Many of the blogs I follow were abuzz yesterday with discussion of the Declan McCullagh column on CNet News entitled "Create an e-annoyance, go to jail". (I wrote about it here: "Anonymous 'net annoyers headed to jail".)
There are widely divergent opinions all over the 'net on what this poorly drafted provision actually means. Some suggest that it attacks all anonymous speech that is annyoing, including blog postings and comments. Others suggest that it is very restricted and might not even cover e-mail. Some discussions worth checking out:
- Boing Boing: Flame someone anonymously, go to jail? No, say BB-reading lawyers - Boing Boing printed comments from a number of readers, including me and Daniel Solove (see below).
- Concurring Opinions: Annoy someone online (anonymously); go to jail, which includes a comment from Daniel Solove and a dozens of others.
- Kip Eqsuire: A Stitch in Haste New VAWA "Annoying" Clause is Indeed Annoying -- But Not to Blogs
- SIVACRACY.NET: Anonymous Trolls Beware?
- Slashdot Crank Blogging, Like Phone Calling, Now Illegal
The original McCullagh article is also followed by a bunch of reader comments, so check that out too.