Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2 years jail for trolling?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2 years jail for trolling?



    Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (Introduced in House)

    HR 1966 IH

    111th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 1966

    To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    April 2, 2009

    Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    A BILL

    To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act'.

    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.'.
    Serious stuff. 2 years in prison is quite a lot. If we contrast that with some other offences, say making a death threat which is normally prosecuted by summary conviction, with a maximum penalty of 18 months, it goes to show just how seriously they take cyber-bullying.

    Of course, I presume a death threat on a website would also meet the test of "intent to intimidate".
    a.k.a. ainwood, CFC Forums Co-Administrator
    Some Ainwood guy is so up his arse that if he ever had haemharroids (sp), he'd have to take the cream orally! What a total dick!

  • #2
    Trolling doesn't necessarily fit that definition.
    "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
    Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

    Comment


    • #3
      This thread was obviously posted to cause mental distress amongst posters here. 2 years for you ainwood. I mean Legend.

      Comment


      • #4
        If this woman is a moderator elsewhere, that's punishment enough.
        "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
        Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Aeson View Post
          This thread was obviously posted to cause mental distress amongst posters here.
          Moi? Just sharing information.

          2 years for you ainwood. I mean Legend.
          That sounds like a threat. What other info do you have about me?
          a.k.a. ainwood, CFC Forums Co-Administrator
          Some Ainwood guy is so up his arse that if he ever had haemharroids (sp), he'd have to take the cream orally! What a total dick!

          Comment


          • #6
            the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person
            Asher is correct that trolling doesn't necessarily fit. Most trolling is not intended to coerce, intimidate, harass or cause substantial emotional distress. It is simply to put out a controversial statement and see how many respond.

            If was to limit that sort of trolling, this law would easily be found to violate the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
            “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
            - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View Post
              Asher is correct that trolling doesn't necessarily fit. Most trolling is not intended to coerce, intimidate, harass or cause substantial emotional distress. It is simply to put out a controversial statement and see how many respond.
              Doesn't necessarily fit is probably about right. But there are times when trolling is designed to get a reaction from specific people. That sort of 'targetted' trolling probably would meet the test of causing some form of emotional distress. The wording may not be quite right, but 'bullying' would be a reasonable description.

              If was to limit that sort of trolling, this law would easily be found to violate the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
              How would the first amendment be applied to verbal (or textual) bullying anyway?
              a.k.a. ainwood, CFC Forums Co-Administrator
              Some Ainwood guy is so up his arse that if he ever had haemharroids (sp), he'd have to take the cream orally! What a total dick!

              Comment


              • #8
                The government is surprisingly ahead of the curve here. "troll" was a Gen1 troll, "liar" is Gen2, and "bully" is Gen3.
                "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                Comment


                • #9
                  Then I think we better get with the times at CFC and start infracting people for lying. :ack:
                  a.k.a. ainwood, CFC Forums Co-Administrator
                  Some Ainwood guy is so up his arse that if he ever had haemharroids (sp), he'd have to take the cream orally! What a total dick!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Legend View Post
                    Then I think we better get with the times at CFC and start infracting people for lying. :ack:
                    You should. It's out of control here. We have several posters who have never said anything truthful in their entire posting history on this site.
                    "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                    Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Legend View Post
                      Doesn't necessarily fit is probably about right. But there are times when trolling is designed to get a reaction from specific people. That sort of 'targetted' trolling probably would meet the test of causing some form of emotional distress. The wording may not be quite right, but 'bullying' would be a reasonable description.
                      If that's the case, then it would violate the 1st Amendment. No doubt in my mind. Getting a "reaction" from specific people is most definitely protected under the 1st Amendment. What do you think Howard Stern does? He does radio trolling. He definitely causes "some form of emotional distress".

                      May I also add that winning an emotional distress claim is very, very difficult unless the intent was absolutely clear that the person was performing the act to cause the emotional distress, and emotional distress would have be to severe, and the actions would had to have caused severe emotional distress in the average person.
                      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Cyber bullying is a totally different thing from trolling.
                        Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                        "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                        He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          USA

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            How does it work if the person has been accused of being a panda f**ker?
                            Speaking of Erith:

                            "It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Provost Harrison View Post
                              How does it work if the person has been accused of being a panda f**ker?
                              Medal of Honour
                              You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X