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

[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.