Comments on: Could cyberbully act be used to silence dissent?

By: Jeremiah Films

Jeremiah Films — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:15:23 +0000

Cyberbully…

…

By: byteshredder

byteshredder — Fri, 08 May 2009 06:56:53 +0000

Could cyberbully act be used to silence dissent?

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!

By: newton

newton — Fri, 08 May 2009 04:52:07 +0000

Beware the fury of a paient man.-Dryden

sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 5:16 PM

That would definitely apply to all of us, including the Tea Party protesters.

Our time will come.

By: DannoJyd

DannoJyd — Fri, 08 May 2009 03:46:21 +0000

Fairness Doctrine 2.0

It will happen under the Obamanation.

By: Friendly21

Friendly21 — Fri, 08 May 2009 01:12:43 +0000

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.

By: SGinNC

SGinNC — Thu, 07 May 2009 23:08:36 +0000

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.

By: Maquis

Maquis — Thu, 07 May 2009 23:07:18 +0000

Never let a good crisis go to waste, and never shy away from manufacturing one to suit your purposes.

By: marklmail

marklmail — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:12:17 +0000

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.

By: Col.John Wm. Reed

Col.John Wm. Reed — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:08:20 +0000

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president… is morally treasonable to the American public. T.R.

By: JellyToast

JellyToast — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:07:39 +0000

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.

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!

By: koz

koz — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:06:19 +0000

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.

By: dogsoldier

dogsoldier — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:01:08 +0000

This poor Republic is very, very sick.

We will not be a republic very long, I fear.

That cat has nasty looking claws, does she not?

By: Red State State of Mind

Red State State of Mind — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:45:58 +0000

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.

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.

By: agmartin

agmartin — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:24:50 +0000

Volokh also thinks it’s clear that this HR is unconstitutional, and would immediately be struck down: http://volokh.com/posts/1212694919.shtml.
tneloms on May 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM

What did he have to say about McCain Feingold?

By: AUINSC

AUINSC — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:23:23 +0000

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.

Which, of course, is exactly the intention.

By: Grafted

Grafted — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:16:33 +0000

It’s not even a question. Of course it will. Anything meant for good intent will be twisted by liberals to enslave the world.

By: sven10077

sven10077 — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:16:28 +0000

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

Beware the fury of a paient man.-Dryden

By: bluelightbrigade

bluelightbrigade — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:15:45 +0000

Could cyberbully act be used to silence dissent?

Yes.

By: Dave R.

Dave R. — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:13:46 +0000

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

By: sven10077

sven10077 — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:03:01 +0000

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…

By: Dave R.

Dave R. — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:00:39 +0000

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

By: ladyingray

ladyingray — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:58:17 +0000

GarandFan on May 7, 2009 at 4:29 PM

I’m sorry, but could you clarify how you really feel?

By: ladyingray

ladyingray — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:56:50 +0000

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

Ok. The important question here is: will I have to stop playing “Mafia Wars” on Facebook?

By: BHO Jonestown

BHO Jonestown — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:56:02 +0000

‘Dissent is patriotic’ is soooo 5 minutes ago. We got the hope & change now!

By: njcommuter

njcommuter — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:50:13 +0000

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.