Congress and Dubya have criminalized any Internet communications that annoy recipients and don’t disclose the sender’s identity.
Wait a second.
The Editor (a pseudonym) publishes sometimes-annoying weekly nanorants via e-mail and a website listed as harryhiggens.com. Its owner’s name, home address and telephone number may be found in any dot-com registry.
All websites and e-mail already contain such identifiers ultimately traceable to their originators—individuals, organizations, Internet service providers, etc.
What does “disclosing (one’s) identity” mean? Only full legal given and sir names—not pseudonyms, pen names, dot.com or dot.org tags or nicknames?
Does the law ban disturbing or irritating communications from bill-collection agencies or on websites and blogs created by dissatisfied customers and political and social opponents?
And when does annoying fall into the same category as harassing, menacing, threatening?
What obligations does the annoyed recipient have to inform the sender that the communication is annoying?
Probably none. Many state laws already define stalking as two or more unwanted communications to which the recipient doesn’t have to respond.
Don’t e-mail or blog any anonymous protests about the new law to legislators. They’ll get annoyed and throw you in jail. (19 MARCH 2006)
