Wired posts a copy of the jury instructions in the Drew case here [pdf].  Access the entire post here.

I'm more convinced that the problematic part of the case is not the concept of unauthorized access (which is problematic), but what the court required to jury to find was accomplished as a result.   Instructions 15, 21, and 22 are worth checking out and they essentially say that if Ms. Drew engaged in unauthorized access in order to commit any tort she could be guilty:

 

It's easy to see how this is problematic.  Interpreted in this manner, the CFAA seems like the digital version of the RICO Act.  By this logic, flaming someone or calling someone a name when you have accessed a network beyond its terms of service could cause you to violate the statute.  (I still think the more problematic portion is not necessarily the "unauthorized access" issue, but the fact that in the government's eyes, you could commit a garden variety tort and violate the statute.)

NB:  the usual disclaimers apply - I'm not a criminal lawyer, and it's tough to get a sense from just reading the pleadings and news reports. (That said, Wired's reporting on this sort of stuff is really good.)