By Carlos Miller
Last year, Democratic Congresswoman Linda Sanchez sponsored the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, which was in response to the 2006 suicide of a teenage girl who had been bullied online.
The proposed bill was very broad and the subject was relatively unknown to members of congress, so the bill ended up dying.
Now that members are somewhat more familiar with the subject, the Californian congresswoman has reintroduced the bill and this time has 17 co-sponsors, including democrats and republicans.
But the bill is just as broad as it was last year, meaning it could lead to anybody being imprisoned for their blogging.
The bill defines cyberbullying as:
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Although there are probably a few people who have suffered emotional distress through my writing, I am very careful not to libel anybody. However, under Sanchez’s proposed bill, it wouldn’t be that difficult to imprison me because of my writing. Or a number of other bloggers for that matter.
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh who pens The Volokh Conspiracy said the bill in unconstitutional and listed six scenarios in which it can be abused:
1. I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite / campaign promise breaker / fool / etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior” — unless, of course, my statements aren’t seen as “severe,” a term that is entirely undefined and unclear. Result: I am a felon, unless somehow my “behavior” isn’t “severe.”
2. A newspaper reporter or editorialist tries to do the same, in columns that are posted on the newspaper’s Web site. Result: Felony, unless somehow my “behavior” isn’t severe.
3. The politician votes the wrong way. I think that’s an evil, tyrannical vote, so I repeatedly and harshly condemn the politician on my blog, hoping that he’ll get very upset (and rightly so, since I think he deserves to feel ashamed of himself, and loathed by others). I am transmitting a communication with the the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means (a blog) “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” (I might also be said to be intending to “harass” — who knows, given how vague the term is? — but the result is the same even if we set that aside.) Result: I am a felon, subject to the usual utter uncertainty about what “severe” means.
4. A company delivers me shoddy goods, and refuses to refund my money. I e-mail it several times, threatening to sue if they don’t give me a refund, and I use “hostile” language. I am transmitting a communication with the intent to coerce, using electronic means “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Result: I am a felon, if my behavior is “severe.”
5. Several people use blogs or Web-based newspaper articles to organize a boycott of a company, hoping to get it to change some policy they disapprove of. They are transmitting communications with the intent to coerce, using electronic means “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Result: Those people are a felon. (Isn’t threatening a company with possible massive losses “severe”? But again, who knows?)
6. John cheats on Mary. Mary wants John to feel like the scumbag that he is, so she sends him two hostile messages telling him how much he’s hurt her, how much she now hates him, and how bad he should feel. She doesn’t threaten him with violence (there are separate laws barring that, and this law would apply even in the absence of a threat). She is transmitting communications with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Result: Mary is a felon, again if her behavior is “severe.”
Popularity: 1% [?]
25 responses so far ↓
1 Michael Swart // May 5, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Straying off topic from first amendment matters, do you (or any other commenters here) have any thoughts on how to address the real problem of cyber-bullying. Whether it’s through legislation or some other avenue entirely… Maybe encouraging programs like http://www.challengeday.org/
2 Andrew DeFilippis // May 5, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Since when have our opinions become illegal… Oh wait… The erosion of our Constitution… Duh.
The government is a bunch of sissies. The next day, there is going to be a law against living… This is ridiculous!
3 Simon Jester // May 5, 2009 at 5:07 PM
DO against cyber-bullying? How about encouraging programs that teach kids that they can turn their computers off? Don’t post personal information about yourself that you don’t want the people who inhabit /B/ to get. Remember that words are words and that you can, unlike a real bully at school, just walk away from them.
I was terribly bullied when I was in school, but I came to the realization of the power I had over them. Bullies need the bullied to exist. When you stop feeding them, they shrivel and die. They have a pack mentality and will attack each other if you stop giving them the job they derive from your pain.
To stop Cyber-Bullying, it’s easy: DNFTT!
4 ALL BE DAMNED // May 5, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Simon is right they can turn OFF their computers , Stop posting their personal info online, and if they realy feel threatened do the old fanshioned thing and TELL A GROWN UP who can deal with it…………..
any one know what the bill number is for this bill?
5 Voice of Reason // May 5, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Note to ALL BE DAMNED: Haven’t noticed any posts by you recently. Glad to see you. You asked about the “bill number”. The version introduced last year was HR-6123. This year’s version is HR-1966. At first glance, there don’t appear to be any significant differences between the two versions.
BTW After the previous exchange where you asked me about E-mail, I looked into setting it up. I may do so in the next month or two.
6 pod // May 5, 2009 at 9:08 PM
I and most of the contributors to my forum could conceivably be thrown in jail if this passes. Over in our little slice of life, I’m really hands off, and I myself have lost it (for good reason) more than once and really come down on people.
Now, here’s the thing. I’ll use harsh language, and refer to people as morons, idiots, jackasses, slapdicks, and so on. But it’s really no worse than most of us were probably referred to by our own flesh and blood while growing up. I don’t know about all y’all but when I screwed up as a kid, “idiot” was about as mild as it got.
We’ve managed to create a nice little feminized society here, and now the chickens are coming home to roost with moronic and idiotic laws like this. Slapdicks.
7 dave // May 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM
the writing of the bill itself is coercive, and intimidating. I thought libel and slander were legal terms because harassment and intimidation were relative terms.
I guess if its directed at one distinct person that’s the only way they can do anything. Also they need to define “repeated” as many times a week, or per day.
Once they stretch that to define groups of people or religious groups, then were all doomed. No more political blogs.
ridiculous
8 Ariel // May 5, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Welcome to Canada, eh? This is similar to the legislation and the HRCs thus created that are coming under increasing fire in Canada. I doubt that this will pass Constitutional muster, and, yes, Linda Sanchez , you are an idiot for not seeing the ramifications of this bill. Linda, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, don’t be the ass who’s fault is more paving. ( I know, I know, I deserve punishment for that.)
9 pod // May 6, 2009 at 12:25 AM
You’d be thrown in jail for that, Ariel, and I bet they’d toss Carlos back in for letting you post it for good measure just because they can.
Slapdicks.
I get top bunk.
10 Duane Kerzic // May 6, 2009 at 12:39 AM
best thing to do is write to your congressperson and senators and ask them to vote no.
11 Carlos Miller // May 6, 2009 at 12:42 AM
But only write them once because anymore might be viewed as repeated harassment.
12 ALL BE DAMNED // May 6, 2009 at 2:15 AM
I have read thru some of the bill now that VoR has given me the Numbers and by the looks of things ANYTHING posted on the web can be considered as Harassment and or coercive including but not limited to SPAM , POP UP ADS, Ads on web sites any type of blog and other wise as everything is in some way coersive by nature to get you to buy sell and or change your opinion on something. The bill is a 1st ammendment violation waiting to happen in any case because you can say ” in my opinion you need to be nutered ” or something of the like in a blog and STILL be put in jail for it even though you stated the words”in my opinion” the first ammendment protects you or so i have been told by sevral lawer and Judge friends but if this law passes you might as well shut down the web Because site like ebay and amazon are coersing you to buy buy buy and should be shut down
Ok i am done rainting but look at the law its all against the first ammendment.
13 Scott Chamness // May 6, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Yeah, this is a really bad law. It is gonna get challenged right away if it passes. There are only a few ways that the government can restrict free speech, (ie. Advocating violence or obscenity), and a broad way like this isn’t one of them.
By the way, I’ve been through every type of bullying there is, and I’ve just found it the easiest to go against cyberbullying. If I don’t like what someone is saying, I just don’t listen.
Congress has obviously not taken any rides on the back of a public school bus lately, or cyberbullying would be the last thing on their minds.
14 Voice of Reason // May 8, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Note to Scott Chamness: I don’t know if you’ll see this, because I’m responding two days late. However, you’ve said things both previously and here which suggest that you’re a teacher. Is this the case? If so, are you able to discuss First Amendment issues in classes?
15 Scott Chamness // May 8, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Voice of Reason,
I am actually rather flattered. I’m not actually a teacher, I’m a student in a university, but I am in training to become a history teacher. About being able to discuss First Amendment issues, it would depend on what type of class I’m teaching, for instance, a law class in college, probably I would be able to. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be able to talk about it really in a sociology class.
Also just a note to anyone who is interested cause I’m so excited about it. A+, in Individual Rights, never had anything that high before.
Thanks,
Scott Chamness
16 ALL BE DAMNED // May 8, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Great to hear on your A+
i do think we need more teachers able to teach
about our rights and freedoms the constitution gives us and as for this law i did read more and i agree this is way to genral a law to even be considered I mean hell i am in violation of it by trying to “coerse” you into to agreeing with me by pointing this out
second i would be a felon by saying the person who proposed and the people who back it are ignorent fools in the exstreme……………
17 Carlos Miller // May 9, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Congratulations on the A+, Scott.
Hopefully this site had something to do with that!
18 Scott Chamness // May 9, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Actually, it did Carlos.
I cited this site in several of my papers.
Thanks for that.
19 Anon-a-Blogger // May 10, 2009 at 3:43 AM
In that case, I guess Perez Hilton would have a case, since Carlos called him a “queen” and a “bitch”.
In an ironic sense, of course, not a bullying sense. I wonder if the courts would note the irony in your post.
If you had punched him in the face while calling him a queer, I think that would qualify as a hate crime. Or an “ironic crime”.
20 Anton Lee // May 10, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Queer = weird where I come from. Of course, I pronounce it quare.
21 Voice of Reason // May 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Note to Scott Chamness:
I hope you see this, because I’d like you to know that you come across more as a teacher than as a teacher in training.
The A+ in Individual Rights is promising. You don’t need to average anywhere that high to graduate with honors, and honors are likely to be beneficial.
As far as teaching First Amendment in classes goes, if you’re teaching history per se at some point, I believe that you should be able to find room for it even at the high-school level.
22 Scott Chamness // May 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Note to Voice of Reason,
As you seem to have some of the most well thought out arguments on this blog that I have ever seen on the Internet, I really appreciate that.
I’ll defiantly be able to at least go over First Amendment somewhere in a history class, and really extensively if I’m able to teach an AP Government class or something down the line.
Thanks again,
23 Voice of Reason // May 14, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Note to Scott Chamness: You said, “you seem to have some of the most well thought out arguments on this blog that I have ever seen on the Internet”.
Now it’s my turn to say thanks. You’re exaggerating. However, everybody hopes that they’ll be seen this way by at least a few people, and I’m no exception.
I’d like to add that I stopped by this site to say a few things that I wanted to say. When somebody does this, they don’t necessarily expect people to agree with their views, but they do like to see responses. It’s my impression that most people have dismissed my posts as uninteresting, but some people have been kind enough to engage me or at least to say a few words.
That includes you (Mr. Chamness), Ariel, ALLBEDAMNED, Pinandpuller, Mr. Kerzic, “dateach”, and a few others. I’d like to express my appreciation for the interactions.
24 The Grunt // Jul 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM
It is never well meaning laws that get us in trouble. It is those who manipulate the law later to use it to our disadvantage. There is a lot I don’t like on the web, but I have the right to shut it off, and yes, they have the right to be there. Remember, its not just free speach here, but free thought. You need to read Thomas Paine. The question is who desides who is a bully and what speach is hateful? If I hate the Army or Obama or Hillary or the Pope do I get arrested? Who makes the call? Homeland Security? As a veteran and gun owner I just found out I’m probably on someone’s list. I’m 62, disabled and can’t see, but I don’t get to make the call, Ms. Napalatano does. I shouls put duct tape over my mouth. God help the second amt.
25 Rock Ballads CD // May 25, 2010 at 6:03 AM
Useful information like this one end up being held and maintained and will place this one on my search for list! Thanks for this wonderful publish and hoping to post associated with this!
Leave a Comment