Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

What in the world is wrong with the President and Congress? Perhaps the EPA needs to check the D.C. water system for the presence of meth or crack or something. (THAT at least would explain some things!)

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It’s no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

The Chief’s bafflement is that something like this which is so obviously counter to the first amendment, goes on the books without so much as a raised eyebrow.

Since the Chief’s NAME is not anywhere on this web site, If I post something that “annoys” someone for some reason, then I could be prosecuted for a violation of federal law. Oh well. Bring it on!

“The use of the word ‘annoy’ is particularly problematic,” says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “What’s annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else.”

Arrrrrrrgggghhhhhh! This has the American Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU) agreeing with the Chief????!!!! It’s a cold day in hell, for sure!

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are. Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone’s probably going to be annoyed. That’s enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won’t file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Left to “prosecutorial discretion”? What was the bit about having a government of laws, not of men? Another pillar in the power structure of the American legal aristocracy over the rest of us peasants.

Our sh-t for brains esteemed politicians can’t seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else. It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he’d realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he’d repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans’ personal freedoms. Now we’ll see if the president rises to the occasion.

Don’t hold your breath waiting on that one – anoxia is a nasty way to die!