Politickal Gazetteer Declan McCullagh notes that "Annoying someone via the internet is now a federal crime," punishable by "stiff fines and two years in prison" for those who might as like to write from pseudonym, or, as quoth the Law, "without disclosing his name." Such a Law, sign'd with full Approval by our President, would have made criminal the writings of one Isaac Bickerstaff on his Blog some years ago, and had I been Fool enough to place them Online, would have indeed made crimes of my own public letters against Samuel Chase, among certayn other Letters. So I write, publicly, pseudonymously, and with the full intent to Vex, Annoy, and Bedevil: you, the Signers of Section 113 of H.R. 3402, are truly the Authors of one of the select handful of Idiocy's Immortal Classics.
Very Truly Yours,
I'll tell you what's annoying...
There seems to be a move afoot to make the web less anonymous and more restrictive. While I'm sure cyberstalking and the like exists, this law seems to be throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. It's a bit like outlawing shaking hands on the basis that some people might not like being touched. Depressing.
What was the intent?
The question posed by the phrase "with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person" is one now left to the courts. Likely, the use of "annoy" will cause the entire section to be void, but I could also see the courts removing "annoy" on constitutional grounds while preserving the remainder.
Having had students "virtually attacked," I certainly understand that it can and does cause real fear. I have received death threats online relating to writings on certain issues, but I also know most such posts are meaningless. A student has much more reason to be concerned, considering his/her peers might lack impulse control.
Companies are legally "individuals" in the U.S. courts. Would this allow them to sue? If so, that's really not the intent of Sen. Specter and others. I think we can assume from other comments that the intent was to protect individuals from violence -- not bad reviews.
The best solution would have been some form of self-regulation on the Internet. Most providers have TOS agreements. Let those agreements remove jerks from the net. We don't need government "help" with most matters.
Oh, well. More government, less freedom...