I think the bill is ridiculous. But not because of the "intent to annoy or offend" text (which seems to have gotten the most people annoyed and/or offended). That part is quantified later by describing the means by which you would do that (obscene language, threats, etc) to be unlawful. I think it is ridiculous because, as others have pointed out, there already exists other measures that can be pursued to deal with threats and the like. And also because "obscene" is such a subjective term... even the courts can't define it. They just "know it when they see it". Even if it was written better, I still don't think it is a necessary piece of legislation. My point really was to make sure we are focused on the right negative aspect of the bill rather than just the "annoy and offend" part because I don't think that is really their intent. Arguing against that part doesn't really attack the main issue and can cause the message to be lost. That was all.

Edit: I think DanBC put it best... or at least more to the point.