Tweet
Trolling someone online? Bill would slap you with jail time
A new cyberbullying bill aims to punish those who intend to cause "emotional distress" online with fines, jail time, or both. The problem—as usual—is the vague language used in the bill, which leaves many critics concerned that it could be used to censor speech on the Internet.
A recently introduced cyberbullying bill could land us all in jail—that is, if you have ever used an electronic medium to troll someone. HR 1966, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, is named after the high-profile "MySpace suicide" victim Megan Meier. It's meant to prevent people from using the Internet to "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." However, as with many bills of this nature, the murky language and vague standards leave much open to interpretation, which has caused critics to call it the Censorship Act instead.
HR 1966 was introduced in April by US Representative Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and it's supported by 14 other members of Congress. According to the text, individuals who bully others via any electronic means could face fines, two years in prison, or both. This, of course, could include those nasty text messages you sent to your ex on Saturday night, the questionable e-mail you sent to your brother, or those forum posts you made in which you called for someone who liked the new Star Trek movie to jump off a building.
The bill largely flew under the radar until fairly recently (thanks to NetworkWorld for the heads-up) but criticism has been building. The language in the bill is so vague, it could be interpreted to apply to practically any situation, including blog posts critical of public officials.
UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh went into detail on his blog, suggesting that numerous everyday situations could render regular citizens felons if their behavior is considered "severe" enough. "I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite/campaign promise breaker/fool/etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) 'to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior'— unless, of course, my statements aren't seen as 'severe,' a term that is entirely undefined and unclear," Volokh wrote.
Still, Sanchez insists that the bill isn't meant to dampen free speech online. "Congress has no interest in censoring speech and it will not do so if it passes this bill," Sanchez wrote on the Huffington Post. "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."
Although Sanchez seems to think there's no possibility for abuse with this bill, we all know what the road to hell is paved with. Despite her reassurance that it won't be used to censor Internet communications, there's no way to predict how judges would interpret such a law. One thing we do know is that cyberbullying cases have picked up since Missouri passed its own law following Megan Meier's death—if HR 1966 makes it past the House Committee on the Judiciary and into the books, we could see a serious uptick in those types of cases.
A new cyberbullying bill aims to punish those who intend to cause "emotional distress" online with fines, jail time, or both. The problem—as usual—is the vague language used in the bill, which leaves many critics concerned that it could be used to censor speech on the Internet.
A recently introduced cyberbullying bill could land us all in jail—that is, if you have ever used an electronic medium to troll someone. HR 1966, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, is named after the high-profile "MySpace suicide" victim Megan Meier. It's meant to prevent people from using the Internet to "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." However, as with many bills of this nature, the murky language and vague standards leave much open to interpretation, which has caused critics to call it the Censorship Act instead.
HR 1966 was introduced in April by US Representative Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and it's supported by 14 other members of Congress. According to the text, individuals who bully others via any electronic means could face fines, two years in prison, or both. This, of course, could include those nasty text messages you sent to your ex on Saturday night, the questionable e-mail you sent to your brother, or those forum posts you made in which you called for someone who liked the new Star Trek movie to jump off a building.
The bill largely flew under the radar until fairly recently (thanks to NetworkWorld for the heads-up) but criticism has been building. The language in the bill is so vague, it could be interpreted to apply to practically any situation, including blog posts critical of public officials.
UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh went into detail on his blog, suggesting that numerous everyday situations could render regular citizens felons if their behavior is considered "severe" enough. "I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite/campaign promise breaker/fool/etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) 'to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior'— unless, of course, my statements aren't seen as 'severe,' a term that is entirely undefined and unclear," Volokh wrote.
Still, Sanchez insists that the bill isn't meant to dampen free speech online. "Congress has no interest in censoring speech and it will not do so if it passes this bill," Sanchez wrote on the Huffington Post. "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."
Although Sanchez seems to think there's no possibility for abuse with this bill, we all know what the road to hell is paved with. Despite her reassurance that it won't be used to censor Internet communications, there's no way to predict how judges would interpret such a law. One thing we do know is that cyberbullying cases have picked up since Missouri passed its own law following Megan Meier's death—if HR 1966 makes it past the House Committee on the Judiciary and into the books, we could see a serious uptick in those types of cases.
Are you ****ing kidding me with this ****?!?!
Sanchez, are you brain damaged? Do you not understand how much emotional distress the stupidity of this bill is causing me! 
Comment