What is this "First Amendment" thing you speak of?

[astridv]

So, I see that kerfuffling on the internet has finally been declared illegal.

"It's no joke. 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."

I can't quite get past the "it's no joke" part, but anyway. Since I'm a) posting under my real name and am b) not an American, I guess that means I can go on and annoy people as much as I damn well please.

Is this really no joke?

Comments

[a2zmom.livejournal.com]

My husband, who writes about crime for a living and therefore often wades through legalese, says that the law is useless.

It states "intent to annoy" which is just about impossible to prove. If a case ever came to court, the law would be declared unconstitutional and thrown out.

[rahirah]

The article's not really accurate. What the law actually does is update an old law concerning telephone harrassment to include e-mail and the web, and it's targeting stalkers, not random flamers.

[astridv.livejournal.com]

Yes, it appears to be not so much a plump attempt of Big Brother to purposefully constrict freedom of speech, but rather a case of vague and extremely unfortunate phrasing.

I didn't read the whole text, apart from the sections quoted in the artice. I'd be interested to know if the law just refers to email conversation, as one commenter states, or to posting on the internet in general.

[astridv.livejournal.com]

The wording is ridiculous. If perceived "intent to annoy" could get you into jail... man, we'd all be in big trouble.

I take it that the law is supposed to target stalkers in particular (see rahirah's comment below), but phrased in such an unclear manner it seems counterproductive at best.