Congress should allow “˜annoying’ Internet

Sometimes, a single word can be the difference between freedom
and prison. In the U.S., most people take free speech for granted,
assuming that we can say almost anything without much risk of legal
punishment.

But the U.S. government eroded that freedom on Thursday when
President Bush signed the Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act.

According to CNET columnist Declan McCullagh, the act changes
federal law so that it may now be illegal to post a message on the
Internet that “annoys” another person.

As reported by CNET, the new language reads: “Whoever …
utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate
telecommunications or other types of communications that are
transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet … without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten
or harass any person … who receives the communications … shall
be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or
both.”

Let me make it clear that I completely support efforts to stop
violence against women. I also don’t think people should be
allowed to harass other people, whether they are using the Internet
or the telephone or any other device.

That said, this new law contains language so vague that almost
anyone with a controversial Web site could be punished for annoying
someone else.

For centuries, fascist governments have used vague laws to jail
political dissidents, religious heretics and others whose behavior
falls outside accepted norms.

The Bush administration ““ and the current Congress ““
cannot be trusted enough to leave the law as it now reads.

It may be true that the law is only meant to protect people from
harassment, but the Bush administration has a proven history of
twisting meanings after the fact ““ and the language of this
new law is too vulnerable to such maneuvers.

Already, Bush and his lieutenants have illegally spied on
Americans, citing vague Congressional resolutions as
justification.

Similarly, in the case of Jose Padilla, the Bush administration
jailed an American citizen without trial, again citing wartime
powers. (Note that America is not even engaged in a formally
declared war.)

In the future, Bush or a similar leader could use this new
language as an excuse to jail individuals who are merely exercising
their constitutional right to free speech.

While it is almost unthinkable that the Supreme Court would
allow this new law to be used against free speech, stranger things
have happened.

And with the appointment of two new justices, the American
people should not take anything for granted based on past
decisions.

Congress should not wait for the court to rule on this new law.
For all we know, the law could sit quietly on the books for years
until some attorney has the nerve to use it against an American for
some spurious reason.

By then, it’s anyone’s guess what the political and
legal climate will be. A future court may or may not rule in favor
of freedom.

To be sure this does not happen, Congress should immediately
admit its mistake and revisit the language of Section 113 of its
new law.

Lazzaro was the 2003-2004 Daily Bruin Viewpoint
editor.