More on the annoying bill
Michele has more on the bill that bans annoyance on the internet (i.e., it doesn’t). She notes that the bill was taken out of context and that the version being quoted is an older (by two years) version of the bill. In short, the news source screwed the pooch and we bloggers ran with it.
I still disagree that the purpose of the language quoted was to deal with cyberstalking. I think it was to apply the same rules as standard phones to internet telephone. Of course, that may be what congress thinks cyberstalking is.
Additionally, she didn’t have a very happy SayUncle experience. She writes:
So what do you think happened when this itty bitty blogger tried to correct the record and point out the erroneous information? Well, lets just say I got some less than civil guests that wound up in my inbox, and I’ve spent close to an hour getting rid of them. Thank God for delete buttons. Unfortunately, contrary to their misguided belief, there’s not a darned thing I can do about that. Nope, according to the legislation their has to be at minimum, “substantial harassment”, at the maximum there has to be a level of consistent threat “to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State”.
Sorry you had a bad experience but odds are that the emails you got didn’t come from a reader here. See, the comments section here (as a favor to commenters) doesn’t display email addresses. I gave her page a quick glance (including searching the code for a mailto tag) and found no email contact info there. And commenters here, though direct and sometimes smarmy, are usually quite civil. That’s something I’m rather proud of, actually. I don’t think they’d send you nasty emails even if they had access to your email address, which they don’t. I doubt those emails were the result of a comment left here. As such, I find the accusation baseless.
That said, if any of you guys did send her nasty emails, that’s not nice.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
This annoys me on two levels. First the charge that some bloggers like myself jumped the gun. One commenter on a blog wrote ,” In any event, I agree that there has been a lot of unnecessary sound and fury over this.”
Unnecessary sound and fury? How is being vigilant protecting civil rights and personal liberty unnecessary sound and fury?
A major news source printed a story of how personal liberties were threatened and we noticed and responded. Mission accomplished. That is a good thing. We did not write the original news story. Exactly how have we done anything wrong or “unnecessary”?
The mistake is too not respond, to ignore, and to hope for the best. There was nothing unnecessary in the response.
Second annoyance. Michelle gives the impressions that hundreds of negative “less than civil guests” flooded her email inbox. She wrote it took her “almost an hour to delete them.” She gives the impression she did not read them. How did these people find her email address? It is nowhere on her website. She gives the impression that her email address came from SayUncle. I take umbrage at what she implies. That did not happen.
For someone that pays such strict attention to detail is she exaggerating the number of emails she received? The comments at SayUncle were civil and her implication is exaggerated in my opinion. Watch your “facts” Michelle.
I find your implications of misdeeds from SayUncle to be “unnecessary” and annoying. As you wrote Michelle on your website, “If you wish to use/quote those words, proceed at your own ignorance.”
January 12th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
#9, I think that bloggers did indeed jump the gun. Just because you see a story in the MSM doesn’t mean you should turn your BS detector off. Think of President Dewey, co-Presidents Bush & Gore, unemployed German girls forced into prostitution, and those 12 miners who miraculously survived last week’s tragedy. IMNSHO, a blogosphere that eagerly gobbles up every too-good-to-be-true MSM story hook, line and sinker is not a blogosphere worth having.
January 12th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
I don’t think that was a “too-good-to-be-true MSM story hook”. Neither did I consider the source to be MSM.
My sarcasm detector may not be working today. Are you serious?
January 12th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
I was being slightly sarcastic with the word “good,” in the sense that Declan M.’s hallucinations, if true, would not be a good thing. It would be a “good” story, though, which is the sense of goodness I was talking about. And yes, this story did smack of “too good/bad to be true” from the beginning. At least, that was my initial gut reaction upon reading about it here.
January 12th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
[…] The Say Uncle posts are here, here, and here […]
January 12th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Thanks Standard Mischief.
I don’t see the slam dunk that Michelle and Xrlq see.
As far as I can understand the jury is still out on what this bill really means.
http://standardmischief.com/2006/01/12/why-there-ought-to-be-a-law/
http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=st.num
January 16th, 2006 at 12:08 am
I have personally met Michele and can vouch for her credibility.
As much as I value your opinions and often agree with you #9, I feel you are incorrect here.
She’s not stretching “facts”. Her experiences are real.
I sent a letter to the editor of news.com voicing my displeasure for the inaccuracies of the original article.
I’m posting my opinion here, stating my displeasure at your willingness to accept one man’s opinion, but disbelief of one woman’s experience.
She’s a good woman. She’d have your back in a second if you were right.
January 16th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Jon, she sent me an email and now thinks that those emails came from some other site. More to come.
January 16th, 2006 at 12:42 am
Thanks.
The part the annoys me, pardon the pun, is the feeling that I had a hand in “starting” the whole thing.
I’m sure you’ve had that pinch in your gut. How do you deal with it?
January 16th, 2006 at 10:07 am
[…] First, in an update to this, Michele emails me to let me know that she thinks those emails came from another site and apologized. Cool. Thanks. She also provides some perspective on why she’s supportive of the bill as written. […]