Could cyberbully act be used to silence dissent?
posted at 3:30 pm on May 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Josh Trevino thinks that the entire blogosphere should take a highly wary look at HR 1996, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, named after a teen who committed suicide after a schoolmate’s mother engineered a devastating psychological attack on her via a social-networking site. In reaction to the case, Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) introduced the bill last year (Hulshof is no longer in Congress), and it has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration. Trevino thinks the bill uses broad language that could easily trap political dissent, in clause Sec 881 (a):
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.
Trevino has a point here. These terms are vague and easily manipulated for all sorts of purposes. If a blogger posted repeated criticisms of Carrie Prejean and published her modeling photos, wouldn’t that qualify, at least in theory? What about critics of Meghan McCain who caddishly focus on her appearance? Isn’t that designed to “cause substantial emotional distress”? Would bloggers doing either get prosecuted under HR 1996?
Why exactly is Congress taking up this issue anyway? The Megan Meier case was tragic, of course, and the woman who destroyed her deserves nothing but scorn, vituperation, and shunning. However, we aren’t exactly experiencing a wave of cyberbullying deaths, and it seems that laws already in existence for fraud, slander, libel, and harassment should apply.
When in doubt, Congress should re-read the First Amendment, which forbids Congress from passing laws restricting the right of free speech. They should also note that the Constitution is absolutely silent on any right to be free from “distress”, nor does it set the government as an arbiter on what constitutes “substantial emotional distress” or “hostile behavior” that doesn’t break the usual laws on assault, battery, trespass, and fraud. We do not need the Nanny State to treat us like children, and if we allow them to fill that role, we should not be surprised when those who hold power use it as a weapon against those who challenge them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
It’s horrible… so many regular posters here would be in jail…
GoodBoy on May 7, 2009 at 3:33 PM
If the world made sense, the entire Obama administration could be arrested for bullying.
Daggett on May 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Not just a slippery slope. 427 A/C Cobra full throttle down the hill. Hugobama will love this.
faol on May 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Which Federal lockup is most [geographically] proximate to whatever hovel Jane Hamsher spews forth from?
SlimyBill on May 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM
I wonder if one of the ways to fight such laws as the “hate crimes” or this, once enacted, would be to actually use them?
eforhan on May 7, 2009 at 3:35 PM
With all that these people are trying to do and the democrats going for it, I offer this. People are outraged at what has happened so far and what is now being tried. The democrats are over reaching and they will find that they will lose any power they have for decades. They can’t be trusted.
suzyk on May 7, 2009 at 3:35 PM
As is true of all government seizures of authority, if it CAN be abused it WILL be abused.
wildcat84 on May 7, 2009 at 3:36 PM
This act is insane and its sponsors ought to be committed. They are nutcases who shouldn’t be trusted with any responsibilities beyond feeding themselves.
What a Congress. Misfits, morons, lunatics and criminals. And they are crafting our federal laws … G-d help us all.
progressoverpeace on May 7, 2009 at 3:36 PM
I also think this current administration should be charged with hate crimes against the American people.
suzyk on May 7, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Yes and in fact every opposing view of everything could be prosecuted based on that language because someone will be offend everything.
JeffinSac on May 7, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Is hating free speech and opposing views considered a hate crime?
Daggett on May 7, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Inch by inch bho and gang are trying everything they can think of to make us ‘good little people’. Take every aspect of our life the way they want us to be. How about huffo post, the left hate sites or is it just consertive sites? How about Jihad Watch and the like, we can’t upset the rop now can we? Gads, this has got to stop!!
L
letget on May 7, 2009 at 3:40 PM
The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act is causing me great distress. Can I have the sponsors arrested for releasing it to be published on the internet?
progressoverpeace on May 7, 2009 at 3:41 PM
So, the next Tea Parties roll around, or 9/12, Thugbama throws a loose cannon leftist into the mix with an assault rifle and the whole conservative movement gets imprisoned.
Sweeet. :/
cntrlfrk on May 7, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Justice seems slippery with corupted humanity. Power corrupts, so we try to make objective laws with one group and enforce those laws with another group, but the laws never cover all of the new ways we come up with harming one another. I hope the adult orchestrator in the Megan Meier case was prosecuted for something. I guess we have to accept a certain amount of injustice around the edges so that the best process for dealing with broader injustices can proceed. And in that vein, a bad law can do far more harm than good, and should be carefully deliberated, and often refrained from.
AnotherOpinion on May 7, 2009 at 3:42 PM
That’s its purpose.
single stack on May 7, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Meddling law enforcement/legislative officials need to stay out of our intertubes. They aren’t going to like what they find, and surely won’t appreciate the arms race they’ll create trying to legislate online behavior in the way they do actual behavior.
ernesto on May 7, 2009 at 3:43 PM
It isn’t that they would be “prosecuted”, the problem is that they would have to “defend” themselves.
Defense costs money…you can file for very little money, but the defense can cost big bucks.
It costs much more money and time to prove you did nothing wrong, then it takes to make the allegation.
So winning or losing isn’t always the objective, it’s the harassment that takes it’s toll.
An example: A neighbor can accuse you (anonymously) of child abuse…the CPS moves in and you spend time and money to defend something you never did.
Or just look at some of the “cases” thrown at Gov. Palin…
right2bright on May 7, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Then it can be struck down as unconstitutionally overbroad. Not to mention void for vagueness.
Wethal on May 7, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Ed, did you see the exceptions for hate sites like Daily Kos?
Once the empathy enabled Supreme Court is seated, it will just be Hot Air that is targeted for anything the left wants.
tarpon on May 7, 2009 at 3:45 PM
I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV…
…but my understanding for the reasons behind this act was that the current laws could not be used against the mother (something to do with the cyber nature of the crime).
Which made what happened all that more heinous and outrageous – the mom basically got off with a slap on the wrist.
Now, I don’t know if the better solution is to update/upgrade the current laws to include things like cyber-bullying…
…or if it’s simpler to make a new law.
I DO know that many of our laws (especially copyright laws) are woefully behind the technological curve.
Religious_Zealot on May 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM
If Free Speech is made criminals only criminals will have free speech*.
*along with Donk Pols and Moonbats but I repeat myself.
sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Would it apply to “special comments” either broadcast on cable or webcast? Probably not under this admin, but it does seem vague enough to ensnare KO.
rw on May 7, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Shameless, disgusting opportunism.
Cylor on May 7, 2009 at 3:47 PM
or Kanye “George Bush hates black people” West….
sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 3:48 PM
That’s what I’m wondering. When dissent is mentioned, I do believe it’s meant as a one sided thing. As in….how DARE we dissent from Obama’s plans, and policies. How dare we disagree with him, his administration, his supporters, and liberal ideology. Just another way to shut down conservative thoughts, and opinions.
capejasmine on May 7, 2009 at 3:49 PM
:p
Not to “cause substantial emotional distress” but to point out to Megsy-Wegsy that if she is going to insult people who have a different opinion than her opinions on a plethora of principles and she ridicules those said people – and she has put herself in the public arena – watch out because karma will come around and nip you on the rear – regardless of the size!
Mew-Mew
Branch Rickey on May 7, 2009 at 3:50 PM
The problem with all such legislation is you have to take off your common sense hat and put on your personal injury lawyer hat. If there room in the language to allow attacks on bloggers? Yes
Is that the intent of the legislation? I would like to say no.
Would a professional lawyer or politician use it to shut down opposition? You betcha.
Just A Grunt on May 7, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Just by the way, it’s HR 1966, not 1996.
flipflop on May 7, 2009 at 3:54 PM
So, if this passes and I’m playing an online video game, and someone treats me badly, would I call 911 or the FBI?
malclave on May 7, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Will we have wifi access in prison?
meci on May 7, 2009 at 3:58 PM
This poor Republic is very, very sick.
rplat on May 7, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Sooo… way this is written you CAN harass people in your OWN State…
Just not in other states… thus the case that brought this on would not be covered by this.
And, how is this COMMERCE?
What next, you can’t yell an insult at someone if its across a State Border?
Romeo13 on May 7, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Online gamers would have to turn off the chat function en mass in order to save themselves millions in fines.
Kelligan on May 7, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Aaarrrggh! I can’t stand any more!
ronsfi on May 7, 2009 at 4:02 PM
They won’t go after individuals or blog sites. They’ll amend it to hold ISP’s accountable for hosting such sites, then ISP’s will slowly expand their TOS’s to ban (conservative) political blogs for fear of having their licenses revoked.
SPCOlympics on May 7, 2009 at 4:04 PM
I for one, agree with everything Linda Sanchez and Obama says…..Honestly, I do……….Please, not SIBERIA! :(
ThePrez on May 7, 2009 at 4:05 PM
SPIN:
CaveatEmpty on May 7, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Just call it HR 1984
misterspork on May 7, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Check out this statute in Missouri from last year: http://volokh.com/posts/1211313040.shtml.
Volokh also thinks it’s clear that this HR is unconstitutional, and would immediately be struck down: http://volokh.com/posts/1212694919.shtml.
Also, this is a separate issue from harassment and free speech, but I don’t see the point of making a law like this for each type of communication (in person, by phone, by electronic means).
tneloms on May 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM
This is a different animal, but I thought there already were cyberstalking laws on the books. In fact, I had to use one once to get someone’s attention, and believe me, it worked. I cited it to the person publicly with the precise language of the law, and what was going on (which was really very bad…I have a thick skin and I wouldn’t have bothered otherwise) ended. Abruptly.
You can’t just go after anyone you want online to inflict emotional distress.
Cyberstalking law opens debate on what’s annoying
capitalist piglet on May 7, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Anyone remember “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”? We have created a generation of wimps! If someone hurts your feelings, brush it off and move on! Geez.
Its called a “learning experience”, a part of growing up!
jbh45 on May 7, 2009 at 4:24 PM
The very concept of hate crimes has no place in America. Call this what is is-thought crime. Hate crime laws make thought itself, or rather, someone else’s perception of your thoughts, a crime.
single stack on May 7, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Hey Obama, FUCK YOU! Pelosi, RESIGN! Feinstien, YOU’RE A CROOK! Biden, SHUT YOUR MOUTH! Reid, ANY GOOD REAL ESTATE FRAUD DEALS LATELY?
What’s that, 10 years?
GarandFan on May 7, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Would Obama’s PR attack against the uncooperative Chrysler investors be covered by this law, do you think?
Socratease on May 7, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Perez Hilton, call your lawyers office.
DaveS on May 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM
This is another “nanny” bill that should be shot down.
The entire story was stupid. If you feel harassed, turn of your internet.
Simple.
AnninCA on May 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Can’t wait for the unintended consequences………..
Seven Percent Solution on May 7, 2009 at 4:44 PM
“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 ….”
.
What about those who start a boycott on the internet? Or someone who starts a campaign to remove a politician from his life-time job if he doesn’t change his position on a controversy? Don’t they intend to coerce a person using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior? What does “coerce” “severe” and “hostile” mean anyway? I don’t remember seeing them defined in the First Amendment.
Fred 2 on May 7, 2009 at 4:45 PM
“… because, Shut Up.”
Stephen Macklin on May 7, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Rather than create a new category of crime, it should be enough to explicitly state that the existing categories apply even on the internet. There is a question of jurisdiction: do the laws of the the recipient’s locale or the sender’s locale apply? But I believe these could be answered.
njcommuter on May 7, 2009 at 4:50 PM
‘Dissent is patriotic’ is soooo 5 minutes ago. We got the hope & change now!
BHO Jonestown on May 7, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Ok. The important question here is: will I have to stop playing “Mafia Wars” on Facebook?
ladyingray on May 7, 2009 at 4:56 PM
GarandFan on May 7, 2009 at 4:29 PM
I’m sorry, but could you clarify how you really feel?
ladyingray on May 7, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Could cyberbully act be used to silence dissent?
Do bears defecate in the woods?
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96301
These goobers are dead serious about silencing dissent in this country, and that right soon.
What is more, they now have more than enough votes in congress to do it, too.
-Dave
Dave R. on May 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM
dissent is the highest form of patriotism” will get put to the test…
sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Something tells me that went out the window at 11:59:59am on Jan 20, 2009.
-Dave
Dave R. on May 7, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Yes.
bluelightbrigade on May 7, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Beware the fury of a paient man.-Dryden
sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 5:16 PM
It’s not even a question. Of course it will. Anything meant for good intent will be twisted by liberals to enslave the world.
Grafted on May 7, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Which, of course, is exactly the intention.
AUINSC on May 7, 2009 at 5:23 PM
What did he have to say about McCain Feingold?
agmartin on May 7, 2009 at 5:24 PM
If you can find all sorts of “Privacy Rights” in the US Constitution, but you are fuzzy on that ‘ol Second Amendment thing….you just might be a Liberal.
Red State State of Mind on May 7, 2009 at 5:45 PM
We will not be a republic very long, I fear.
That cat has nasty looking claws, does she not?
dogsoldier on May 7, 2009 at 6:01 PM
My very first thought on reading this article earlier today was ‘Yes, this is going to be used to someone’s advantage…’
Even though the reason for this legislation is a very sad and sick story, watch this administration take it to the limit.
Just another back door version of the Fairness Doctrine, in my humble opinion.
koz on May 7, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Wouldn’t this be a cause to imprison 90% of congress and Obama as well?? They engage in interstate commerce all the time(flying here and there, raising funds and eating burgers). They certainly harass, intimidate and cause emotional distress!
JellyToast on May 7, 2009 at 6:07 PM
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president… is morally treasonable to the American public. T.R.
Col.John Wm. Reed on May 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM
You know, in a sane world, with an honest administration and congress, this wouldn’t be so dangerous. These days however, we need to look at everything through a worst case scenario filter. I don’t trust these crooks and liars and radical idealogues with ANYTHING.
marklmail on May 7, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Never let a good crisis go to waste, and never shy away from manufacturing one to suit your purposes.
Maquis on May 7, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Every day there is an emergency or a new cause that needs to be enacted by our Government to silence so called haters or law breakers. But I believe that these laws will ultimately end up serving a duel purpose. Laws should be made to control real crimes, and not be made so they can be twisted at a later time to limit our speech, thoughts or lawful actions. We should look at every law carefully to be sure it cannot be turned on honest Americans later who are only practicing what is God given and guaranteed by our Constitution.
SGinNC on May 7, 2009 at 7:08 PM
That bill only applies to people who do not agree with the One, His policies, His minions, any Lib, leftist, communist, or other variety of socialist.
So don’t worry guys/gals. It not aimed at you…
In no time flat the One will completely transform the US into a benign dictatorship, with free elections – wherein voters will have the freedom to choose any Dem on the ballot.
Friendly21 on May 7, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Fairness Doctrine 2.0
It will happen under the Obamanation.
DannoJyd on May 7, 2009 at 11:46 PM
That would definitely apply to all of us, including the Tea Party protesters.
Our time will come.
newton on May 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Holy skinny and shapely Paris Hilton. Someone must have tortured Linda Sanchez by holding her down, and stuffing her maw with tacos…for a few months. Whatta fat-ass!
byteshredder on May 8, 2009 at 2:56 AM
Comment pages: