TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Create an E-Annoyance, Go To Jail

Re: Create an E-Annoyance, Go To Jail

Matt Simpson (
Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:50:19 -0500

In article <>, Tony
P. <> wrote:

> Typical mis-step by our esteemed legislators. Look, I have so many
> email addresses for various purposes. My blog only tells you my first
> name. And I'm extremely critical of Bush & Co. on that blog.

But I'm sure your criticism of Bush & Co. is intended strictly to
helpfully suggest ways in which they might improve, and is not written
with the "intent to annoy".

I think the "intent" clause makes the law a little less bad.
Otherwise, it would criminalize all those poor clueless dolts out
there who are annoying without even trying (On the other hand, I'm
annoyed by top-posting; maybe a law making it illegal would be a good

Still, it is a pretty stupid law. "Preventing cyberstalking", as the
amendment is titled, might be a good motivation. But as written, it
doesn't seem to distinguish between targeting an individual with
threatening or malicious email, and simply posting "annoying" messages
on a website or bulletin board.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Scott Dorsey: "Re: History of Hayes Modem"
Go to Previous message: Barry Margolin: "Re: Create an E-Annoyance, Go To Jail"
May be in reply to: Monty Solomon: "Create an E-Annoyance, Go To Jail"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page