View source for FBCM


<div style="position:absolute; right:0px; bottom:0px; overflow:visible;">
[[Image:Trollface_clean.png|200px]]
</div>
{{boring}}
[[Image:FCBMseal.png|200px|right]]
[[Image:Cyberbully.jpg|thumb|[[protip]]; <s>turn off the monitor.</s> [[an hero]]]]
The '''Federal Bureau of Computer Machines''' is charged by the US Government to protect American Netizens from [[Trolls]].

==Creation==
The FBCM is a pathetic attempt at trying to stop trolling, flaming, and obscenities on the internet, and was created by title V [[Chronic_Troll_Syndrome|(Communications Decency Act)]] of the [[Shit nobody cares about|Telecommunications Act of 1996]] and is the agency aimed at [[V&|regulating]] Internet indecency, [[CP|obscenity]] and [[lulz|trolls]]. The dickstain that made it actually thought they might be able to lower, no even stop, the amount of flaming, trolling, and outright shit thats spewed all over the internet. It was [[Trolled|ruled unconstitutional]] by the U.S. Supreme Court for [[Rape|violating]] the [[Shit nobody cares about|First Amendment]], but continues to operate using proceeds from [[Drugs#Methamphetamine|meth]] sales.

==Fearless Leader==
[[Image:Lindasanchez.png|thumb|[[Nazi|Member of Congress]]]]
[[Democrat]] Linda Sanchez was the first to jump on the anti-troll wagon, leading the strike against free speech.  Read the [[welfare|nanny-state]] rhetoric [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-linda-sanchez/protecting-victims-preser_b_198079.html here].  

{{quote|When '''so-called free speech''' leads to bullies having free-reign to threaten kids, it is time to act. The Supreme Court recognizes that in some instances words can be harmful. For example, you cannot falsely yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. If you say it even once you can be held liable. Yet, you can repeatedly emotionally abuse someone with words, pictures, and false impressions online and get away scot-free.|[[Dirty_Sanchez#D|Linda Sanchez]]|[[Communist|D-Calif.]], displaying her understanding of the Constitution.}}

==FBCM charter==
[[Image:Flamewar.jpg|thumb|Don't respond - call your [[E-lawyer|lawlyer]].]]
Here is a snippet of H.R. 1966:

    (a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

    (b) As used in this section —

    (1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and

    (2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones and text messages.

That's right - the methods of communication where ''hostile'' speech is banned include e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones and text messages.  Welcome to [[1984]].  Find a memory hole and jump in.

==Official Videos==
<center><youtube>zN2VKlgDCDc</youtube></center>
<center>'''Just Say No To Trolls Campaign'''</center>
<center><youtube>YxKYU3SIDhI</youtube></center>
<center>'''This could be [[you]]'''</center>

==Destruction==
The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC) sought a preliminary injunction against the Communications Decency Act (CDA).  A panel of three judges granted the injunction on June 12, 1996, and they unanimously ruled the CDA to be unconstitutional.


'''~ Sloviter, Chief Judge, Court of Appeals for the Third Court'''

''"... Subjecting speakers to criminal penalties for speech that is constitutionally protected in itself raises the spectre of irreparable harm.  Even if a court were unwilling to draw that conclusion from the language of the statute itself, plaintiffs have introduced ample evidence that the challenged provisions, if not enjoined, will have a chilling effect on their free expression.  Thus, this is not a case in which we are dealing with a mere incidental inhibition on speech...but with a regulation that directly penalizes speech. ... "''


'''~ Buckwalter, District Judge'''

''"... I continue to believe that the word "indecent" is unconstitutionally vague, and I find that the terms "in context" and "patently offensive" also are so vague as to violate the First and Fifth Amendments. ..."''


''"... If the Government is going to intrude upon the sacred ground of the First Amendment and tell its citizens that their exercise of protected speech could land them in jail, the law imposing such a penalty must clearly define the prohibited speech not only for the potential offender but also for the potential enforcer. ..."''


'''~ Dalzell, District Judge'''

''"I begin with first principles:  As a general rule, the Constitution forbids the Government from silencing speakers because of their particular message. ..."''


''"... The Government may only regulate indecent speech for a compelling reason, and in the least restrictive manner. ..."''



==See Also==
*[[Liskula Cohen]]
*[[Trollface]]
*[[Megan Meier]]
*[[Lori Drew]]
*[[An hero]]
*[[You don't have any friends]]
*[[Anonymous]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/ Cyber-bully clearinghouse]
*[http://www.wiredsafety.org/ Anti-troll kit]
*[http://www.kidzui.com/ internet condom]
*[http://www.netsmartz.org/resources/reallife.htm Pdf series] 
*[http://www.feministing.com/archives/017322.html the END of ANON?]

{{crapstub}}
[[Category:In Jokes]][[Category:Internets Phenomena]][[Category:Trolls]]