Truly, a Brand-New Precedent for Governmental Absurdity Has Been Set

[queerbychoice]

With gratitude to mariness for informing me:

Apparently it is now, ever since last Thursday, officially illegal under United States law for any person to use the Internet to post or send e-mail or web-based messages "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

Since it should be perfectly clear from the information publicly available about me that anyone posting comments in my LiveJournal that attempt to defend almost any action that President Bush has ever undertaken is likely to annoy me, it is reasonable to conclude that any person who does so is doing so with the deliberate intent to annoy me. Therefore, any people bound by U.S. law who leave any pro-Bush comments in my journal and fail to include their full names in their comments are now committing an illegal act. I look forward to seeing Bush's own henchmen prosecute these cases for me to the fullest.

(Note: The law in question is an update that adds Internet communications to a preexisting 1994 law banning intentionally annoying people via telephone. Here is the actual text of the law, with the new changes marked.)

Comments

Oops

[(Anonymous)]

Screw you, Gayle!

:D

Re: Oops

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

I'm prosecuting you! Right now!

(Except for the slight difficulties imposed in tracking down your identity, especially considering that I don't record commenters' IP addresses. I don't think this difficulty needs to be considered insurmountable though, since Bush's henchmen have probably wiretapped your Internet connection so they'll be able to identify you for me.)

[kejlina.livejournal.com]

"Truly, a Brand-New Precedent President for Governmental Absurdity Has Been Set"

There, fixed it for ya.

[pure-agnostic.livejournal.com]

Well, so much for freedom of speech.

And just how would a recipient of the message know the anonymous person intended to annoy? And not just wanted to amuse or inform? That's the funny thing about laws about intention - how could any person truly know the intent of another? How could they know what goes on inside somebody else's head?

And in other news, the US government has made wishful thinking illegal as well.

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

And it's funny how it's not illegal to blow people up in Iraq "with intent to annoy," as long as the Internet isn't involved. Though maybe we could prosecute Bush on the grounds that he's aware that blowing people up will get articles written about the mass murder and posted on the Internet, which in turn tends to annoy a lot of us who aren't actually dead yet.

[rhekarid.livejournal.com]

Not to mention, if you believe in an afterlife like Bush and so many of his kin publically would be expected to, then a lot of this stuff on the internet will also potentially annoy many of the people who ARE dead yet.

[(Anonymous)]

george vush is a frieeaken loser that should drop dead

[vi-kka.livejournal.com]

que leyes tan locas :D, parecen de 'juguete'. un beso.

my response to your post, since you banned me from the community

[jayp39.livejournal.com]

We've had this discussion before, and I believe it ended with me asking you if we should then all be attracted to everything and everyone. If we can't find certain genetalia disgusting, for example, can we also not find someone unattractive because they are balding? If we can't, for example, be attracted to breasts, can we also not be attracted to a certain hair color or complexion?

I never really got an answer, and the debate was dropped.

As to gendered behavior, seeing as how it undeniably exists, even if we would prefer that it not, is it not okay to be repulsed by certain gendered behavior? Or people who fit gender stereotypes?

I did not say anything about conceptualizing myself as "heterosexual". My sexual preferences may fall under that label, but I don't see why that necessarily has to be wrong.

Re: my response to your post, since you banned me from the community

[jayp39.livejournal.com]

I don't see how my views go against this statement in the community info:

We're conspiring to abolish gendered dress codes, gendered language, gendered career segregation, gendered behavioral patterns, gendered sexual preferences, and the gender salary gap. When gender is abolished, sex reassignment surgery will no longer have any effect on how you're treated by others, because you won't be treated in a gendered way to begin with. When gender is abolished, heterosexuality and homosexuality will cease to exist. A sexual preference for a particular gender is just as socially constructed as a sexual preference for blondeness or thinness - all of these preferences are instilled by our culture, and all of these preferences do not exist in most mammal societies nor in some human societies prior to the spread of Western and Judeo-Christian ideas.

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

"If we can't find certain genetalia disgusting, for example, can we also not find someone unattractive because they are balding? If we can't, for example, be attracted to breasts, can we also not be attracted to a certain hair color or complexion?"

It seems to me that I already answered that earlier today, in what I said about hair color. It is superficial, prejudicial, and undesirable to be disgusted by or attracted to people on the basis of physical characteristics. It is a behavior that is very difficult to entirely avoid, but that is no reason to excuse it instead of trying as hard as possible to avoid it.

"As to gendered behavior, seeing as how it undeniably exists, even if we would prefer that it not, is it not okay to be repulsed by certain gendered behavior? Or people who fit gender stereotypes?"

It is perfectly okay to be repulsed by gendered behavior. But not by bodies.

"My sexual preferences may fall under that label, but I don't see why that necessarily has to be wrong."

So don't see it, then. I don't know exactly why you seem to want to be in the community, but there are others like antigender that are very unlikely to have any problem with you, so you can spend your time there instead. I feel that you do not belong in abolishgender, because I feel that your comments have tended repeatedly and consistently to be pro-heterosexual, which is not a type of opinion that that particular community is designed to contain. You are perfectly welcome to disagree with me, but you can do it somewhere other than in that community.

[jayp39.livejournal.com]

My messages may be pro-sexual-preference-choice, but they have not been pro-heterosexual specifically. The only reason you are choosing to interpret them as so is because you are choosing to label me as heterosexual, because you have chosen to label me as a "guy" (something which I objected to, and something which seems to go against abolishgender rules more than anything I've said or done), and therefore my sexual preference, or my choice to have a sexual preference, I suppose, where I am attracted to the female sex must be heterosexual.

If being physically attracted to or repulsed by someone based on their physical characteristics is wrong and is enough to get you kicked out of the community, perhaps you should let all the other members know, because you may find yourself in charge of a much smaller community.

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that I already have let all the other members know, but you are right that quite a few of them seemed to have failed to comprehend it, and yes, perhaps I should restate myself. I have no objection to being in charge of a much smaller community. On the contrary, I would much rather be in charge of a much smaller community if a smaller community would consist of people who are actually there for what the community is supposed to be for.

I am not opposed to "sexual preference choice," but I am opposed to people who choose one sexual preference being in a community designed for separatism from that sexual preference. And it does seem to me that you are do conceptualize yourself as a heterosexual, and that the fact that you are avoiding using that particular word for it (at least during your interactions with me) does not amount to any real resistance to what the category means. So I do not apologize for labeling you a heterosexual. I do apologize for labeling you a guy, however.