Slashdot Mirror
Proposed Legislation Would Outlaw "Cyberbullying" in US
physman_wiu writes "We all remember the recent incident of 13-year-old Megan Meier. Now legislation is set to be passed at least in Missouri (and possibly through Congress) that would make cyberbullying illegal. The new legislation (PDF) reads: '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.' Now, this seems like a great piece of legislation — until I get put in jail for some kid on WOW calling the Feds on me." Eugene Volokh is not impressed.
Don't worry. In prison we'll have plenty of time to sit around and think of the children.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Read radical news here
Whatever happened to parents' responsibility for what their kids do (including online activities?)
I have tag icons pushing down the article to below the screen. Keep em coming!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
As long as we can all still act immature on Xbox Live and make fun of each other's mothers while using homophobic terms...
So if I had decided to post this comment anonymously from an internet cafe or local library, and I did something which met the arbitrary criteria of cyberbullying, who would get thrown in jail for two years?
Why do I get the feeling this law is impractical.
Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
My biggest problem with these anti-online X laws are why we need to specify "on the internet". If all you're adding is "on the internet", then the law shouldn't need to be written in the first place. If it's illegal, then it's illegal. If it's not already illegal off the internet, I would wonder why doing it on internet would change the legality.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
You know, if it wasn't for that pesky 1st Amendment, we could fix a lot of the problems that people think they have.
We could limit advertisers.
We could limit hate groups.
We could stop bullies.
We could stop lobbyists.
But, alas, we are stuck with the damn thing. Ooh, have an idea. We can pass laws to limit the 1st Amendment protections in clear violation of the Constitution. And no one will have the balls to take it to the Supreme Court. And if they do, the Supreme Court *may* overturn the law but we'll have stopped literally *tens* of cyber-bullies.
After all, USians have been shitting on the 2nd Amendment for the last hundred years. It's about time the 1st gets some love too.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
You cannot legislate common courtesy and respect.
Nor should you have to.
... legislation requiring mommy to wipe your ass until age 18, at which time it becomes the responsibility of your employer (or the EDD if you are jobless).
Remember when you were little and some kid said they were gonna tell on you because you called them a poo-poo head? Yeah, that's what this is going to be like.
Actually, it was more like some whiny kid who learned how to manipulate their parents to get the retribution they wanted against someone. Did some kid fairly take the last cookie? Go tell on him for stealing your cookie right out of your hands. Heh, as if there's not enough of that going around in Grown-Up Land with the legal system already.
This concept has to die.
Fuck this damned bullshit to hell and- er, um, I mean, I think I might think to oppose this, yes I do, if that's OK.
'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.'
Does this mean they'll ban Bill O'Reilly?
-1 Cyberbullying
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
or cause substantial emotional distress to a person
They just broke their own law, by trying to make the law.
"sudo rm -rf your-face"
you very well know that what this bill ends up prosecuting wont be stuff like what you posted.
Read radical news here
Making special cyber law reenforces the notion that the internet is different and has different rules.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
if it was harassment by an ADULT on a person known to them to be a MINOR
as was the case with meier
or
if it was harassment by an ADULT on a person known to them to be emotionally or mentally compromised
as was ALSO the case with meier
with those caveats, all trolling on the internet would not count in the legislation, mostly because it is anonmyous, and between (nominally) mentally fit adults
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Fuck the Children!
What I'm talking about is this constant, mindless yammering in the media. This neurotic fixation that somehow everything, EVERYTHING, has to revolve around children. It's completely out of balance... The sooner you face it the better off you're gonna be.
You can't save 'em all. You gotta let 'em go. You gotta cut 'em loose. You gotta stop overprotecting them, because you're making them too soft. Today's kids are way too soft. For one thing there's too much emphasis on 'safety'... Kids have to wear helmets now for everything but jerking off! Grown ups have taken all the fun out of being a kid... Whatever happened to natural selection? Survival of the fittest? The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own! Simple as that.
If you want to know how you can help your children: LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE!"
Obviously some of the points he makes are exaggerated for comedic effect, but I think the underlying idea is spot on. Trying to protect kids from 'cyberbullying' is just stupid. There are assholes in the real world, that's just a fact of life. Trying to shield your kids (or anyone for that matter) from what basically amounts to name-calling will only ensure that they're not prepared to deal with people they might not like (something most adults have to do on a regular basis).
As the RIAA has learned (or at least should have by now) is that trying to persecute something like this will only help to make it more popular. The way I see it, there are two things that need to be done to reduce online bullying (you can't stop it completely, of course).
1. Keep people from becoming bullies in the first place. This is easier said than done and I can't say that I have any insight into how you'd even do this.
2. Make sure that the targets of online bullies don't play into the role of 'victim.' Most Internet Tough Guys act the way they do for their own amusement, which they mainly get from the reactions of the people they irritate. If no one bothers to even flinch at their efforts you can bet that most of them would change their ways or simply disappear to try their hand elsewhere. Either way it's a victory.
I was once a horse.
I'm a law clerk in the state court system, and have been for a little over two years. When I first started, I never saw much of anything that dealt with online content. Now, I'd say that maybe 5-10% of the protective orders ("Harassment Restraining Orders" in my state) deal with students (mostly high school and college) interacting via My Space or Facebook. So I do believe that "cyber bullying" is happening, at least to some extent. Some of it is BS, like parents not approving of their underage daughter's racy pictures of herself and the much-too-old boyfriend, or an angry match.com breakup, or whatever.
Additionally, I don't believe we need any new laws to deal with this. At least I haven't personally seen a need yet. Generally, the existing harassment laws do just fine. They are already written broadly enough to cover "communications" via a number of methods. If someone communicates with you after you've told them you find their contact harassing, the law covers it, whether it's by phone, mail, in-person, or email. Special laws to cover the internet will only make it more difficult to do my job, and more importantly the job of the judges who ultimately make the decisions. And believe me, they are not well equipped to understand online material. Boiling it all down to "communications" is just easier. Court personal and prosecutors are already overworked in many areas, and complicating matters further will basically just mean that either other cases involving more traditional speech will have to be given a lower priority, or that none of it gets the attention it needs.
The one situation that's hard to handle is postings to other people's blogs that are unconnected to the recipient. Trying to analogize a blog posting is a bit difficult -- it's not like we've ever had much of a problem of people speaking bad of each other via physical billboards. But really, that's protected free speech, until it rises to the level of a treat. So essentially, the one situation a politician could conceivably attempt to control is basically impossible control due to that pesky constitution of ours (I know, politicians hate it).
Bottom line, leave the law alone. Stop grandstanding. And throw enough money at the judicial system to be able to spend enough time of each case, and give prosecutors the money to have enough people to pursue the cases that need the most attention. But I suppose it's a lot easier to "JUST THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!" by coming up with crazy laws, rather than simply funding courts.
Welp, I might as well call the people who thought this one up "Fucking Idiots" while it's still legal to do so.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
This law is a blatant violation of free speech and the first amendment. While I do not agree with "cyberbullying", we are talking about speech here rather than an actual physical act of violence. As well, it is much eisier to ignore verbal abuse on the internet, with block lists, or simply minimising the window, that a law is truly unnecessary. There are a class of crimes called stalking, but on the internet medium these can be fairly easily combated with the ignore lisr etc.
We should not have to live in fear of everything we say perhaps being misconstrued in some wa. That is the kind of society which this will lead to, where people live in fear basically of saying anything.
Can't we just outlaw being a teenager? I mean, if you look at all the major sources of cattiness, abuse, insults, hatefulness, and other means of emotional abuse it's goddamned nearly always teenagers. I think that a much more logical response to this problem would be to execute each and every American child found guilty of being over the age of twelve. Once they're twenty we can pardon them, and then the entire world will be happy, peaceful, and in no way unpleasant.
At least we can finally stop that Anonymous Coward guy from posting those goatse links.
This law just proves that our political leaders are complete idiots, at least the people deciding writing the wording on the laws.
Why the hell should we be worried about virtual bullying when we have real bullying to outlaw?
I'm surprised you guys are still in there. :P
Come to Australia or Europe. Both are nice places.
It's the goddamn internet. If someone is annoying you can delete them or even unplug your machine.
It's not the same as getting punched in the face or jumped by real bullies. Haven't you been bullied in school? You should know the difference.
In fact, the best cops are usually the people who have been bullied.
Thanks to a Supreme Court decision back in the nineteenth century (I think), a company is a "person" and has the same rights. So what would prevent this legislation being used against sites such as "AOLsucks" or "Don't buy at Walmart" ?
Because defense lawyers would be too adept at arguing that "there isn't a 'specific' law against the alleged actions of their clients, and that the prosecutors are reaching far outside the scope and intent of the drafters of the law(s) in question". And some of the judges would probably agree with those arguments enough times to create precedences.
Look at all the grief the Supreme Court throws at obscenity laws when cases involving them get appealed to their level... people should just give up on passing those laws and find other ways, but they won't. Either the law is too specific or overly broad, and there really appears to be no middle ground for the Supremes.
These kinds of "cyber-bullying" laws won't help much, either, but it makes everyone feel good because "something was done". And they will tend to be unevenly applied, as well. Children of Mayor Dailey in Chicago getting "cyberbullied" while playing WoW? Better watch out... Children of someone who is not too fond of The Mayor? Good luck, oh, and, well, sorry for taking so long to plow your street or pick up your garbage... With the fluidity of establishing new on-line identities, it would take some pretty far-reaching steps to enforce on someone w/o throwing them in jail, and somehow I could see a judge having something to say about the overreaching of the authorities and the punitive nature of any judgments against the scale of the (alleged) criminal behavior...
These kinds of laws are kind of like magnetic yellow ribbons on cars & such.
Does the dragging death of the guy in Texas really need "hate crime" laws? Well, no, but yes, they were passed in Texas. However, legislatures giving the judges the ability to weigh in on the punishment phase taking the nature of the crimes (including criteria that are involved with hate crimes) to increase penalties would make more sense, as would allowing the prosecution to seek special status on the charges, like in many jurisdictions involving a potential death penalty prosecution.
I became a comedian.
This is something I've put a lot of mental effort towards understanding, as I used to feel the exact same as you. The issue, though, is much more complex online than it is in real life. For example, online someone has the capabilities of impersonating you and making, say, libelous claims about your person, which is not a luxury that your regular run-of-the-mill bully could accomplish. Think fake online Facebook profiles, MySpace ads, etc. that offer real pictures of you, information about your life, and more.
Cyberbullying, I believe, is a real issue. I've never been subjected to it, thankfully, but I can imagine that, to a teenager, it can be especially damaging, and even more so than real life bullying given how important the internet has grown to be for teenage social interaction.
Read my comment here to see the links that you ignored.
Girl told she cannot read bible at school
Houston we have a problem, students want to read bibles at recess
How about that crow you just ate? Was it tasty?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
As soon as the stars stopped I got up and walked around school to my bike and unlocked it. With that U-shaped lock I walked straight up the kid and began smashing it on the back of his head. Some of his scalp came out in chunks and he was knocked out. The coach for the football team wrestled me to the ground and broke one of my fingers and sprained my wrist, but no one ever fucked with me again in school. I am pretty sure other guys have similar stories.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
'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 only when using electronic means? I should think it's not the tool you use that is important, but what you do.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Bullying can cause lifelong damage to a person. I know this from personal experience; I'll skip the touchy-feely stuff, but being the target of persistent bullying breaks your self-confidence on so many levels, and you end up being socially isolated simply to survive mentally. Even now, 40 years later, I still find it very difficult to trust other people - it can be a struggle not feeling bitter, and my immediate reaction when I see teenagers is anger, something I have to consciously lift myself out of. You can laugh it off, of course, but a person my age should not feel like this towards the younger generation, I should be teaching young people some of the things I have picked up during my life.
But bad as bullying is, cyberbullying is several degrees worse. At least when you are being bullied by a group of people in school or at work, you have a physical enemy that you can in principle confront; and what they can do to you is limited by many factors. The cyberbully on the other hand, has access to much greater resources and does not have to witness your pain first-hand - so there is less to hold them back. And there is less to confront - as an inexperienced teenager you don't really know enough to handle this situation, and you can't even turn to your parents, because more likely than not, they don't know as much about computers as you do.
Of course passing a law doesn't solve the problem, but it is a necessary first step. The bullies are not going to stop on their own, and they will probably not understand an appeal their better self; so punishment is required. But we can't punish if there isn't a law that makes it a crime.
Because the lack of "...on the internet" is in some cases considered a loophole in existing laws.
Just like "Doing X on the internet." is a completely different patent from "Doing X." It's all getting clear now.
This is an awful idea and anybody who supports it has not thought it through.
What happened with Mega Meier is extremely sad and disturbing, but as disgustingly sickening as the woman who did this was, she is not responsible for Meier's suicide.
Regardless of how awful someone is to someone else on a verbal level, the cannot force them to hurt themselves.
This girl was depressed and made the choice to take her own life. It's ver sad, but it happens every day. Had it not been this situation it likely would have been something else, and the next time she really got hurt the results would have been the same.
The charges filed against this woman in LA are ridiculous - they act as though violating Myspace's TOS is breaking the law.
You cannot legislate something like this because where do you draw the line? What is free speech and what is harrassment? What is a joke and what isn't a joke? Even if this sort of legislation passed can you image trying to enforce it and the people who would abuse such a law?
To break it down:
As sad as this case is, you cannot legislate something like this away. You cannot legislate cyberbullying away any more than you can legislate schoolyard bullying away. Bullies are a fact of life - and the only thing that can be done to to teach children how to handle this sort of thing - how to handle bullies and to really look out for your kids when they are at this sensitive age - and if they cannot deal with these sort of things do what you need to to get them help.
Cyberbullying legislation is a few steps too far, but cyber-bullies effectively have superpowers that real bullies don't.
I am going to take you into a story, now try and imagine this in a serious manner. Imagine you are in high school and there is a real-life bully that could shapeshift into you and start jacking off to pics of the male principal in the middle of the cafeteria, for example. When someone tries to stop him, he teleports away, and he does not need to show up for class, and nobody knows where he lives. He can also set up a giant billboard just outside the school (with, say, an ad for you as lead male in Goats Gone Wild) and draw everyone's attention to it, and you couldn't do jack shit about it. It's nearly impossible to prove who is who. Could you imagine the horror?
Most of us on Slashdot would try to keep our online personas and real selves as separate as possible, but to high school teens nowadays they are one and the same. They go by their real names online and post real information about themselves - there's no online persona dissociated from the real person that they could just "drop" in a worse-case scenario, or alternatively, not give a shit about. A cyber-bully could get pics of you, your contact information, everything needed to impersonate you. Cyber-bullying can be as bad as real bullying, short of physical injury, although it's partly the teens' fault for not keeping their online persona and real selves separate.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel