Originally published February 26 2006
E-annoyance law challenged in Chicago court
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Charles Mudd, an attorney in Chicago, talks about the case he is bringing against the e-annoyance law, on behalf of his client, TheAnonymousEmail.com.
"What we are seeking to do is have that portion of the statute declared unconstitutional," said Charles Mudd, an attorney in Chicago who's representing TheAnonymousEmail.com.
As reported earlier by CNET News.com, President Bush last month signed into law a massive bill for the Justice Department that includes the new criminal sanctions aimed at Internet communications that "annoy."
The law prohibits anyone from posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing his or her true identity.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
TheAnonymousEmail.com, operated by a privately held Scottsdale, Ariz., company called The Suggestion Box, offers the ability to send anonymous messages for a $19.95 subscription fee.
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity.
Howard Baer, the company's president, said the new law is so problematic it could criminalize filing a complaint against a public corporation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act--if, that is, executives claimed the complaint was intended to "annoy" them.
It claims the law's invocation of the word "annoy" is "ambiguous, overbroad and vague" and violates the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The law, called the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act, amends existing law dealing with telephone calls by extending new criminal sanctions to the Internet.
Unlike other legislative proposals dealing with voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), the "annoy" restrictions apply broadly to any form of Internet communications, not just VoIP.
Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who wrote a book on the First Amendment, has said the "annoy" law may violate Americans' free speech rights.
"Though the desire to annoy may sometimes be petty...it shouldn't strip the speech of constitutional protection," Volokh said.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml