Annoyance isn't against the law, but, wait, it is now!

[Justin]

Declan McCullagh catches a ridiculous new change to federal telecommunications laws: It is now illegal, after President Bush signed H.R. 3402, the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005," to harrass someone by posting an anonymous comment on their blog.

This is a law open to incredible abuse both by companies and politicians who want to silence critics.

The rest can be found Here.

What do you think about that?

[mondine]

I can't say that it bothers me too much. First of all, it would have to be proven in a court of law that the person leaving a critical comment had only the intent to annoy. An action that is quite easy to defend, if someone hasn't been just blatantly harrassing.

I also take exception to the author's depiction of this as an attack on free speech. Why should the critic expect the object of his criticism be obliged to host his complaints?
If you write a critical letter to a business, are they depriving you of your right to free speech, if they don't display your letter in their front window?

The legislation may be broadly-worded, but the idea of defending site owners and publishers from abuse doesn't detract from the rights of others.
They're free to post any critcism they like. On their own dime, or at the discretion of the people that are paying the bills.

In no other realm of publishing is the author supposed to welcome dissent, and be obliged to print it along with his work. There is no particular reason why it should apply to this one.
And if a comment system is abused by a flood of harrassment and slander, or just overloaded to the point where it causes undue hardship, the owners should be able to seek remedy under the law.

[Aírmanareiks Þiudareiks]

In Soviet Canuckistan, blogs provide nuclear power.