Better be careful...

I guess that puts me in good company. Yuk! Yuk!

there is NOTHING in your right to free speech that also guarantees you ANY "right" to remain anonymous WHILE you are exersising this free speech.

The law just says you have to identify yourself, not that you can't still be your annoying self. :D

So much for a "clear violation".

Amazing what people THINK their "rights" are.

If so we can get rid of a lot of the politicians with this.lol

Importantly, does this law apply to people who are outside the USA, and how do they (the law writers) justify applying a law to people who 1/. have no need to know or understand USA laws, and 2/. probably have no idea that the recipient is in the USA?

And does the law apply to USA citizens who are annoying people outside the USA?

I am in Australia and have no need to know or understand USA laws, nor do I have any idea of where the people I am communicating with are physically located unless they take the trouble to tell me. Thus in a chat room or general Internet communication I do not know where the recipient is, and thus can not be held responsible for violating any local law than I am not aware of.

go out and find and link to this "right".

I will try to do the same.

Otherwise it is just pissing in the wind with nothing but opinions, and two intelligent individuals would never want to be reduced to that, now would they?

"maths" isn't common usage anywhere in the U.S. I know plenty of Ivy Leaguers and have never once heard them utter it.

I stand by my annoying comment.

Sometimes wording like this is left in a bill so that it will inevitably be found to be ambiguous, vague, overly broad, or unconstitutional by the courts. The bill's sponsors are happy because it gets passed; the opponents are happy because it's unenforceable.

Heck... why not say the sky is falling.

"maths" is VERY common language within United States, in fact Germany and Russia use the termonology almost on a daily basis.

It's not only a fact, but I, personally, have grown up around the termonology "maths", being that my grandfather / father were phycisits.

If any individual, whom used such termonology, were considered an imbecile, you best review your colleagues.

Drop the soap! :p

And what will we have a "Web Restraining Order" You can't go with 100 Octet's of the other person's IP address.....When is the Federal Gov't or any Gov't going to realize that they can't control the Internet? Let the Feds play with their little toy's and do their little word searches. It is hilarious when you see a demo and these folk's get all excited that they can scan a database and extract data....Between Al Gore that created the Internet and Feds that think they need to police it we will be fine.

I would really like to this law in the book, where it is and who passed it. I have heard reference to it on many occasions but have never seen a text on it. I believe it to be more urban myth than truth.

Laws that have to do with identifying yourself before you insult someone have always sounded a little "Big Brother" to me. I would really like someone who quotes such a law to be able to provide copy of the thing, or not comment on it at all. Just because someone else brings it up before you doesn't mean it is true and legitimate and I think that's what carries it on.

So, you are right: Do you have to provide proof? No... Should you? Yes.

Had you asked me nicely to provide the link, I would have. Instead of a request, you made a demand. The tone of your post seemed to me to suggest that I shouldn't post anything unless I play by your rules. I don't respond well to that type of overbearing behavior.

Find it yourself. Or continue believing it's an urban legend. Either way makes absolutely no difference to me.

that is an old an obsolete cliche.... Was great in clearence darrows days. but now days before a judge makes decisions, they always take it under advisement. and research it. So if that can be applied to a layman then why would a learned schollar of the law have to research.

.....or operating a computer under the influence??

These kind of liberal puke laws are why our forefathers thought we may need the right to keep and bear arms!!!

Wake up America!!

'liberals' who signed off on this law.

Another fine example of why we need term limits in Congress.

Things that jump out at me (but I am not a lawyer):
* I think this might be hard to prove depending on how a court interprets the phrase "with intent."
* It could be argued that giving a registered alias is "disclosing his identity."
* "his ... person" ??? This law only applies to men?
* Where in the first amendment does it say I must identify myself when I express my opinion?

NOTICE: This post is NOT intended "to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person." :-)

Just a note to report in Italy you will be sued if you contact a person, within or without the internet, lacking to show you identity thus giving no option to the recipient to refuse the communication. Of course you cannot either do everything even after saying who you are: for istance more than three phone calls in a day are said to be an abuse and so do calls during the night. No legislation exists as yet about email or IM messages.

I made some extensive search on the subject whan a past gf (who else?) challanged me to sue me for stalking if I did not stop trying to contact her... :-)

Use anonymous servers via a web cafe for that extra-special message.

"Annoy" is a subjective state. Just getting an email is annoying. That one can never be proven. Abuse, threats and harrassment, on the other hand, are certainly more evident...

I find this completely interesting, yet still, throughout my search, insufficient?, I have yet to dig up any "Official" documentation regarding this new law.

The reporter from Cnet, at this point, never provided factual evidence. Besides, taking this so-called "new law" out of context.

http://epic.org/ would also have been on top of this topic.

LOL!!! Sounds like if I am going to keep sending my e-mail replies to SPAMMERS telling them I am coming to murder them I better sign my name to it! LOL!!!

Looks simple enough, right? If you go to harass, don't forget to disclose.

High school deb #1: OMG, have you seen harass lately? It's getting so big, I heard she gets 2 rides to school each day.

High school deb #2: You better remember that new law. If you're gonna harass, you need to dis close.

Deb #1: That's so like an easy one. Tell me she did not wear those shoes with that dress?

#2: OMG, finally...a law ment for people like us. That must be where the word government comes from, huh? ;-)

M

Smell or the lack thereof, bathing or not, popular vs unpopular, add to that list the annoyance of those who slaughter spelling. Can't there be a prison term for that? I'm being victumized here!

If you don?t know who they are, how do you know who to take legal action against?

Since I'm a Canadian once again the US can take it's anti mp3 down loading no DVD copying anti privicy laws and the DRM and shove this up there with them.The rest of you have an awesome day.
PS Land of the Free (Yeah Right)

Most people attempt to communicate with their government with the intent to inform or persuade. It's unfortunate that the only ways that seem to get their attention is to either 'attack' them, or wave insane amounts of money at them. Since I don't have any money, the only other alternative is to be annoying enough that they notice and appease me; but not so annoying that they are emotionally placed in fear of their lives. For that purpose, I want them to know EXACTLY who I am.

Now if I have a problem with an employer that isn't amenable to resolution within the workplace; the only alternatives are to leave (which may be severely detrimental) or to be annoying enough on the outside to bring pressure to change. This tactic will not work if the employer knows who you are (since most if not all of use work 'at will'. You'll be let go, putting you in the same detrimental situation. Similar situations exist when things you need are provided only by local monopolies that you can't afford to personally antogonize.

I really object to your stereotypical assumption that orange is not a flattering color. I wear orange almost every day, and I am sick and tired of people criticizing my taste in clothes.

For that matter, I also object to how you have objectified me by your comment about 'flattering'. You may think it is OK to judge people only on their physical appearance, but many people find that sort of elitist (and probably sexist) attitude very annoying.

And while I'm at it, it just burns me that you think everyone who posts out here is as annoying as you are. As if! You may have to worry about going to jail, but that certainly doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Boy, what nerve! I hope the police, or the FBI, or whoever it is who reads all these posts for annoying language gets over to your house right away! That'll show you to annoy ME!