online annoyances

That's a very interesting article, thank you, Gem.

He makes a strange point to begin with, however, or maybe it's just the way he words it:

McCullagh wrote:

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

To me, he's implying that the new law doesn't go far enough. Would he like there to be a different law that deliberately restricts ALL electronic messages from being acceptable to a higher power? See: Websters Dictionary; Socialism.

McCullagh wrote:

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

Now he's going in the opposite direction. Besides the fact that these annoying little ACLU lawyers use the word "problematic" way too much, do they really think that the average person can't decide for him or herself what is "annoying" or not? Why should it be up to someone else? This is a subjective issue in every way, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more of these arguments in the future. Do you know how well the "Do Not Call List" is working? Not too well, and there's not a big division in the problems involved.

McCullagh wrote:

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

Of course, it isn't. I think we would all like to put someone in the slammer for annoying us, but let's be real; Americans are granted the right to free speech, but not the right to demand to be listened to. It's a difference a lot of people get confused with. Sure, you can march, or protest, or whatever you want to do, but you can't demand that anyone pay attention to you. But the original BILL OF RIGHTS never could have accounted for spamming, so a new law that expands on the principle is certainly needed.

McCullagh wrote:

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

This is the crux of the issue. Mail fraud is a crime, and using false identities is included therein. If you receive junk mail, you are entitled by law to know where it came from. And isn't that the purpose, in fact, the whole reason for this law?