This is about using a legal tool (in this case, the Internet) to run someone down--specifically to cause harm to their name, reputation, employment or job prospects or encourage other people to do them physical harm. Since it's illegal to literally run someone down using your car, it's just as illegal to use the Internet to do it.
[Read the statute.]
Again, how the statute is written, or how it reads is seldom the problem.
However, how the statute is APPLIED that creates problems.
Aye, there's the rub!
Who defines "run someone down"? What does that mean, exactly?
If I claim that Barack Obama is a Marxist usurper of government power, have I "run him down"?
If a classmate of my daughter writes online that she is an "ugly b!$%#", has that person "run my daughter down"?
This is a dangerously broad statute. I hope it's struck down quickly.
Um, you didn’t read my very next comment, did you? LOL
PS If the statute just punshed “harm by posting,” with harm not defined, it would be unconstitutional. Sorry, I’m allowed to “harm” people’s feeling with my speech. For that matter, I’m allowed to harm their reputation - if what I say is true - and even harm their livelihood and life - again if what I say is true. As an extreme example, if I know someone is about to commit a heinous crime, I’m allowed to warn people about it even if that ultimately results in the person getting killed (for example by the cops). Any law to the contrary would be unconstitutional.
The way the law is written would seem to indicate
that just revealing information, ie. address,
phone number, internet address,
would be against the law.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person sends an
electronic mail, instant message, text message, or similar
communication that references a name, domain address, phone number,
or other item of identifying information belonging to any person:
(1) without obtaining the other person’s consent;
Folks, they are herding us up to put us in a corral
Ayn Rand was right.