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?)
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).
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?
Making special cyber law reenforces the notion that the internet is different and has different rules.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Kill yourself.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
So we can't really take it seriously. It's not even worthy of honest debate or devil's-advocacy. Hell, debating it just gives the reactionary, melodramatic legislators the attention they're craving.
So, screw it. We're just gonna ridicule it - that's a better use of our time (and a more appropriate response.)
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
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.
Sure. I was beaten up at school on a regular base until I had enough and, finally standing on higher ground than my constant bully, I kicked a few teeth out of his face.
The result was that I got dragged in front of the principal and got to hear a rather unpleasant lecture how I should not do that. Complaining that I reported repeatedly that he kept punching and kicking me without any result didn't faze him. Instead I was sent home for a few weeks, only to get more heat from my dad (who tried the "grow a pair" approach first).
This experience taught me a few valuable lessons:
1. Don't rely on due process, it doesn't work. If you get wronged, you're on your own.
2. Don't rely on your family, for when you apply their advice, you are wrong.
3. Find people who have the same problem you do. After that incident, I had quite a few good friends.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.