1 You made the fatal mistake of assuming that the 534 other congresscritters actually read the legislation they voted for. Mheh.

2 Well, I'm ready to get rid of whoever is in office who couldn't see their way clear to pointing out such utter nonsense... I mean, like, replace through the election process. Honestly, I need help. Can someone tell me a reasonable scenario explaining how legislation this stupid didn't get laughed off the hill? How did we come to this?

3 At the very least, you should read the text before you get all worked up. Eugene V. may be correct about the ultimate interpretation, although I doubt it. Given that the law explicitly excludes "interactive computer services" from the "telecommunication device" definition, and the new subparagraph just as explicitly must be constructed consistently with that exclusion, it's hard to argue that the law could ever be used to apply to online interactions. But never mind that, for the moment. The intent was to do nothing more than ensure VOIP phone calls weren't exempt from the restriction. Otherwise, people could make obscene phone calls over the internet with impunity. (leaving aside, for the moment, why we're so worked up about banning them to begin with.) More info here, and there's a second entry with more info linked at the bottom.

4 Vote every one of the sons-O-bitches out I say. From now on, I'm not voting for anyone on a party ticket.

5 Cal: Well, it's hard to work up a good self-righteous head of steam if people keep pumping in icewater. But Volokh seems to think that "interactive" doesn't cover blogs, and since he's a law prof it's hard to just dismiss what he's saying on the grounds that he doesn't understand the legislation. What "B" seems to refer to is an exemption for the service (and/or software) provider, not for the anonymous person posting the message. And again, not being a legal eagle I gotta go with what the law prof says. And he even expands on those comments here.

6 Anyway Cal, if Eugene is wrong then this legislation simply doesn't cover "one to many" communication, and his objections aren't relevant. But if the wording is so confusing that it's causing Volokh to drop all the loose change from his topsy-turvy pockets then it would seem to be ill crafted, at best. So why don't they have a "Violence Against Men" act? Or at least a "Violence Against Over-Educated Men?"

7 Specter is still a senile old fart. And many of those in the House and Senate really don't read the text of these bills before they sign off on them. There's far too much mumbo-jumbo in the text of this bill to make any sense at all to me. I'm an bookkeeper, not a lawyer. And the fact that there are so many others, well versed in law, arguing over the merits or demerits of it is proof enough of its confusing wording. The intent may be benign, but I think it just boils down to some worrying about the chance of an over-zealous litigator twisting this to the advantage of someone who simply gets "annoyed" somewhere down the line. Annoying is a subjective word. With this new development, it's a good thing Tex at Whackingday is in Australia.

8 ABOUT ITALY Still now I can't read in conservatives italian newspapers, the true question about the post communist holding system, called Cooperative LEGACOOP. Nevertheless it was a very big trouble, last summer, when the postcommunist party insurance company UNIPOL tried to buy one of the most important italian bank, the BNL, against the spanish Bank of Bilbao. The governor of Bankitalia (Bank of Italy), Antonio Fazio was part of the war, trying to help the Unipol, that is linked to the first postcommunist bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena (the oldest bank of the world born in 1472). UNIPOL got 20 billion euros last year, but BNL is bigger a lot. Strange case. Now the jump to Unipol is broken, the management of Unipol is impeached for many crimes (the top manager Mr. Consorte had 50 millions euros in a Swiss bank). The DS, the post communist party, is accused to have the biggest conflict of interest, bigger than the Berlusconi conflict. In fact, if the mr. Berlusconi tv broadcast Mediaset (3 channels) has 5600 workers, the red cooperatives have 500.000 workers! Moreover the DS is allied to the mr. Prodi (the ex UE President) party, the Margherita Party, linked with an other holding of cooperatives, named CONFCOOPERATIVE. Both all the leftist cooperatives have ONE MILLION WORKERS, billing every year 100 BILLION EUROS OF SALES. But is not this the true question of the postcommunist power. The fact is that almost all municipalities and provinces and italian regions (the some of the single states for USA) are in hands of DS and MArgherita parties. So they can give jobs and work public orders to the cooperatives holding. So thousands of mayors, councillors, and members of regional councils, may lawfully give money to their parties, their parents and friends working in the cooperatives, that do every thing: facilities, roads, buildings, social welfare, supermarkets, upkeeps... Italy may be conquered by this system, that improve the old leninist State capitalism. What gloomy prospects! PAOLO DELLA SALA LINKS http://www.leguerrecivili.splinder.com/1123860856#5473174 http://leguerrecivili.splinder.com/1136934338#6817879

9 Oyster The real problem with this is that its easily open to abuse or better yet "legal harrassment". Someone - anyone files a complaint - well er - let a court decide! Next - you need a lawyer - and lawyers are expensive. How it proceeds from there is more often dependent on your financial and legal resources. Stupid cases will be prosecuted! Why - why not! - more often than not justice is just an indifferent assembly line and everybody gets paid reguardless. A DA will pursue a stupid case - win/lose - so what - its nothing more than a boxscore to them 20W 10L 2T

10 I'm pretty sure that's what I said. ;-) You just elaborated on it more.