Gut Rumbles

January 09, 2006


Go read this, but keep a puke-bucket handy. Unless I'm missing some really important facts about the case, here's an example of a judge who needs to be dragged off and shot removed from the bench.

Of course, this simply cannot be the miscarriage of justice that it appears to be. It happened in the smartest state in the Union.

And just imagine what a "smart" judge could do with this piece of shit legislation. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can get you sent to prison if you anonymously "annoy" someone on the internet. I'd LOVE to see that punishment applied to a few trolls who visit me, but I still think it's terrible law. Define "annoy."

Besides--- if I had it to do over again, this blog would be written anonymously, for two very good reasons: It cost me my job and then was used against me by my ex-wife as evidence for a restraining order. I wish certain people didn't know who I am.

But I'll be damned if I'll write while trying to keep from annoying anybody. What's the fun in that?


Simple solution in the first case. Someone needs to find a way to let the people "on the inside" know what the creep did. They'll take care of the rest.

For the second, this one's a roundhouse bust in the chops of the freewheeling exchange of chat rooms, forums and the blogosphere. I'd love to see someone with the stature of organize lobbying of Congress to repeal this horseshit. It can't be allowed to stand as is.

Posted by: Desert Cat on January 10, 2006 01:23 AM

I don't like it either although it does force the assholes to identify themselves as assholes.

Seems to me it is a violation of free speech.

Posted by: GUYK on January 10, 2006 08:32 AM

This is scariest decision I've heard of in decades. I can't believe it's even constitutional.

Posted by: Libby on January 10, 2006 09:43 AM

I seriously doubt that it is. But it is up to us to make enough stink for the courts and the Congress to take seriously our concerns.

Posted by: Desert Cat on January 10, 2006 11:45 AM

Orin Kerr, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, discusses this. It turns out that any speech protected by the First Amendment would not be affected by this statute. His reasoning is based on case law relating to similar statutes. This is just another example of sloppy legislation by lazy and stupid legislators.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain

Posted by: Ernie G on January 10, 2006 01:00 PM

Yeah, this guy Kip Esquire says we're freaking out about nothing and that it doesn't apply to blogs. Maybe he trusts the nanny legislators to keep their nose out of our business but I sure don't trust that it won't be misapplied.

I mean look at this AP story. The gun enhancements in drug sentencing were supposed to protect the public from violent crime. Near as I can tell, this kid got about 50 extra years in jail for selling a couple of pounds of pot, simply because he OWNED guns, not because he used them to commit a crime. He didn't.

Posted by: Libby on January 10, 2006 01:21 PM

I wish for the judge to raped for three or four years, then he can come back and see if he changes his sentence. This is a travesty! Child rapists deserve death. No less.

Posted by: Florida Bill on January 10, 2006 02:04 PM

Anyone that violates a child should be hung by the neck.

No exceptions.

See how quick the molesting would curb. We, as a nation, are too soft on our criminals.

Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent on January 10, 2006 11:16 PM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.