal to annoy
>>
>> A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet,
>> you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
>>
>> "Whoever...utilizes 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, abuse, threaten,
>> or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be
>> fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
>> Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit
>> called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone
>> harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without
>> disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
>>
>> 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. The
>> plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose
>> the measure.
>>
>> The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by
>> voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
>>
>> There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House
>> approved in September had radically different wording. It was
>> reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive
>> computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
>>
>> That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely
>> annoying someone be illegal?
>>
>> There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write
>> something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
>>
>> Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors
>> wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring
>> pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants
>> to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without
>> worrying about reprisals.
>>
>> In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed.
>> That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department
>> won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting
>> prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
>>
>> Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site,
>> says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane
>> postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
>>
>> "Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein
>> said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United
>> States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"
>>
>> Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act
>> that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy."
>> But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so
>> Annoy.com didn't have to worry.
>>
>> "I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on
>> Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
>>
>> He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple
>> point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something
>> that annoys someone else.
>>
>> It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court
>> Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a
>> 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing
>> anonymous political pamphlets.
>>
>> Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.[/color]
>
> who do report annoyances to, the department of annoyances?[/color]

Maybe directly to bush. He hasn't got anything else right, maybe he can
handle this. After a 'Video Professor' on how to use a computer, naturally.
"torture 'em, Geneva what?" Gonzales ought to first inform his boss that
Usenet isn't subject to US law - that is IF he knows.

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958DIEspammersDIE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dpufmu.1to.1@news.evilcabal.org...[color=blue]
>
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0eh1bzb5kew1l000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=green]
>> By Declan McCullagh
>> [url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022[/url][/color]
>
> That'll never last. ACLU will have a field day
>
> Natalie[/color]

Up here in Canada, anything goes!!! SO FUCK YOU ALL.
[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:12:13 GMT, The beneVolent dbu
<relaxand@smelltheroses.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <dpufmu.1to.1@news.evilcabal.org>,
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958DIEspammersDIE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xn0eh1bzb5kew1l000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=darkred]
>> > By Declan McCullagh
>> > [url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022[/url][/color]
>>
>> That'll never last. ACLU will have a field day
>>
>> Natalie[/color]
>
>no question about it. This will keep the ACLU attorneys in work for at
>least the next generation, LOL.[/color]

It'll only need one case to be overturned, necon.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

In article <dq08d4$6oo$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:12:13 GMT, The beneVolent dbu
> <relaxand@smelltheroses.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >In article <dpufmu.1to.1@news.evilcabal.org>,
> > "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958DIEspammersDIE@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:xn0eh1bzb5kew1l000@news.readfreenews.net...
> >> > By Declan McCullagh
> >> > [url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022[/url]
> >>
> >> That'll never last. ACLU will have a field day
> >>
> >> Natalie[/color]
> >
> >no question about it. This will keep the ACLU attorneys in work for at
> >least the next generation, LOL.[/color]
>
> It'll only need one case to be overturned, necon.[/color]

I'm going to report you to the department of annoyances. You'll spend 2
years in jail for annoying me.
--
"Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit."

Vince Lombardi

The beneVolent dbu, 1/10/2006, 8:10:21 AM,
<relaxand-A9ED70.07102110012006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm going to report you to the department of annoyances. You'll
> spend 2 years in jail for annoying me.[/color]

It won't work. He's the only one using his name.

--
"Any political party that includes the word 'democratic' in its name,
isn't." ~ Patrick Murray

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958DIEspammersDIE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dpufmu.1to.1@news.evilcabal.org...[color=blue]
>
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0eh1bzb5kew1l000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=green]
>> By Declan McCullagh
>> [url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022[/url][/color]
>
> That'll never last. ACLU will have a field day
>
> Natalie
>
>[/color]

ACLU - the organization that protects some parts of the constitution while
attacking other parts.

In article <BUHwf.80237$6K2.68724@edtnps90>, [email]sharx35@hotmail.com[/email] says...[color=blue]
>
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958DIEspammersDIE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dpufmu.1to.1@news.evilcabal.org...[color=green]
> >
> > "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:xn0eh1bzb5kew1l000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=darkred]
> >> By Declan McCullagh
> >> [url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022[/url][/color]
> >
> > That'll never last. ACLU will have a field day
> >
> > Natalie[/color]
>
> Up here in Canada, anything goes!!! SO FUCK YOU ALL.
> [color=green]
> >
> > [/color]
>
>
> [/color]
Likewise for the moment at least in the UK.
--
Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. [url]http://smallr.com/rz[/url]
Homepage: [url]http://www.bouncing-czechs.com[/url]

In article <xn0eh28ug5rbalz001@news.readfreenews.net>,
"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> The beneVolent dbu, 1/10/2006, 8:10:21 AM,
> <relaxand-A9ED70.07102110012006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > I'm going to report you to the department of annoyances. You'll
> > spend 2 years in jail for annoying me.[/color]
>
> It won't work. He's the only one using his name.[/color]

How do you know its his real name.

Hell my name is John Smith. No kidding.
--
"Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit."

Vince Lombardi

The beneVolent dbu, 1/10/2006, 11:04:17 AM,
<relaxand-BE5BB0.10041810012006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <xn0eh28ug5rbalz001@news.readfreenews.net>,
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > The beneVolent dbu, 1/10/2006, 8:10:21 AM,
> > <relaxand-A9ED70.07102110012006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > I'm going to report you to the department of annoyances. You'll
> > > spend 2 years in jail for annoying me.[/color]
> >
> > It won't work. He's the only one using his name.[/color]
>
> How do you know its his real name.
>
> Hell my name is John Smith. No kidding.[/color]

And I thought your name was David B. Unger...

--
"Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." ~
Flannery O'Connor

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:10:21 GMT, The beneVolent dbu
<relaxand@smelltheroses.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <dq08d4$6oo$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
> Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:12:13 GMT, The beneVolent dbu
>> <relaxand@smelltheroses.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >In article <dpufmu.1to.1@news.evilcabal.org>,
>> > "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958DIEspammersDIE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:xn0eh1bzb5kew1l000@news.readfreenews.net...
>> >> > By Declan McCullagh
>> >> > [url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022[/url]
>> >>
>> >> That'll never last. ACLU will have a field day
>> >>
>> >> Natalie
>> >
>> >no question about it. This will keep the ACLU attorneys in work for at
>> >least the next generation, LOL.[/color]
>>
>> It'll only need one case to be overturned, necon.[/color]
>
>I'm going to report you to the department of annoyances. You'll spend 2
>years in jail for annoying me.[/color]

Your claim of annoyance is annoying me. I call your two years, raise
you one more year and a $5,000 fine.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

In article <dq1cmk$5um$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:10:21 GMT, The beneVolent dbu
> <relaxand@smelltheroses.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >In article <dq08d4$6oo$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
> > Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:12:13 GMT, The beneVolent dbu
> >> <relaxand@smelltheroses.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <dpufmu.1to.1@news.evilcabal.org>,
> >> > "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958DIEspammersDIE@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:xn0eh1bzb5kew1l000@news.readfreenews.net...
> >> >> > By Declan McCullagh
> >> >> > [url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-60[/url]
> >> >> > 22
> >> >>
> >> >> That'll never last. ACLU will have a field day
> >> >>
> >> >> Natalie
> >> >
> >> >no question about it. This will keep the ACLU attorneys in work for at
> >> >least the next generation, LOL.
> >>
> >> It'll only need one case to be overturned, necon.[/color]
> >
> >I'm going to report you to the department of annoyances. You'll spend 2
> >years in jail for annoying me.[/color]
>
> Your claim of annoyance is annoying me. I call your two years, raise
> you one more year and a $5,000 fine.[/color]

Just for that you'll get one slap across the face and a $10000 fine. So
there!
--
"Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit."

Vince Lombardi