Bill Aims to Turn Internet Flamers Into Felons

[Voodoo]

Schnoogs had better watch out...

An internet bill re-introduced in Congress by Representative Linda Sanchez aims to turn internet flaming and harassment into a felony, with a growing number of Congressman and others becoming familiar with the bill.

Specifically, H.R. 1966, originally filed on April 2, will make it a felony if the messages have "the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." People using electronic means to harass others face possible fines or jail sentence up to two years, or both.

...here's a bit more...

Sanchez defended the bill, stating, "Congress has no interest in censoring speech and it will not do so if it passes this bill. Put simply, this legislation would be used as a tool for a judge and jury to determine whether there is significant evidence to prove that a person 'cyberbullied' another. That is: did they have the required intent, did they use electronic means of communication, and was the communication severe, hostile, and repeated. So—bloggers, emailers, texters, spiteful exes, and those who have blogged against this bill have no fear—your words are still protected under the same American values."

Ahh well, I suppose it wouldn't apply to Schnoogs after all...

-Dailytech (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15099)

[Hawkzombie]

Because it's America's job to police the Interwebs.

Ugh...I'm glad I'm in Canada...maybe I'll become the leader of a group of international Cyber-terrorists that skirt outside of US jurisdiction to tell someone to suck a penis whenever and however we feel.

5th graders beware.

[Goronmon]

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.

Why is this so bad again?

[DoctorFinger]

Why is this so bad again?Who gets to define what behavior qualifies as "severe, repeated, and hostile?" Jack Thompson?

BTW, in case anyone forgets, this law is inspired by the MySpace suicide case, in which a parent posed as a kid to torment another teenage girl.

[Telefrog]

Internet flamers? Does this mean Mags will be in trouble?

(Joking. I love you Mags!)

[ShivaX]

I've tormented others through fake profiles. Does this mean I'm a felon?

Thats for the jury to decide.

[BlackPete]

So if someone in Iran flames... er... "cyberbully" an American, is that an act of war?

[Goronmon]

Who gets to define what behavior qualifies as "severe, repeated, and hostile?" Jack Thompson?Maybe the same people that determine whether any crime fits under the laws that are written?

[Johan]

As a somewhat reformed Internet ass, now with 50% less chafing and leakage, I don't think a law will solve that problem, and will probably only create more.

[ShivaX]

Maybe the same people that determine whether any crime fits under the laws that are written?

So people that have no idea what they're talking about?

Its one thing to make say rape or murder illegal. Its pretty easy to determine when those things have been done. Same for theft for the most part.

When things start getting really objective, I'm not trusting the government to figure it out. One mans "severe" or "hostile" is another mans irrelevant. How many "die in a fire"s is illegal? How many "go fuck yourself"s?

[Dr. Quasius]

I understand the spirit and intent of the proposed law, but it will be abused. The law - as written - is so vague that it can be bent to fit anything that those in authority don't like.

[Shadowstorm]

So the result of one case automatically means we should make a law that speaks to it. I don't like this trend in America.

[Ox]

So Its one thing to make say rape or murder illegal. Its pretty easy to determine when those things have been done.
It's pretty easy to determine when a rape has been committed? I know some prosecutors who would love to learn that secret.

Here's (http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1241740320.shtml) a better-worded argument for why this bill is bollocks than I'm likely to conjure.

[Krispy]

That is a damn crazy bill. But this begs a question I thought answered, do harassment laws extend to the internet? I don't see why not, but if they do then why would this bill even be necessary?

[Narradisall]

Fuck, there goes half of the Live community.

#Edit. Its ok, I did not mean any offence to anyone on this site or any other with my derogatory comments regarding the live community... but then also I'm outside your laws! Mwahaha (I bet we'll stupidly follow suit in the unlikely event it passed)

[Narradisall]

I've tormented others through fake profiles. Does this mean I'm a felon?

Nope, but it certainly means several other unplesant things about you.

[Vandabo]

Fuck, there goes half of the Live community.

#Edit. Its ok, I did not mean any offence to anyone on this site or any other with my derogatory comments regarding the live community... but then also I'm outside your laws! Mwahaha (I bet we'll stupidly follow suit in the unlikely event it passed)

I still think the Live community should only be used for two things:
1. Scientific study of unrestrained asshattery
2. Identification of asshats for future locating, sterilizing, and or eilimination

[Ox]

That is a damn crazy bill. But this begs a question I thought answered, do harassment laws extend to the internet? I don't see why not, but if they do then why would this bill even be necessary?
Harassment laws do (usually) extend to the Internet. However, in order to avoid First Amendment challenge, the harassment laws were written in circumscribed manner: they usually require something along the lines of knowingly placing the victim in fear of physical injury. In the MySpace suicide case, the perpetrator hadn't said anything that could reasonably make the victim afraid of physical injury. So, except for the TOS violations, her conduct was legal.

This bill basically makes being mean on the Internet a felony. Being mean is not the same as criminal harassment.

[ShivaX]

It's pretty easy to determine when a rape has been committed? I know some prosecutors who would love to learn that secret.

Here's (http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1241740320.shtml) a better-worded argument for why this bill is bollocks than I'm likely to conjure.

Objectively it is. Proving it after the fact in a court of law is another thing.

If I shoot someone in the face without reason thats murder.
If I have sex with someone who doesn't want to have it thats rape.

Now proving those things in a court of law and convicting me might be a bit more difficult, but the terms are pretty well defined.

[Ox]

Eh. These terms are about as well defined too, right? A traditional definition of murder is any killing in which the killer exhibits "wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty." Does that include driving drunk? There are large grey areas in murder, and merely pointing out that there are some cut-and-dried examples (like shooting someone in the face) hardly proves the entire field is well-defined.

Likewise, I'm pretty sure I could come up with an example of behavior that indisputably demonstrated "the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." Indeed, we already have laws that are pretty similar to this language: the harassment law in my state criminalizes certain conduct if performed "with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another," and the stalking law requires "either an intent to place [another] person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person."

I'll certainly grant that the intent section of this bill is subjective. But the intent section of very many criminal laws is subjective. Any law that requires a showing of intent is inherently subjective. And the intent elements of this offense appear on their face to be well-defined: all of the terms are legal terms of art and have hundreds of years of caselaw defining them. This bill is overbroad, but it doesn't appear vague.

[alienmastermind]

It's pretty easy to determine when a rape has been committed? I know some prosecutors who would love to learn that secret.

Here's (http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1241740320.shtml) a better-worded argument for why this bill is bollocks than I'm likely to conjure.

I agree the bill is bollocks, and trying to uphold the law in this case would be completely fish-headed.

Also, your guy there seems to have a hard-on for worrying about his freedom of political hackery. :)

Listen, nobody's taking away your right to write a snarky blog about whoever....we're just saying that tormenting a 13 or 14 year old girl until she kills herself is shitty behavior, and should be punished in some way. And I think there are laws against that already. Ox?

I'm sure there were similar laws screamed about when the telegraph service began, and when prank phone calls were deemed 'too dangerous'.

:)