Only in America

[Rich]

Hey Josey, I'm gonna have you arrested

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news

 

[Newman]

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.

So, if you don't want GWB to put you in jail, you'd better send a picture of yourself and give us your real age.

 

[jsanders]

Hey Josey, I'm gonna have you arrested

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news

This will probably not stand up to judicial review.

The telephone is active while the internet is passive. Email may be a different thing though.

And the civil law on slander has always been in effect.

 

[Rich]

This will probably not with stand up to judicial review.

But it's been passed as a law, are you saying your courts don't uphold the law?

 

[selenau837]

Hey, I can't see it. Can you post some of it here? Sounds interesting from the statments made here.

 

[jsanders]

But it's been passed as a law, are you saying your courts don't uphold the law?

Are you asking me for a description of our legal system?

I have a feeling you already know this, but you're testing me.

 

[ColinEssex]

But it's been passed as a law, are you saying your courts don't uphold the law?

Not if you've got enough money to grease a few palms, like Wacko Jacko

Col

 

[Rich]

Are you asking me for a description of our legal system?

Yes......................................

 

[Kraj]

Yes......................................

Here, try reading this handy table. Apparently the million times it's been explained to you within these forums have been no help, so maybe another source will sink in.

Not if you've got enough money to grease a few palms, like Wacko Jacko

Too bad you weren't on the jury. There wouldn't have been any need for the defense to point out a lack of any evidence of wrongdoing, you could have skipped right to finding him guilty

 

[Rich]

Here, try reading this handy table. Apparently the million times it's been explained to you within these forums have been no help, so maybe another source will sink in.

Actually it's never been explained to me, let's see if I've got this correct in simple terms.
You guys elect a government to make laws and then a gazillion other people who haven't been elected get to decide whether it's actually legal?

 

[jsanders]

Actually it's never been explained to me, let's see if I've got this correct in simple terms.
You guys elect a government to make laws and then a gazillion other people who haven't been elected get to decide whether it's actually legal?

Defined as constitutional.
All law must to have its bases in the constituion.

 

[Rich]

Defined as constitutional.
All law must to have its bases in the constituion.

I see, so what's to stop an ammendment?

 

[jsanders]

I see, so what's to stop an ammendment?

I reckon that radification thing is a little hard to get by.

 

[Kraj]

Actually it's never been explained to me,

Lucky for you, since 90% of the old posts are gone you get the benefit of the doubt on this one.

let's see if I've got this correct in simple terms.
You guys elect a government to make laws and then a gazillion other people who haven't been elected get to decide whether it's actually legal?

Well if you were going for your trademark oversimplification, you did a good job. Let's break this down...

You guys elect a government

Actually, the women help some too. If by "government" you are referring to the officials and officers who hold governmental positions, then 'yes'.

to make laws

Making laws is one of the many functions of the various governmental bodies, yes.

and then a gazillion other people who haven't been elected get to decide whether it's actually legal?

As far as I'm aware, the only judges in the country who are not elected are the United States Supreme Court justices, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress, and some state supreme court justices. So, if you're under the impression that all judges are appointed, you are mistaken. However, the judges that are responsible for determining whether a law is Constitutional (whether on a state or federal level) are the supreme court justices, so you're sort of right in that respect. The number of these judges is relatively small, however.

The purpose of this system is to prevent any one individual or group from wielding too much power. Congress has the power to make and change laws, but if those laws contradict the Constitution (ie., the supreme source of law), then the Courts have the power to prevent that law from being enforced.

 

[Rich]

I reckon that radification thing is a little hard to get by.

well you banned that evil alcohol simply enough
so it's actually fair to say that you're governed today by a set of laws that were formed in the middle ages?

 

[jsanders]

well you banned that evil alcohol simply enough
so it's actually fair to say that you're governed today by a set of laws that were formed in the middle ages?

Yeah Rich,
Kinda like you guys.

 

[Kraj]

so it's actually fair to say that you're governed today by a set of laws that were formed in the middle ages?

Did I miss something? The late 18th century is considered the Middle Ages now?

 

[Rich]

As far as I'm aware, the only judges in the country who are not elected are the United States Supreme Court justices, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress, and some state supreme court justices. .

If the President can get his choice past congress, presumably

The purpose of this system is to prevent any one individual or group from wielding too much power. Congress has the power to make and change laws, but if those laws contradict the Constitution (ie., the supreme source of law), then the Courts have the power to prevent that law from being enforced

but surely even you agree that supreme source is centuries out of date?
Also this very law that brought about this thread in the first place must surely by definition be a breach of the first ammendment?

 

[Rich]

The late 18th century is considered the Middle Ages now?

Only in modern societies

 

[Kraj]

If the President can get his choice past congress, presumably

That's what the phrase "confirmed by Congres" meant.

but surely even you agree that supreme source is centuries out of date?

I don't agree. I think that 99% of the material in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is relevant and important. Part of what makes the Constitution a remarkable document is its built-in ability to change and adapt. When times change, the law can change with them and still preserve its foundation. It's the people in this country who are responsible for changing things; the document isn't out of date - we are.

Also this very law that brought about this thread in the first place must surely by definition be a breach of the first ammendment?

Yes and no. It depends on how it is enforced. The First Ammendment guarantees the right to freedom of expression, but there are limits. Harrassment, incitement, disturbing the peace, obscenity, defamation and abuse are all forms of expression that are not protected or have limited protection.

It appears the purpose of this law is prevent laws against harassment, libel, etc., from being circumvented via the Internet. To me, that seems reasonable. If, however, the intention is to force everyone to identify themselves regardless of the content they are posting then that is an indiscriminate invasion of privacy.