Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Jersey Judge Shields Anonymous Blogger

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the keeping-hidden-agendas-hidden dept.

Censorship 61

netbuzz brings us an update to a case we discussed earlier this month: "In a widely watched free-speech case, a New Jersey judge has upheld a blogger's right to criticize county officials anonymously. The contention of those officials was that the blogger is actually a former mayor/attorney being sued by the local government for malpractice. This comes less than a month after the Electronic Frontier Foundation began their legal efforts to shield the blogger, claiming that the subpoena for Google to release his identity was 'part of an unrelated and unauthorized campaign to embarrass or otherwise outmaneuver the Defendant.' Score one for the First Amendment."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

About time the first amendment means something! (5, Interesting)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21790598)

I have been watching the world literally crash these days, with all the pointelss lawusits, people being sued/arrested for no reason, etc. I have just about lost hope. Finally, at least some victory! Our constitutional rights these days are so twisted that I do not see what could happen. The Internet should be a place where people can talk about themselves and how they feel about something without the fear of legal action. But they get sued and thrown in court like a common criminal for expressing their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. Why?

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (0)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21790646)

if this anonymous blogger speaks the truth about whom ever he is bad mouthing then that is just tough luck for those being put down, no law against bad news but if he is posting outright lies then he could be liable for slander...

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21791186)

if this anonymous blogger speaks the truth about whom ever he is bad mouthing then that is just tough luck for those being put down, no law against bad news but if he is posting outright lies then he could be liable for slander...

you suck

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791214)

Opinions are safe.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

robinsonne (952701) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791528)

Opinions are safe.

You must be new here...

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21791742)

You are 209831 newer than user WhatAmIDoingHere

Thanks for playing

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21791804)

You fail at subtraction, the difference is only 314.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21791972)

You fail at subtraction, the difference is only 314.


You're gonna have to show me your work on this one

  WhatAmIDoingHere (742870)

  robinsonne (952701)

$ bc
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
952701 - 742870
209831
quit

Your turn

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

cleatsupkeep (1132585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21792544)

Wasn't me posting, but here's how I see it:
by robinsonne (952701) Alter Relationship on Saturday December 22, @12:09PM (#21791528)
by WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) * Alter Relationship on Saturday December 22, @11:25AM (#21791214)
Given that the first 5 digits are the same:

528 - 214 = 314.
This should get me that job in the other article.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21793154)

Wasn't me posting, but here's how I see it:
by robinsonne (952701) Alter Relationship on Saturday December 22, @12:09PM (#21791528)
by WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) * Alter Relationship on Saturday December 22, @11:25AM (#21791214)
Given that the first 5 digits are the same:

528 - 214 = 314.
This should get me that job in the other article.
You fail. The subject was USER ids not POST numbers.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

cleatsupkeep (1132585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21793860)

Whoosh - I was explaining how the guy got the answer of 314 a couple of posts above - because he was comparing Post numbers and not user ID's.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21793972)

Whoosh - I was explaining how the guy got the answer of 314 a couple of posts above - because he was comparing Post numbers and not user ID's.
Oops!

*pulls out geek card*

*punches a hole in it*

A demerit off my card for missing the point. My bad,

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (3, Informative)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791204)

Well, if he/she is a blogger it would be libel, not slander. Libel is the written act of defamation, slander, the oral act of defamation. ;-)

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21791372)

Oh yeah?!? Well your Mom Orally defamed me last night - ALL NIGHT LONG!!!

Sorry, I got nothing.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

MerrickStar (981213) | more than 6 years ago | (#21792468)

be honest now, did you learn that from J. J. Jameson?

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 6 years ago | (#21792978)

Not exactly. Libel is published. Slander is transitory. If I were to go on a broadcast radio and say "JimDaGeek injects babies with ground pepper" that would be libel as it is published and presented to the world at large. If I were to send an instant message to someone I know with the same content, it would likely be slander. I'm not a lawyer, though.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (2, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21792986)

Well, if he/she is a blogger it would be libel, not slander. Libel is the written act of defamation, slander, the oral act of defamation. ;-)

OK smarty pants. What happens if I turn on my text-to-speech applet and listen to the guy?

Slander? Libel? Both?

My head asplode.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

TheoMurpse (729043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21793518)

slander, the oral act of defamation
Do you, by any chance, know what the anal act of defamation is? Defacation!

No, I didn't misspell it by accident.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21791218)

Well, NJ, NY and maybe San Francisco are the last places in the country that have moderate judges. The last 8 years of reactionary ultra-neo-conservative judges being installed is really screwing up our country for years to come.

First amendment does not prevent lawsuits ... (4, Informative)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791570)

... with all the pointelss lawusits ... The Internet should be a place where people can talk about themselves and how they feel about something without the fear of legal action.

The first amendment does not prevent lawsuits, it merely allows you to publish. You are still liable for what you publish, the laws regarding defamation, libel, slander, etc still apply. The responsibilities and liabilities that apply to paper and ink should apply to the internet as well. When there is sufficient evidence that such a crime/tort has been committed the court should require an ISP to provide information. The issue in this case is really whether such a crime/tort took place. Criticizing a government official for government actions is very different from those of a private person.

Re:First amendment does not prevent lawsuits ... (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791842)

You are right, and I don't take issue with anything you've said. It comes down to good judges doing a good job, and ensuring subpoenas are not issued in cases where a well-connected plaintiff is merely attempting to out a whistle-blower, or discredit a critic by digging up dirt that isn't relevant to the issue the blogger is criticizing.

Re:First amendment does not prevent lawsuits ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21792332)

No, it does prevent lawsuits and consequences except for the exceptions such as slander, libel, defamation et al. The first amendment would be useless if all it did was allow you to publish as in countries without the first amendment you can publish all you want. You just have to suffer the consequences of your action.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

sigzero (914876) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791860)

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees anonymous anything.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791884)

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees anonymous anything.


I don't think there is anything in it denying anonymity either, but it's not my constitution.

The default should always be to protect privacy/anonymity, unless there is evidence that a crime has been committed.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 6 years ago | (#21794794)

Nice to see a judge that has heard of the Constitution - Politicians have such busy lives, it's understandable they haven't heard of these things their founding fathers fought and died for.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#21795398)

Doug52392 is a well known pedophile in real life, I encourage everyone to please mod him down and not respond to his posts. If you also see this username on any websites targeted to children please contact the police immediately as he is breaking his parole. If we all do our duty, scum like Doug52392 will be kept away from our children and so little Sandra's suffering will not be for nothing. In your world, the above paragraph would not be actionable. Thank god your world doesn't exist outside of your head.

Re:About time the first amendment means something! (1)

lsatenstein (949458) | more than 5 years ago | (#21798686)

Any thoughts to the judge being the blogger in question? And if it happened to you, how you would respond, if you did not have that knowledgeable judge on the bench.

Allow me to be the first to say: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21790622)

I'm looking for some alien toilet to park my bricks. Who's first?

First amendment? (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21790650)

The first amendment is afaik only about saying your mind freely. Not that you may do it anonymously.

Now, in our times this is pretty much the same, but you know how technicalities are usually used to circumvent constitutional rights. I wouldn't deem it impossible that we'll soon see a movement that yes, you may say what you want, but we want to know who you are. Of course we won't limit your freedom to say what you want, and that van in front of your apartment is really just a pizza truck that has been delivering for days, the amount of speeding tickets you got recently just means that you had really bad luck getting caught and that your kids get worse marks now is just a result of them slacking.

Re:First amendment? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21790734)

You mean like publishing a bunch of articles under the name Publius.

Re:First amendment? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21790758)

Soon be a movement? You mean that hasn't been going on since (or before) long-range wiretapping became possible thanks to satellite technology? You mean it hasn't been gathering more and more acceptance thanks to the 'war on terror'?

I've been worried about the fact that few people worry about this for a while now... Is it the sense of powerlessness? Do people feel there's no real hope to change it? Or do they really not notice?

Free speech carries implicit the right to speak freely even under a pseudonym -- and legally, people have the right to assume whatever name they want, as long as they are not doing it in order to commit fraud/etc. I'm not sure why it wouldn't apply if someone didn't choose to explicitly use a pseudonym -- or why, indeed, legalistically speaking, the name of the site can't be consider pseudonymistic. It's another example of how the laws of pen and paper can't be broadly applied in the digital realm.

Weird.

Go, Jersey Judge, go!

Re:First amendment? (5, Informative)

wave_man07 (1198863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21790814)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I believe you are explicitly incorrect. The first amendment clearly says that no law may be passed abridging freedom of speech. Abridging is an interesting word. I like to think of it as very similar to encroaching. The word implies a "complete" right, absolute freedom of speech. No law of Congress (what about states?, by implication they also cannot infringe the national constitution) can impair that right. So if it is a complete right, it is everything you can imagine. And you should! So if you speak anonymously, do not ask if the Constitution gives you that right. It does. Any law that forces you to identify yourself in relation to your speech, if you have chosen to speak anonymously, is inherently un-constitutional. This does not say that you are not responsible for covering your own tracks. This does not say it is unlawful to try to find out who said something. You are responsible for defending your own anonymity by your own definition of "best practice". Free speech is wonderful, complicated, and sometimes sucky (when it is millions of dollars of swift-boat drivel hitting your frontal lobe for example). When you are being assaulted by K-Street's version of free speech, say a little mantra to yourself, thank the framers that even idiots and assholes are consecrated in the First Amendment.

Re:First amendment? (3, Informative)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21790930)

(what about states?, by implication they also cannot infringe the national constitution)

If we go by what's written, the first amendment only limits federal powers and a later amendment (I don't remember those numbers) points out that what the federal govt can't do is left up to the states.

Re:First amendment? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21791224)

Fourteenth amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Re:First amendment? (4, Informative)

karmatic (776420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791226)

If we go by what's written, the first amendment only limits federal powers and a later amendment (I don't remember those numbers) points out that what the federal govt can't do is left up to the states.

That's the reason for amendment 14:

Section 1. ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


They tend to ignore this for the second, fourth, and fifth amendments, but the courts tend to apply it to the first with regards to the states.

Re:First amendment? (1)

Trevin (570491) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791536)

Not quite. The 10th Amendment [wikipedia.org] states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Re:First amendment? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21790992)

Law? Oh, don't worry. There won't be a single law that cuts into your right to say anything you want. You may say whatever you please, I don't see anything in the quote you offer that says I must not be required to identify myself to say it. I can still say anything I want.

You can form any kind of group you want, you can say and propagate whatever you want, no problem there. Requiring someone to identify himself isn't against the 1st, as long as you don't keep him from saying it altogether.

The only thing that will happen is that current laws will be used to harrass you. There's plenty to keep you busy.

Re:First amendment? (4, Interesting)

civilizedINTENSITY (45686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791216)

The real question is can you be forced (or others be forced to help,) to identify yourself if there is no suspicion of illegal activity?

Re:First amendment? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21792428)

A law that would require you to identify yourself would not violate the 1st. You can still say whatever you want.

Re:First amendment? (1)

josh82 (894884) | more than 5 years ago | (#21800466)

"A law that would require you to identify yourself would not violate the 1st. You can still say whatever you want."

Fair enough. But by the same logic, you can still say whatever you want with a gun to your head, too.

I think the real rub lies in what counts as an "abridgement", e.g., whether forcing you to identify yourself (or someone else to identify you) is antithetical to a freedom.

Re:First amendment? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21791222)

(what about states?, by implication they also cannot infringe the national constitution)

"At the present, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause [of the 14th Amendment] incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]

So this should apply to state governments also

Re:First amendment? (2, Insightful)

OldSchool (725426) | more than 6 years ago | (#21792602)

IANAL, but the US Constitution does not GRANT any rights. It notes that "We hold these TRUTHS to be self evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowded by THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Constitution, specifically the Bill Of Rights, PROTECTS these rights from being infringed by the government. It does not grant them.

A minor but important point that is often overlooked.

At least that's what they taught me in the Old School.

Re:First amendment? (2, Interesting)

TheoMurpse (729043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21793560)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I believe you are explicitly incorrect. The first amendment clearly says that no law may be passed abridging freedom of speech.
Surely you cannot be suggesting that the First Amendment gives me the right to practice a religion that requires human sacrifice in contravention of murder statutes simply because there is no murder statute in the Constitution!

Taking this into consideration, can you understand why the First Amendment right to freedom of speech isn't 100% absolute? Should I not then be allowed to brand all my crappy software "Google" with their logo? Should I not then be allowed to freely distribute any copyrighted material to anyone, since it's merely free expression? Should I not then be allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, or point a megaphone at my neighbor's house and shout through it at all hours of the day?

Clearly the First Amendment says Congress cannot prohibit what I've just suggested, since they are all speech activities that Congress is, by the First Amendment, not allowed to abridge.

No?

Re:First amendment? (1)

deimtee (762122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21794224)

Surely you cannot be suggesting that the First Amendment gives me the right to practice a religion that requires human sacrifice in contravention of murder statutes simply because there is no murder statute in the Constitution!

I would read that as you are free to practise and preach whatever you want, but that no law can take any notice of any religious reasons why you did it.
Hence, no laws against ritual sacrifice, but any murder statute would ignore the religious aspect and prosecute for the act of killing, not for the sacrement.

Taking this into consideration, can you understand why the First Amendment right to freedom of speech isn't 100% absolute? Should I not then be allowed to brand all my crappy software "Google" with their logo? Should I not then be allowed to freely distribute any copyrighted material to anyone, since it's merely free expression? Should I not then be allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, or point a megaphone at my neighbor's house and shout through it at all hours of the day?

All of these would be prosecuted/sued under laws that ignore "Freedom of Speech" - Fraud, Copyright Infringement (civil case unless you were selling it), Nuisance laws X2, respectively.
As far as the law is concerned there is a difference between "infringing freedom of speech" and ignoring freedom of speech and prosecuting for some other aspect of what you are doing.

Re:First amendment? (1)

TheoMurpse (729043) | more than 5 years ago | (#21795978)

As far as the law is concerned there is a difference between "infringing freedom of speech" and ignoring freedom of speech and prosecuting for some other aspect of what you are doing.
That's where the law has gone: for example, you can't ban flag burning because of its offensive nature, but you can ban flag burning if it's part of a "no burning shit outdoors" ban to protect public safety. Legislative intent is important: if the goal is to affect free speech, it's not constitutional, but if the infringement upon speech is incidental to a narrowly tailored law to accomplish a compelling (is it a "compelling"-standard test for free speech? I forget...) government interest, then it is constitutional.

The person I originally responded to was using the literal text of the First Amendment to defend a position (the precise quote was: "The word implies a 'complete' right, absolute freedom of speech."). I merely pointed out flaws in that reasoning reductio ad absurdum.

I completely agree with what you're saying. Basically, the First Amendment may restrict a government action on certain grounds, but there may be alternative, constitutional grounds for restricting the same action. And this is why being a justice on the US Supreme Court is hard; it's not as straightforward as my original post's parent (GGP?) implied.

WHAT IS THIS?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21790936)

What is going on here? I demand an explanation! If no-one responds to this message with a satisfactory explanation for all this, I'm calling the police!

Re:First amendment? (1)

civilizedINTENSITY (45686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791142)

Perhaps the 1st amendment in conjunction with the 4th amendment explicit right to due process, and the implicit 4th amendment right to privacy?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There has to be probable cause, at the very least. In this case the township *wanted* the blogger to be a specific person, and so they subpoenaed Google for the identity. They had no probable cause. In this case it wasn't about *what* was said that made it actionable, but rather *who* said it. The only possible crime would have been perjury (for stating that he wasn't the blogger, if he was.) I do agree there is a difference between a right to anonymity and a right to privacy and due process, but the later can be used to protect the status of the former.

Re:First amendment? (2, Informative)

SwashbucklingCowboy (727629) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791824)

The SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission [justia.com] :

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Re:First amendment? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#21798162)

Thank you, I thought there was a Supreme Court ruling which had defended the right to anonymity, but I did not remember ever seeing the exact ruling or the case which it came from.

Re:First amendment? (1)

Looshi (1038712) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791866)

You're right that the first amendment says nothing about speaking anonymously.

However, I think it is fair to say the founders had an expectation of anonymous speech when they wrote the constitution. The Federalist Papers supporting the constitution were written anonymously. The essays were all signed with the pseudonym Plubius. You had anonymous speech right out of the gate.

Now today it is easier than ever before to write something anonymously. I can check a little box to do it on this very post. I don't think the spirit has changed enough in 220+ years to make a difference. An anonymous essay in a newspaper and the same thing on a blog site really aren't that much of a stretch.

Re:First amendment? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21792442)

It's been shown time and again that the current US legislation doesn't give a rat's ass about the spirit of the constitution, as long as they don't violate the letter. And the latter only because it would be thrown out as unconstitutional before the ink dries.

Re:First amendment? (0)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21792518)

Yeah, Just like when McCain-Feingold was shot down by the Supes.

Oh wait.. it wasn't. Lemme fix that for you.

It's been shown time and again that the current US legislation doesn't give a rat's ass about the spirit of the constitution, or the letter.

Re:First amendment? (2, Insightful)

tietokone-olmi (26595) | more than 6 years ago | (#21792586)

The first amendment is afaik only about saying your mind freely. Not that you may do it anonymously.

Speaking as an european, I would point out that your constitution's first amendment does not require that in order for speech to count for freedom of speech that its originator would have to be positively identifiable at all times. I'd like to warn you against taking such fundamental things according to the most restrictive interpretation possible.

Now, freedom of speech as guaranteed by your constitution in the "the state shall make no law (but private parties are exempt because they're not the gub'mint)" sense would be all good and fine... but only if all power resided in the government. As we both well know, there's plenty of power outside the government(s) these days: corporations are the obvious example. Your employer has power to fire you if you e.g. express opinion contrary to that approved by his abstract ass.

Therefore in order to realistically exercise one's right to free speech regardless of circumstance and content, as intended by your constitution's first amendment, one must be able to do so without fear of repercussion. This implies, no, requires anonymity where desired by the speaker. Let the listener beware! Was that not one of the ideals on which your country's liberties are founded upon?

Re:First amendment? (1)

RKBA (622932) | more than 6 years ago | (#21794604)

I can't imagine why anyone would want to publish anonymously.
~ Publius [wikipedia.org]

Don't Tase Me, New Jersey Bro! (5, Funny)

DrScottyB (1206758) | more than 6 years ago | (#21790976)

You mean you can openly disagree with politicians and not get tased? Weird.

Re:Don't Tase Me, New Jersey Bro! (5, Funny)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791096)

You mean you can openly disagree with politicians and not get tased? Weird.


In NJ -- sure. Tasers are actually illegal here, even for police use. Shot on the other hand...


-b.

Re:Don't Tase Me, New Jersey Bro! (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791248)

Why tase when you can shot them in the head and throw the body in the swamp.

The purpose of the Internet (1)

RazzleDazzle (442937) | more than 6 years ago | (#21791844)

Jay: All these assholes on the Internet are calling us names because of this stupid fucking movie.
Banky: That's what the Internet is for. Slandering others anonymously. Stopping the flick isn't gonna stop that.

Re:The purpose of the Internet (1)

Rockin'Robert (997471) | more than 5 years ago | (#21795222)

Once again.
All together now.
Libel is WRITTENn (I.e. - blogs)!
Slander is SPOKEN.
So - now you can slander all you like on YouTube and such -
then they can identify you by your face and/or voice.
RR

Congratz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21794750)

Anyone know their address so I can ship them a bottle of wine to congratulate them?

Jumped-up PUBLIC SERVANTS just begging for (1)

Rockin'Robert (997471) | more than 5 years ago | (#21795168)

noisy offshore accusations of crack ho-ing, paedophillia and beastiality.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?