--The word "annoy" appeared in the original VAWA; that is not the new language. Rather, the amendment extends the "annoy" element to the Internet as well as to the telephone. I do of course consider "annoy" to be an unconstitutionally vague term, but let's acknowledge that its presence in the statute is not new. What is an "annoying" blog? Who knows? But then again, what is an "annoying" telephone call?
--The law applies, at most, to emails and not, contrary to all the panic, to web message boards and especially not to blogs. The statute requires a "transmission" — a website is not a "transmission" and is clearly not covered by the amendment. This is, at most, about anonymous e-mails that are intentionally sent (i.e., "transmitted") to specific email addresses. I "send" (i.e., transmit) emails but I don't "send" (i.e., transmit) my blog anywhere — readers seek it out.
--Indeed, if you follow the statutory trail carefully — i.e., jump from the new section (h)(1)(C) to its reference of the original section (a)(1)(C) — it becomes apparent that the amendment isn't even about emails, but about Internet-based phone calls (e.g., Vonage). The extension to "the Internet" is referring to one who "makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device." A computer can be a "telecommunications device," but a blog cannot.
--Also lost in the hysteria is the fact that the "transmission" must be "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent." Again, I'm not endorsing the law or the amendment generally, or these terms specifically. But it deserves repeating that it is not now a crime merely to have an anonymous blog or to post an anonymous message on Usenet that somebody, somewhere, finds "annoying."
(full entry here)
Sorry for creating confusion on this issue; I hope that this cleared it up. (via SayUncle)
filed under: politics
No comments:
Post a Comment