Bush Signs Act that Violates First Amendment

Radioactive Chief brings this to our attention.  See News.Com for the links.  From the White House Webpage:

On January 5, 2006, the President has signed into law:  H.R. 3402, the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005," which reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act for FYs 2007-2011, makes amendments to criminal and immigration law, consolidates major law enforcement grant programs and authorizes appropriations for the Department of Justice for FYs 2006-2009.

Lurking in H.R. 3402, is this sinister language:

(C) [Whoever] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

Now I have to admit a moment's fondness for this provision.  Under it, I could probably sue a number of persons posting on the Aberdeen American News's Discussion Board.  Some of those folks certainly utilize a telecommunications device with intent to annoy me.  On rare occasions they have succeeded.  And they hide their identities well enough behind user names. 

But such an application of the law would be unconstitutional on its face.  Writing political commentary, including scathing attacks, is a long tradition in American Politics.  After all, the Federalist Papers were signed by "Publius," who was in fact three people: John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison.  Some anti-federalists were annoyed.  My critics have every right to engage in similar discussions and attacks without fear of prosecution. 

I suspect that this provision was designed to get at extremists who set out to make abortion providers and abortion rights activists miserable.  There is no doubt that in some cases such folk need protection.  But if harassment and abuse are legitimate grounds for clamping down on some speech acts (burning a cross on the yard of an African immigrant, for example), surely annoyance is not.  If the act is interpreted to prohibit anonymous and annoying opinions, it will be struck down.

I note that this is a fine example of the importance of annoying bloggers in keeping an eye on government.