I'd agree with that, but the change in which they introduced the term annoy rather than to cause "substantial emotional harm" would make it a little farcical, unenforcible and possibly uncontretutional.
New, or revised legislation sometimes does contain wording that is open to a degree of interpretation. Normally what happens in such situations is that test cases are brought before the courts and a process is initiated whereby the judiciary attempts to look into the minds of the legislators to decide what the law was trying to do. Such cases are often examined more than once, via the appeal process, until eventually a precedent is established for the use/guidance of lawyers.
It all sounds a little clunky, but in fact it's a remarkably sophisticated system, and one which has worked very well for centuries.
Laws that don't do exactly what the legislative body intended, or which are patently unfair to a particular sector of the community can also be fine-tuned by a system of amendments, which themselves require the consent of the legislature before they can be enacted.
Don’t know if the analogy is correct, maybe the US see the internet as being in its Wild West stage and needs an armed Sheriff or two to bring about law and order.
One very crude interpretation in tabloid parlance maybe:
Whoever…..US or foreigner……..uses internet……to send message…..anonymously……with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass……any person……..who receives message. (Max 2yrs prison)
Making the law is probably the easiest part, be interesting to see how the enforcement side goes.
Two points initially come to mind; see the word foreigner is included but assume they would have to get you on US soil before they could deal with it, and the word annoy/annoyance has been used in UK law for many a year most recently in ASBO orders.