The use of vague words like "offend" or "annoy" isn't the only thing that's disconcerting here. The focus on "intent" should also give us pause. The thing is,

The use of vague words like "offend" or "annoy" isn't the only thing that's disconcerting here. The focus on "intent" should also give us pause. The thing is, it's pretty damned hard to prove intent in many, if not most, use cases on the internet. And I fear that this law, as written, gives the offended the power to define the "intent" of the alleged offender. Sure, it's pretty easy to deduce intent if you can find an obvious pattern of repeated attempts to bully or harass someone. But rarely are circumstances so cut-and-dried. And for areas like message boards, comments sections, blog posts, and other open fora, who's to say what someone's intent was? I might write a blog post that's critical of a person or an organization, and that person or organization may get "annoyed" with the post. Does their annoyance, therefore, retroactively define my intent as malicious? Or was I simply exercising my 1st Amendment right to criticize? What a dangerous path we wander when we allow the delicacy of people's sensibilities to define the intent of our words. I'm no lawyer, but I would imagine that the letter of this law is pretty indefensible on Constitutional grounds.