This is one of those rare internet moments when two disagreeing commenters both make logical and plausible points.

I think either could be true depending on how things work in practice. (which I dont have a fucking clue about)

eg. The existing law is not enforced, so basically doesnt exist; Whether the new one makes a difference depends on whether it is enforced or not in practice. I mean, they could just choose to actually enforce the existing one instead of making a new one, for example.

Anyway I wanted to chime from a more abstract debating point of view.

That's a good point. I humbly withdraw my snarky tone.

It's a pretty normal thing to pass more specific rules to cover more egregious cases even when there are already applicable laws. That's how you can have general laws on fraud, more specific laws on wire fraud, and even more specific laws on identity theft, market manipulation, and so on.

In this case -- with the caveat that I haven't read the Act -- it makes perfect intuitive sense to me. Wasting emergency services time with an ordinary nonsense 911 call (complaining about a pizza delivery or whatever is one thing). But in this case the "Karens" involved are specifically trying to invite a racist police response that could lead to violence, false imprisonment, or murder. And they know that perfectly well—they're trying to leverage systematic oppression to gratify personal spite. That demands a stricter response.