So how do we hold Congress accountable for the little games they play?

michele Says: Yet another case of bloggers who don’t read and instead regurgitating erroneous opinions based on erroneous information. The result: a major disservice to the public and winding up looking like the unreliable sources of information they are.

Uh… what Uncle said, and…

Like I said yesterday, there was no debate on this little gem, it was slipped in to a must pass bill. Not very nice. It’s suppose to be “by and for the people”, remember? I’ve linked to this little article by Claire before, but damn if it keeps coming in handy. Check out this-

http://billstclair.com/lodge/E_LandMines.shtml

Second, you’ve got “annoy” entirely too near “up to 2 years in jail”. Think about that that a little bit. Like Nate said the other day, get busted for annoying someone somehow however broadly this is applied (hint, think RICO) and as far as the government is concerned, you lose your RKBA forever. (Unless you’re as rich and connected as Mark Rich.)

Uncle: Now that it has been pretty well demonstrated that McCullagh is full of crap, dontcha think an update to this post might be in order?

The more I think about it, this my be the stupidest thing I have seen in recent memory.

Remember the line item veto.

Arlen Spector is a cocksucker. Not just this idiotic bill, but him personally. He is ugly too.

What Clinton did is illegal. If it’s law, then it needs to be enforced. “Selective enforcement” has worked so well with regard to the illegal immigration issues…..

Good points Huffman.

I remember when Levin was interviewed regarding the portions of the DCMA that were challenged. Paraphrasing from memory; ‘Well, we need to push the limits of what we can control.” I was shocked. So much so that I can still see the interview.

Infuriating.

And this is my name, but my e-mail isn’t.
Not everyone’s name is unique. How can such a law be enforced without complete - perfect - identification systems on Al Gore’s Internets?

Morons.

/kicking things

What I want to know is how anyone thinks this makes sense. If you are anonymous then there is no way they can catch you unless you confess and, assuming the 5th Amendment still holds any weight, you can’t be forced to confess. If they can track you down then you aren’t anonymous and you haven’t comitted any crime.

http://www.anonymizer.com/

Regardless, this is hardly a legitimate delegated authority of government. It seems to me bloggers are free to allow or disallow comments, anonymous or otherwise, including monitoring of same.

God forbid the parasites should let the free market work things out without anybody coercing or threatening anybody else.

I volunteer for $135k/year.

I’m an anono-blogger, and I’m not worried.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he’d realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he’d repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Sure would be nice if Presidents did take their oath of office seriously, but that doesn’t seem to have happened in the several decades. And Clinton signing the bill while explicitly recognizing that it is not in accord with the u.S. Constitution is just one more black mark against him; all he did was leave it there for some other low life to use at a future date.

That ‘awkward time’ seems to be coming closer and closer to an end.