A Stitch in Haste

The libertarian wing of the Blogosphere is very much abuzz about this report regarding an extension to the Violence Against Women Act to cyberspace:

Buried deep in the new law is ... an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

Some hasty stitches:

--The relevant code section is 47 USC 223.

--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."

There's plenty not to like about VAWA, this amendment and the political machinations that made it possible. But histrionics about "the end of anonymous blogging" don't contribute to the debate and merely allow the hack politicians to dismiss otherwise valid objections as "misinterpretations from the lunatic fringe."

Chancellor Palpatine was wrong: Your anger does not give you focus.

More thoughts at Hammer of Truth, Running Scared, Objective Justice, Homeland Stupidity, Say Uncle, Crime & Federalism, De Novo, Concurring Opinions, VodkaPundit, Malcontent, Moderate Voice, American Future.