This Just In: American Trolls A Protected Species

"Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a
judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that, but
they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and speak their
minds, no matter how scathing their comments may be."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html?

"My Conscience" > wrote in message
...
> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a judge
> in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that, but they're
> allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and speak their minds, no
> matter how scathing their comments may be."
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html?

There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick.

You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like yourself -
may legally say anything.

That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass.

Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers.

The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please don't put
it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK?

Atlas Bugged wrote:
> "My Conscience" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a
>> judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that,
>> but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and
>> speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may be."
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html?
>
> There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick.
>
> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like
> yourself - may legally say anything.

Most of them do think that.

> That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass.
>
> Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers.

....who didn't bother to read the entire article.

> The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please
> don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK?

lol

How can you possibly object to anything Cujo posts?

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk


Miller's Law: In order to understand what another
person is saying, you must assume that it is true
and try to imagine what it could be true of.

Atlas Bugged wrote:
> "My Conscience" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a judge
>> in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that, but they're
>> allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and speak their minds, no
>> matter how scathing their comments may be."
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html?
>
> There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick.

Which is why an appeals court had to make a ruling on it. Didn't you
claim you were some sort of super lawyer? I'd think you would know
things like that if you were.

> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like yourself -
> may legally say anything.

I like how you say that as if you're not posting anonymously yourself.
Oh, I see--you're a lying hypocrite. I guess you probably ARE a lawyer,
then.

> That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass.

Jumping to unwarranted conclusions again? Don't you get tired of all
those fallen arches?

> Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers.

I'm sure someone does love you, love being blind and all.

> The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please don't put
> it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK?

How much acid did you take to be having flashbacks this late in your life?

Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> Atlas Bugged wrote:
>> "My Conscience" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a
>>> judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that,
>>> but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and
>>> speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may be."
>>>
>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html?
>> There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick.
>>
>> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like
>> yourself - may legally say anything.
>
> Most of them do think that.

Case in point.

>> That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass.
>>
>> Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers.
>
> ...who didn't bother to read the entire article.

Speak for yourself, Rhonda. You and Captain Hornblower both seem to
think you know what conclusions I drew from the article. Do you both
use the same methods of mind reading?

>> The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please
>> don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK?
>
> lol
>
> How can you possibly object to anything Cujo posts?
>

He's a hypocrite. Duh!

My Conscience wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>> Atlas Bugged wrote:
>>> "My Conscience" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous,
>>>> a judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only
>>>> that, but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights
>>>> and speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may
>>>> be."
>>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html?
>>> There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick.
>>>
>>> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like
>>> yourself - may legally say anything.
>>
>> Most of them do think that.
>
> Case in point.

<sigh>

>>> That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass.
>>>
>>> Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers.
>>
>> ...who didn't bother to read the entire article.
>
> Speak for yourself, Rhonda. You and Captain Hornblower both seem to
> think you know what conclusions I drew from the article. Do you both
> use the same methods of mind reading?

You made clear the conclusion you drew by the portion of the article you
chose to post.

>>> The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please
>>> don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK?
>>
>> lol
>>
>> How can you possibly object to anything Cujo posts?
>>
>
> He's a hypocrite. Duh!

I'm really sick of that word. It's useless to describe anything because
it's either misused or overused.

And I don't think it very well describes the situation I was asking
about either.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk


Miller's Law: In order to understand what another
person is saying, you must assume that it is true
and try to imagine what it could be true of.

My Conscience wrote:
> Atlas Bugged wrote:
>> "My Conscience" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous,
>>> a judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only
>>> that, but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights
>>> and speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may
>>> be."
>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html?
>>
>> There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick.
>
> Which is why an appeals court had to make a ruling on it.

The appeals court had to make a ruling on it because someone appealed
the judgment of the lower court.

Happens all the time.

> Didn't you
> claim you were some sort of super lawyer? I'd think you would know
> things like that if you were.

Don't give up your day job, Mr. Usenet Lawyer.

>> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like
>> yourself - may legally say anything.
>
> I like how you say that as if you're not posting anonymously yourself.
> Oh, I see--you're a lying hypocrite. I guess you probably ARE a
> lawyer, then.

You love that word, don't you? Do you think there might be some
projection going on?

>> That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass.
>
> Jumping to unwarranted conclusions again? Don't you get tired of all
> those fallen arches?

Hyuck, hyuck, hyuck.

>> Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers.
>
> I'm sure someone does love you, love being blind and all.
>
>> The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please
>> don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK?
>
> How much acid did you take to be having flashbacks this late in your
> life?

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk


Miller's Law: In order to understand what another
person is saying, you must assume that it is true
and try to imagine what it could be true of.

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:09:40 -0500, Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:

>> Didn't you
>> claim you were some sort of super lawyer? I'd think you would know
>> things like that if you were.
>
> Don't give up your day job, Mr. Usenet Lawyer.
>
>>> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like
>>> yourself - may legally say anything.
>>
>> I like how you say that as if you're not posting anonymously yourself.
>> Oh, I see--you're a lying hypocrite. I guess you probably ARE a
>> lawyer, then.
>
> You love that word, don't you?

Douchebag? Nah.....

OK.

Which one, hypocrite or lawyer?

They're virtually synonymous.


--
Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts
on the unthinking.

-John Maynard Keynes, economist (1883-1946)

Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> My Conscience wrote:
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>> Atlas Bugged wrote:
>>>> "My Conscience" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous,
>>>>> a judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only
>>>>> that, but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights
>>>>> and speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may
>>>>> be."
>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html?
>>>> There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick.
>>>>
>>>> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like
>>>> yourself - may legally say anything.
>>> Most of them do think that.
>> Case in point.
>
> <sigh>

Well, I must say, that was a pretty short stay in your bit bucket.

>>>> That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass.
>>>>
>>>> Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers.
>>> ...who didn't bother to read the entire article.
>> Speak for yourself, Rhonda. You and Captain Hornblower both seem to
>> think you know what conclusions I drew from the article. Do you both
>> use the same methods of mind reading?
>
> You made clear the conclusion you drew by the portion of the article you
> chose to post.

That anonymous speech is protected, even when it is abrasive? Of
course. Expanding that to "all speech is protected" as Atlas tried to
do was a blatantly obvious invalid assumption, so your seconding it is
puzzling.

Well, not all that puzzling, come to think of it.

>>>> The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please
>>>> don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK?
>>> lol
>>>
>>> How can you possibly object to anything Cujo posts?
>>>
>> He's a hypocrite. Duh!
>
> I'm really sick of that word.

Sorry to hear that.

> It's useless to describe anything because
> it's either misused or overused.

So is "less," these days. Are you sick of that, too?

> And I don't think it very well describes the situation I was asking
> about either.
>

Explain why not.

Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> My Conscience wrote:
>> Atlas Bugged wrote:
>>> "My Conscience" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous,
>>>> a judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only
>>>> that, but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights
>>>> and speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may
>>>> be."
>>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html?
>>> There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick.
>> Which is why an appeals court had to make a ruling on it.
>
> The appeals court had to make a ruling on it because someone appealed
> the judgment of the lower court.

Well, duh. That's kind of my point, e.g. that they did so NOW. It's
not as old newsy as Atlas implied.

> Happens all the time.
>
>> Didn't you
>> claim you were some sort of super lawyer? I'd think you would know
>> things like that if you were.
>
> Don't give up your day job, Mr. Usenet Lawyer.

I hear there are some openings in Mr. Anonymous But Famous And
Successful Lawyer's firm. I think I'd fit in well to all of them.

>>> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like
>>> yourself - may legally say anything.
>> I like how you say that as if you're not posting anonymously yourself.
>> Oh, I see--you're a lying hypocrite. I guess you probably ARE a
>> lawyer, then.
>
> You love that word, don't you?

Which one?

> Do you think there might be some
> projection going on?

Nope.

>>> That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass.
>> Jumping to unwarranted conclusions again? Don't you get tired of all
>> those fallen arches?
>
> Hyuck, hyuck, hyuck.

Thanks.

>>> Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers.
>> I'm sure someone does love you, love being blind and all.
>>
>>> The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please
>>> don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK?
>> How much acid did you take to be having flashbacks this late in your
>> life?
>