My point in the other comment was that in the case this legislation is named after, the jury DID find it introlerable, and found the defendant not guilty. However, she was still convicted by a judge, due to arguments that directly contradict the Bill of Rights.

I agree that there's a big difference between true harassment / slander and your average blog, but they're taking way too much power with this legislation. If you think that problems like this don't backfire, I'd refer you to the legal history behind the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The Commerce Clause of the constitution was used to argue that Congress couldn't make it illegal to take a gun into a public school. Yes, practically everybody agrees kids shouldn't take guns to school. So doesn't it scare you that lawyers and judges took such a broad interpretation to contradict the obvious, and it worked?