Email firm claims Annoyance law is unconstitutional

By Derek Sooman on February 9, 2006, 8:01 PM
A newly passed piece of legislation in the US known as the Annoyance Law, which imposes criminal penalties upon anyone who sends an anonymous communication with intent to annoy has come under attack by TheAnonymousEmail.com, together with its parent company The Suggestion Box, who claim that the law is unconstitutional. The law states that anyone who sends an email with intent to annoy could be subject to criminal penalties, but stops short of accurately defining what annoyance actually is.

TheAnonymousEmail.com advertises and provides services through which persons can send anonymous emails for "a variety of personal and business-oriented needs". The firm notes that, under the Annoyance Statute, it could become subject to criminal penalties where it knows that persons use its facilities to send emails that could be deemed to have been sent with an intent to annoy. Although the Annoyance Statute provides for a limited defense, this defense becomes unavailable to any person who advertises the availability of anonymous communications prohibited by the Annoyance Statute, the organization claims.




User Comments: 9

Got something to say? Post a comment
gamingmage said:
This is stupid. I mean this is a good law, but sort of I don't know, unneeded. If they try to determine what annoying is, it's going to be and I quote "annoyance is in the eye of the beholder". I mean it depends on the tolerance levels of people, seriously. Its not that bad to have annoying e-mails come you can just click on the ones you want to delete and then delete them. -click-!
Need_a_Dell said:
I think that the US government has other things to worry about other than annoying emails. Why don't they focus on hackers, or the people that release malicious software? The US government needs to get their priorities striaght. (Besides, how annoying are annoying emails really?)
Race said:
This law was just one part of a bill signed into law. It was actually intended to prevent harrassment from potential stalkers, disgruntled ex's, etc.If it did "slip under the door" without Congress taking a look at it, then perhaps it needs to be tweaked a bit.I think it's generally a good idea.
JMMD said:
There's probably a lot of grey area to determining what is and is not annoying. I'm sure there are some cases out there that may change peoples minds about the law. I would imagine that there is a law about harrassing someone via the phone?
cyrax said:
These laws are often difficult to enforce. They should focus more on laws to protect consumers against the riaa and mpaa.
enasni said:
[b]Originally posted by cyrax:[/b][quote]These laws are often difficult to enforce. They should focus more on laws to protect consumers against the riaa and mpaa.[/quote]If there is a phone law then its not working because some sicko was calling our house for about 2 weeks harrasing us. This annoyance law is just simply put as Retarded. Being annoyed is an opinion as to what annoys you and how much it annoys you.Sometimes I swear that us teenagers should be running the government because we could understand it better.
Masque said:
[b]Originally posted by enasni:[/b][quote][b]Originally posted by cyrax:[/b]Sometimes I swear that us teenagers should be running the government because we could understand it better.[/quote]At which point you would then understand that there are just as many teenagers willing to bend the law to their needs as there are adults. And don't think the government isn't understood....it's the corruption in the government as well as some of the ****** in it that are understood too well. And idiocy knows all ages.Just my $.02
otmakus said:
Unlike in phone calls, we can use email filter to only receive emails from the people in our address book. And for enasni, u could install a caller id phone in ur house, track the owner of that number, and then kick his/her ass (I'm not recommending this).
nathanskywalker said:
yeah, i agree with otmakus. Not that i would go beat someone up just for a minor incoveince, however anoying. though i might feel like it ;). But point being, this is not the Gmans buis, and he needs to back off and go do something productive, like cut down on how much water is spent on watering the White houses' front lawn. but really, an anonymous email is not necessary, except for those with less than legitimate interests.
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.