An Annoying Article

The geniuses in Congress, along with His Imperial Majesty King George W. Bush, have fired another salvo in the War on Freedom. I was first alerted to this jewel of legislative brilliance by a well written article in NEWS.COM. I could not help but investigate further. Buried in a bill recently signed into law, the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act," is a little clause that will make things very interesting for believers in the first amendment to our Constitution. For those who want to look this up, it is in Section 113.

Allow me to quote:

Whoever
(1) in interstate or foreign communications
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and(ii) initiates the transmission of,any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and(ii) initiates the transmission of,any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (emphasis mine)

What, exactly, do these idiots mean by the phrase "with intent to annoy?" I pulled up a dictionary to make sure I was still using the same English I was educated in as a boy, and found the following:

an·noy v., -noyed, -noy·ing, -noys.
1. To cause slight irritation to (another) by troublesome, often repeated acts.2. To harass or disturb by repeated attacks.

In other words, if I slightly irritate or disturb some jackass(es) with an article on this blog there is the potential for jail time and/or a a fine, as long as I do not identify myself. If I put my identity on the article, though, I am still free to annoy anyone that I want. I know that I am not the only one that sees a problem with this. The way I read the first amendment is that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It does not say "unless the speaker neglects to tell everyone who they are first." I am amazed and astounded. Political speech is frequently annoying to the people in power and the reason that "Anonymous" writes so many pamphlets and posts so many blogs is that "Anonymous" wishes to express dissatisfaction without fear of reprisal or harassment.

Who is going to decide what is "indecent" and "annoying?" Why, prosecuting attorneys of course. That makes me feel a great deal safer, as our legal system is stuffed full with ambulance chasing attorneys and politically correct judges who absolutely live for this sort of thing.


Typical Congressmen

Let me be more expressive:

Our Government is a collection of slack-jawed, drooling, mongoloid knuckle-dragging half-wits who couldn't pour piss out of a boot even if there were instructions on the heel. There, is that annoying enough?

Phelonius Jehosephat Blatherskite
111 UpYerAss Street
Anywhere, US 11111