Annoying annonymously

Annoying anonymously: (From Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com) “Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.”

If Declan’s characterization of this law is accurate (these types of issues usually have more than one interpretation), I don’t know which is more troubling to me: Who will define what “annoy” is? Who will define “without disclosing his identity”? The language was buried in the context of a law preventing “violence against women.”

Our Constitution was written by men who advocated its passage with a series of articles they published without disclosing their identities. Those articles were very annoying to lots of people. Saying the technology were available, would the anonymous men who wrote them have been prohibited from publishing the Federalist Papers online if this law had been passed then?

  • lcreekmo

    This is a law that screams for civil disobedience. I’ve never heard of something so ludicrous.