Being annoying on the internet is a FEDERAL CRIME

[iago]

If it gets worse than this, then I will step in and protest, but right now this law isn't a big deal.  It protects people from others that only want to cause harm and distress...  I see nothing wrong with that.

You're annoying me.  You're committing a felony.  Don't you see that possibility as a problem?

I think that some level of anarchy would benefit the world immensly.  Not so much anarchy, but Libertarian.  The government should get their nose out of private affairs where it doesn't belong. 

Woohoo, iago supports libertarianism. I didn't know you were that cool.

I think that libertarianism definitely has potential.  Why should the government get involved in places where it doesn't belong?  To each his own. 

[AntiVirus]

If it gets worse than this, then I will step in and protest, but right now this law isn't a big deal.  It protects people from others that only want to cause harm and distress...  I see nothing wrong with that.

You're annoying me.  You're committing a felony.  Don't you see that possibility as a problem?

I think that some level of anarchy would benefit the world immensly.  Not so much anarchy, but Libertarian.  The government should get their nose out of private affairs where it doesn't belong. 

Woohoo, iago supports libertarianism. I didn't know you were that cool.

I think that libertarianism definitely has potential.  Why should the government get involved in places where it doesn't belong?  To each his own. 

It can become a problem easily if they use it wrong.  But, the person wouldn't win the courtcase if they do accuse someone of doing that wrongfully.  And if they do by some chance win it, they too could just get accused, which would teach them.

Sure, I think it's some what of a problem that it could be that easy to get introuble, but I am sure the government has or will recognize this and eventually fix it.

[iago]

It can become a problem easily if they use it wrong.  But, the person wouldn't win the courtcase if they do accuse someone of doing that wrongfully.  And if they do by some chance win it, they too could just get accused, which would teach them.

Sure, I think it's some what of a problem that it could be that easy to get introuble, but I am sure the government has or will recognize this and eventually fix it.

So assuming that the Judge understands the technology and the implications, the law isn't very dangerous. 

Now, can you find me a Judge who understands technology?  I can't, at least, not around here.

[AntiVirus]

Lol, one of these days.  Technology is moving too fast for the law to catch up.  But, if the judge and jury are going to be fair they will have to learn more. :)

[Chavo]

Presenting the information necessary to make an informed decsion is the entire point of having lawyers in a trial/hearing.  How else can you expect a Judge or jury to make the correct decision in any case not directly related to their expertise.

Maybe they do things differently in Canada, but I find this

Now, can you find me a Judge who understands technology?  I can't, at least, not around here.

comment a bit naive. (no insult intended)

[iago]

I guess I'm the only one who's had to work directly with judges and technology.  They aren't fond of it at all, at least, not here.

[Chavo]

I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion, I talk to the Supreme Justice of Kansas on a regular basis.

[iago]

I did IT Security for the government.  The Judges were always the #1 most annoying group to do security before, because they know nothing about technology.  It's hard to explain, but I assure you that, around here, they were very anti-technology :P

[Chavo]

I feel sorry for you then. :)

[AntiVirus]

I feel sorry for you then. :)

Me too.  Because Ich leibe dich. :)