will we still be able to mangle poster names?
Last year’s model, it would appear! 
So, since I’m not anonymous, I can continue to annoy and abuse people as much as I like?
See, where others are seeing a problem, I see an opportunity … Frustrated Pit dwellers! For only a small, reasonable, fee, I will undertake to hurl invective at the targets of your choice, on your behalf!
Sample rates (sliding scale according to the severity of the insult)
Weenie … $1
Big poopyhead … $5
Twatgoblin … $10
Goatfelching asswad … $25
Jackbooted Nazi Communist thug (mods only) … $50
Republican … $1,000
Note to Mods: it’s a joke, already!
Nope. It’s MPSIMS, after all. Other prohibited behaviors include telling non-governmentally approved jokes and any use of the word “assface”.
Fuck! I mean “gol-dern it anyhow”.
this’ll take some getting used to.
It’s probably cliché, but I’m always reminded of the old Lenny Bruce line: “If you can’t say ‘fuck’, you can’t say ‘Fuck the government!’.”
Now, will it magically become possible to ‘annoy’ the corporate person known as the US Government for the purposes of the enforcement of this bill?
Sig line? Please?
How much for Knucklefucker?
Of course. One never has to ask to put my words of wisdom in their sig. Shit, if this was my board it would be mandatory.
Your wish is my command.
What’s that you got on your nose, there?
Jackboot polish, I think.
Actually, I think the law IS intended to prevent certain kinds of abuse on message boards.
For example, let’s say you ask a female co-worker out and she refuses you. You get all freaked out about it, and seek revenge. A friend of a friend informs you that she goes by the SDMB username “GalPal”, and maybe gives you a few choice personal details about her. So you log on to the SDMB, and start following her from thread to thread, leaving messages like, “Why don’t you tell them about your abortion, Galpal? Why don’t you tell them that you got fired from your last job?”
Galpal throws a fit, calls the cops, and they look up the law. Hmmn… If this person knows you, this is stalking behaviour. We’ll subpoena the Reader’s records, and find out… Oh, what do you know! It’s that co-worker you rejected three months ago. Book 'em, Danno.
Isn’t that what this law is actually trying to do? After all, how else can you harass someone on the internet, if it’s not in a place where you can post public comments? I suppose you could set up an anonymous blog as well, but it seems to me that it’s exactly this type of behaviour that this law is addressing. And that there’s been at least a couple of situations on the SDMB over the years that might have fallen under this law.
Not that I agree with it, mind you. I find it rather apalling, especially as it is worded. And I agree that it’ll never stand constitutional muster.
As an aside, there are too many laws passed like this - laws that are passed to curry favor with voters, with everyone in Washington knowing it’s a meaningless law because it’s clearly unconstitutional. Meaningless, that is, except for the people who get caught up in it the first time and have to initiate the constitutional challenge.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with a law against abuse/harrasment, Sam Stone. It’s that little word “annoy” that gets people. You can hardly turn around on the Internet without annoying someone these days, sometimes even unintentionally.
Insulting me annoys me.
Enjoy your time in the crowbar hotel, felon!