Hostile bloggers facing fines, jail?

[Immanuel]

World Nut Daily?

My first thought was that this was another one of those items like, "Hillary Clinton wants to charge $.05/email to subsidize the US Postal Service" which to my knowledge is completely false. But then I went to snopes.com. Couldn't find it. Then I looked it up on a government website and sure enough H.R. 1966 was there.

Here's the link:

H.R. 1966: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (GovTrack.us)

On second review, it is not a government website, but looks legit to me.

Immie

I understand there is cyber bullying legislation.

I was laughing at KMAN, because she iis afraid of getting kicked off the message board for this nonsense. LOL. I've never seen anyone cyber bullied here.

There doesn't have to be any bullying... it only has to be perceived as bullying.

Okay, my cynicism is getting out of hand tonight.

Immie

 

[eots]

Looks like 90% of us on this site are going to be fined or arrested if this Democrat gets her way....

Hostile bloggers facing fines, jail?

I hate it when a loudmouth is right, but I gotta give this one to you. It's censorship run amok.

welcome to life in the world order...this is just the begininig and this is the real face of martial law....

1984 (Orwell): "If you want a picture of future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face for ever...

 

[Xenophon]

What a rediculous proposal.

 

[jillian]

Tell the fucking fascist bitch to get a life.

yeah... the mothers of teenage kids should be able to cyber bully a kid into killing herself.

it's like any other harassment law... it's just cybernetic.

and did anyone even bother to read the bill?

of course not... if WND posts it... must be an accurate assessment

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.

(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.

(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.

(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.

(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.

(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.

SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING.

(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 881. Cyberbullying

`(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.

`(b) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `communication' means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and

`(2) the term `electronic means' means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`881. Cyberbullying.'.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Please define.. "substantial emotional distress". Exactly what is it and how do you measure it?

the same way the courts always define things like that... on a case by case basis. that's why we have a common law system and not a code system.

... the same as it defined "cruel and inhuman treatment" and "unreasonable search and seizure"...

 

[Avatar4321]

This is ridiculous.

First, the US Government has no authority to enact this crime. There is no clause in the Constitution that would allow this.

Second, the law is completely redundant. There are already harassment laws. If someone is breaking them, you don't need to have separate ones for when you are online.

Third, people emotionally distressed over really absurd things sometimes.

Fourth, the wording of the statute is absurd. They try to justify it using the commerce clause, but What kind of harassment and hostility exists in commercial transaction? Is anyone going to honestly say "Your a *#*#@@&* *$#(#*$($, now would you like to buy some widgets." It's absurd. They've already ensured that it isnt going to protect what they are claiming to protect.

 

[garyd]

Kit the article contains a link to the house bill. They quoted it pretty much verbatim.

 

[catzmeow]

Sorry, I don't buy the cyber-bullying garbage. For several reasons. First, if the kid is spending that much time online then the parents need to worry more about their physical health. Also, they don't have to read it, they don't have to read any of it, and their parents should be explaining to them that it's just not that important instead of making them wrongly believe that what happens online has that much importance, then maybe the first issue wouldn't exist so much. Thirdly, why are parents not taking more interest in their kids online activities, it's not a diary, everything on here is public access, SOMEONE can read it, and the parents should be monitoring their own kids activities more closely, it's not our job to raise other peoples kids. One other point, where would it end? Seriously, give them an inch and they WILL take a mile, it's the fucking government, we know they will.

I have to disagree with this. I don't really care what someone says to me in an online forum, but when you start getting into facebook/myspace, you are often talking about using someone's real name, spreading rumors about them, etc., in a printed form that is very difficult to combat. It's basically harassment in an internet form. And, it tends to occur most often with teens. i bet you'd be surprised how much drama there is in the average high school due to online flame wars, mostly involving girls.

It's not bloggers who are the concern here, it is high school or college kids who are posting malicious/false information online, and using real names, and making the lives of other kids a living hell. And yeah, it is bullying AND harassment.

 

[KittenKoder]

Sorry, I don't buy the cyber-bullying garbage. For several reasons. First, if the kid is spending that much time online then the parents need to worry more about their physical health. Also, they don't have to read it, they don't have to read any of it, and their parents should be explaining to them that it's just not that important instead of making them wrongly believe that what happens online has that much importance, then maybe the first issue wouldn't exist so much. Thirdly, why are parents not taking more interest in their kids online activities, it's not a diary, everything on here is public access, SOMEONE can read it, and the parents should be monitoring their own kids activities more closely, it's not our job to raise other peoples kids. One other point, where would it end? Seriously, give them an inch and they WILL take a mile, it's the fucking government, we know they will.

I have to disagree with this. I don't really care what someone says to me in an online forum, but when you start getting into facebook/myspace, you are often talking about using someone's real name, spreading rumors about them, etc., in a printed form that is very difficult to combat. It's basically harassment in an internet form. And, it tends to occur most often with teens. i bet you'd be surprised how much drama there is in the average high school due to online flame wars, mostly involving girls.

It's not bloggers who are the concern here, it is high school or college kids who are posting malicious/false information online, and using real names, and making the lives of other kids a living hell. And yeah, it is bullying AND harassment.

So you are basically saying they can't turn off the computer and go outside ... ever?

 

[catzmeow]

So you are basically saying they can't turn off the computer and go outside ... ever?

I'm not talking about people who can't walk away from an internet bulletin board where they post anonymously here, Kitten. I'm talking about people who spread malicious rumors online, using real names.

So, when someone has done that to you, and people are saying that about you AT SCHOOL, how do you turn that off? I'm talking about internet harassment that has real world impacts. And, that's what this bill is about.

 

[manifold]

IIRC, the women who bullied the weak minded, pathetic broad into killing herself was convicted. So why the need for a new law?

 

[del]

IIRC, the women who bullied the weak minded, pathetic broad into killing herself was convicted. So why the need for a new law?

it will make someone somewhere feel good, and that's what counts.

 

[Ravi]

She got convicted of three misdemeanors...basically using a protected computer (myspace) to commit a fraud.

 

[manifold]

She got convicted of three misdemeanors...basically using a protected computer (myspace) to commit a fraud.

And you think that wasn't enough I suppose?

 

[KittenKoder]

So you are basically saying they can't turn off the computer and go outside ... ever?

I'm not talking about people who can't walk away from an internet bulletin board where they post anonymously here, Kitten. I'm talking about people who spread malicious rumors online, using real names.

So, when someone has done that to you, and people are saying that about you AT SCHOOL, how do you turn that off? I'm talking about internet harassment that has real world impacts. And, that's what this bill is about.

Aah, so then you are proposing that they censor everything. Hate to tell you, but they do that already in real life. Word don't have to hurt, only if they let them hurt. Here's what people are not teaching their kids anymore that we use to live by, a simple rhyme really:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

Another gem I remember using in school:

"I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say, bounces off me and sticks to you."

There is a profound truth in these, as childish as people want to think they are. My father gave me a "nice lecture" once, because I was "insulted" by a classmate. Not sharing it verbatum, but here is the outline: He mentioned everything I excel at (at the time it was about the same as now) beyond what anyone else in my school could come close to. He added one, that wasn't quite true at the time but is now, that I was stronger than them since I didn't have to believe them. Went to school the next day, smiled and even waved a friendly hello back. No one ever said a bad word about me after that. The reason it worked was simple, but it DOES work. Kids these days are taught that words mean more than actions, you can say something and for some magical reason it means more than what you do. The fact is, that's wrong, and this is the result of such. Words are meaningless until your brain translates them into meaning, you can change that meaning at any time. If more kids were taught this, it's the only good form of censorship, then they wouldn't be able to be bullied by words. It's simple, and yes it sounds childish, but we use it as adults every day, why not teach it to people at younger ages?

However, the bill is stupid, and wrong. It opens a gateway to full blown content control from the government, and it opens it wide, too wide to be morally acceptable by anyone who values freedom of speech.

 

[Ravi]

She got convicted of three misdemeanors...basically using a protected computer (myspace) to commit a fraud.

And you think that wasn't enough I suppose?

For tormenting someone to death? Not.

 

[KittenKoder]

She got convicted of three misdemeanors...basically using a protected computer (myspace) to commit a fraud.

And you think that wasn't enough I suppose?

For tormenting someone to death? Not.

You're right, the parents of the kid who killed themselves should be jailed for child neglect as well.

 

[manifold]

She got convicted of three misdemeanors...basically using a protected computer (myspace) to commit a fraud.

And you think that wasn't enough I suppose?

For tormenting someone to death? Not.

You can't torment someone to death you silly person.

Remember, that girl killed herself. It was her CHOICE.

 

[Ravi]

And you think that wasn't enough I suppose?

For tormenting someone to death? Not.

You can't torment someone to death you silly person.

Remember, that girl killed herself. It was her CHOICE.

She was a minor, the tormentor was an adult. You don't think people that don't have full citizenship rights should be protected from predators?

Also, you most certainly can torment someone into killing themself.

 

[KittenKoder]

For tormenting someone to death? Not.

You can't torment someone to death you silly person.

Remember, that girl killed herself. It was her CHOICE.

She was a minor, the tormentor was an adult. You don't think people that don't have full citizenship rights should be protected from predators?

Also, you most certainly can torment someone into killing themself.

Even more of a reason to punish the parents for child neglect.

 

[catzmeow]

Aah, so then you are proposing that they censor everything.

Wrong. Strawman. I'm proposing that online harassment of people, using their real information, be treated the same way that harassment in the real world is handled.

But, making fun of anonymous stupid people should still be allowed.

Hope that helps to clarify (though I find it odd that you have such difficulty understanding the difference).