Reader Casey McEnelly replies to my post on H.R. 3402, the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005," a portion of which I argued was unconstitutional.
Prof. Blanchard’s reading of that clause is a bit wider than I think most judges or law enforcement would use. It is obviously to make sure that individuals do not receive anonymous calls, emails, faxes, telegraphs, etc. of a threatening nature. I believe the “annoyance” provision is to keep an anonymous harasser from calling at 4:00am and then hanging up and calling every 5 minutes after that. This is NOT a protected form of speech.
Blogs and websites are a public forum where the communication takes place between the writer and the blog. The sticking point is the communication is not to a specific individual, it is to the general public. Even “open letters” are really for the public, not just the person to whom the letter is written. I think this is a welcome protection for those who wish to avoid harassment while at the same time allowing for full freedom of speech in the public square.
I am inclined to agree with Casey that this is how the provision will be interpreted. But we have lots of experience with this sort of act being interpreted in creative ways to get at folks who are annoying. Consider the use of the RICO act to go after Operation Rescue. So I think it is proper to put up a bit of protest at the outset.
I certainly agree that the forms of abuse he describes should be illegal. I expect and hope that the court will treat the blogosphere as a public forum for the purposes of free speech.
Recent Comments