Why is it illegal to annoy someone via electronic communication in Massachusetts?
<p>According to Massachusetts State General Law, Chapter 269, Section 14A, it is illegal to send repeated communications to someone with the intent to annoy the person, punishable be 3 months in a correctional facility and up to $500 in fines. Why would annoyance be illegal only if the communication method is electronic?</p>

<p>Annoyance may be illegal even if it's not done electronically; it just wouldn't be prosecuted under this specific law.</p>

<p>Under <a href="https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Section14A" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chapter 269, § 14A</a>, it is illegal when a person:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>contacts another person by electronic communication ... for the sole purpose of harassing, annoying or molesting the person or the person’s family.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That same law also makes it illegal when a person:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>contacts a person repeatedly by electronic communication and uses indecent or obscene language to the person.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But Massachusetts prohibits annoyance in several other contexts, as well:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter265/Section43" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chapter 265 § 43</a>, the anti-stalking statute, deals with engaging in "a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person which seriously alarms or <strong>annoys</strong> that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress."</li>
<li><a href="https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter266/Section37E" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chapter 266 § 37E</a>, the identity-theft statute, covers activity that "seriously alarms or <strong>annoys</strong> such person or persons and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress."</li>
<li><a href="https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter268/Section13B" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chapter 268 § 13B</a> uses the same language in prohibiting harassment of jurors, witnesses, etc.</li>
<li><a href="https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section43" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chapter 272 § 43</a>, penalizes "whoever, in or upon a railroad carriage, steamboat or other public conveyance, is disorderly, or disturbs or <strong>annoys</strong> travelers in or upon the same by profane, obscene or indecent language, or by indecent behavior."</li>
<li><a href="https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section53" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chapter 272 § 53</a> penalizes "persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or <strong>annoy</strong> another person."</li>
</ul>

<p>Note that these kinds of laws are often interpreted very broadly, so even though a law may exist purporting to govern annoyance, it may still be suspect under First Amendment analysis. An somewhat similar annoyance law in New Jersey was just <a href="http://reason.com/volokh/2017/12/19/can-repeated-speech-be-criminalized-just" rel="nofollow noreferrer">pared back by the Supreme Court</a> there last year.</p>

massachusetts harassment