Bill Would Declare Your Blog a Weapon

Mike writes "Law prof Eugene Volokh blogs about a US House of Representatives bill proposed by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others that could make it a federal felony to use your blog, social media like MySpace and Facebook, or any other Web media 'to cause substantial emotional distress through "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech.' Rep. Sanchez and colleagues want to make it easier to prosecute any objectionable speech through a breathtakingly broad bill that would criminalize a wide range of speech protected by the First Amendment. The bill is called The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, and if passed into law (and if it survives constitutional challenge) it looks almost certain to be misused."

Comments

Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[eldavojohn]

Bill Would Declare Your Blog a Weapon

Sweet, the right to a blog would be protected by both the first and second amendments!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[MyLongNickName]

All I want to know is who the hell is this Bill, and why does he hate my blog so much?

No, I couldn't be bothered to read more than the headline. Thanks for asking.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[nurb432]

It only protects you while its in place. They can remove those 2 amendments.

That is what they are trying to do in effect with this.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[plague3106]

No, they're not trying to remove the First Amendment. It's still there, and if this bill conflicts with the First Amendment (and I can't see how any reasonable person could say otherwise), its clear legally that the bill would be tossed out as unconstitutional.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[interkin3tic]

It's a good start, but lets try to get ALL the amendments!

Next up: the third amendment. You know, because calling a blog a weapon isn't much more logical than saying being forced not to blog is the same as being forced to quarter the armed forces. The fourth amendment, search and seizure shouldn't be as much of a leap. Getting it to qualify under the 5th is going to be the first real challenge.

I think we should stop at the 12th though. Don't really see how dates of presidential elections can be applied to blogs.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[htrn]

So would that mean if you wanted to commit a crime, you would want to admit to it since if the 5th amendment applied they would not be able to use your blog as evidence against you? Or are you speaking of abolishing these amendments as a part of a bill?

On a serious note, in order for it to be repealed within the judicial system it would need to be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court either directly (by the court itself) or indirectly (denial of appeal to the court).

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[clone53421]

Getting it to qualify under the 5th is going to be the first real challenge.

You have the right to an empty blog. Anything you blog about can and will be used against you.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

That is, unless you call someone names until you make them cry.

'to cause substantial emotional distress through "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech.

This law will further criminalize every teenager in America.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Rolgar]

Um you might be wrong, unfortunately. Obama has four justices that will rubber stamp anything he signs. It's just a matter of convincing Kennedy, and he's unreliable to read which is why he's the swing vote on the court for as long as Obama is president, unless Obama accidentally has a justice pick go conservative on him.

This will probably be used primarily against conservatives who oppose gay marriage, since homosexuals are currently attempting to control information sources to sway the voters who've rejected gay marriage in about 30 states. While most outspoken celebrities and MSM is on their side, they can't force their opponents off the internet unless they infringe upon their free speech rights, so that's what they're trying to do here.

As much as I hated the KKK, I reluctantly agreed that they should get their free speech rights. Unfortunately, it looks like this Democratic government is going to overturn this under the guise of legislating political correctness.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[interkin3tic]

So would that mean if you wanted to commit a crime, you would want to admit to it since if the 5th amendment applied they would not be able to use your blog as evidence against you?

To put the joke aside for a moment, I thought the 5th gave you a right not to incriminate yourself, it didn't mean that if you did incriminate yourself (like on a blog) it couldn't be used against you.

Going with the joke, I did say it would be a challenge. Somone more creative than me should get on that.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Shakrai]

As much as I hated the KKK, I reluctantly agreed that they should get their free speech rights. Unfortunately, it looks like this Democratic government is going to overturn this under the guise of legislating political correctness.

Are you surprised? Most European countries (which are regarded as further to the left than the United States in most instances) already criminalize "hate" speech. I'm no fan of "hate speech" myself but my right to free speech overrides your right not to be offended by what I say. Besides, the danger of the Government getting to say what is and what is not "hate speech" should be apparent to anyone.

Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it"? Why does it seem like Democrats are at least as effective at infringing on civil liberties as Republicans are, but never seem to get called on their BS to the same degree?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[nomadic]

Um you might be wrong, unfortunately. Obama has four justices that will rubber stamp anything he signs.

Where on earth did you come up with that craziness? Do you have any evidence for this astounding assertion?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[gringofrijolero]

Even better, two violations with one law. Win-win!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[stewbacca]

You should have read more than the headline because frankly, the headline sucks. This bill strives to make "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech used in cyberbullying a criminal offense. Since MY blog doesn't have any of that stuff, this bill would not be able to declare my blog a weapon. By no means am I supporting this bill, but also by no means do I consider this alarmist headline to have any validity.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[eclectro]

Bill Would Declare Your Blog a Weapon

Sweet, the right to a blog would be protected by both the first and second amendments!

So you would need a license to shoot off your mouth??

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[postbigbang]

Nah. Not going to happen. You give too much credit to presidential appointees. On its surface, it would appear that it's not going to happen for so many theories of law. While the road to hell may be paved with good intentions, this one will get derailed. Should it by madness get to Obama, and he signs, it, the uproar will positively chill you, and for good reason.

In the US, speech is extraordinarily free. This sentence was going to be a free excercise, but I'd get modded troll. Oh, wait....

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[InsaneProcessor]

They (the liberals) have already destroyed the first two parts of the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" by laws that 'separate church and state'. What makes you think that they won't destroy the 3rd part of this amendment? They are basically socialists in disguise anyway.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[ElectricTurtle]

If 'any reasonable person' would find it unconstitutional, this legislation should have never been proposed in the first place. These people are supposed to have taken an oath to protect the Constitution, not deliberately undermine it.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[nurb432]

What is logical and clear to us, may not be to the court.

Plus they can just refuse to hear any cases related to it, and let any new law stand without making any ruling. Much as they did with the 2nd for so many decades.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a feeling that a lot of libertarians and even quite a few democrats are going to be very appreciative of Bush's Supreme Court nominations very shortly.

There's very good reason to put people on the court that understand the constitution.

Although I'm not a Bush fan I find the attitude of "no experience required" that is coming out for this seat opening up on the SC very disturbing.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Kelbear]

I'd say that Democrats /are/ less effective at infringing on civil liberties as Republicans, since the Republicans have held most of the power for the past several years. Now that they're the dominant party in both the white house and Congress we'll see how far they can get.

As for not calling on for BS, isn't that what this slashdot article and the 100+ posts below are about?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is more than likely to veto this bill, assuming it passes. He's a constitutional scholar.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[htrn]

More creative than you or more dishonest than you? :)

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're not trying to remove the First Amendment. It's still there, and if this bill conflicts with the First Amendment (and I can't see how any reasonable person could say otherwise), its clear legally that the bill would be tossed out as unconstitutional.

We all thought the same with McCain-Finegold. Now we're living under that disaster.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[b4upoo]

There is a real moral issue here. Has anyone taken into account that there really are a few people who are so evil that they deserve to be hammered into the dirt by relentless, attacking speech? Causing the suicide of some people should be rewarded, not punished.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

As for not calling on for BS, isn't that what this slashdot article and the 100+ posts below are about?

Because most of America reads /.?

Call me when CNN, the New York Times, and the other major media outlets start to cover this story in-depth and do investigative journalism, instead of just "reporting".

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Mansing]

Why does it seem like Democrats are at least as effective at infringing on civil liberties as Republicans are, but never seem to get called on their BS to the same degree?

I call this Democrat sponsored bill BS.

I also call the bill stupid, idiotic, unconstitutional, and lame-brained. The first thing that comes to mind here is "Nanny State" ... Free speech is a constitutional right ... reading blogs on the internet is a choice. Choose not to read them.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Maximum Prophet]

The hell you say. I consider any word with "bacca" in it to be offensive, hostile, and ugly. I also don't like the name "Sue". If I, or anyone like me, get to be a judge, you're toast.

It doesn't matter what the content of your blog is, someone will be offended by it.

Censorship anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[crmarvin42]

Why does it seem like Democrats are at least as effective at infringing on civil liberties as Republicans are, but never seem to get called on their BS to the same degree?

Because the Democrats are the "Party of the People!"

Never mind that they were the only national party prior to the Civil War, the dominant party in the South during the era of Jim Crow, the major proponents of Affirmative Action (which is just racism in reverse), and the "Fairness Doctrine" (currently more of a boogyman being trotted out by that blow hard Rush, than an actual rallying point for the Dems, but it does have it's supporters).

They just keep chanting "Party of the People!", increasing the number of people on the dole from the US treasury, and trotting out images of Kennedy or Clinton, and assure the voters that they're taking care of everything.

As you can probably tell I'm not a Dem, but I don't believe they are all that different from the image they paint of the Republicans. Both are comprised of faliable people, prone to mistakes and greed. It's just that those who vote Republican hold their politicians to a (slightly) higher standard than the Dems do.

Consiquently, when the Dems pull out their pitchforks and torches to pursue a Republican, they are often accompanied by some Republicans that are just as irate. When a Dem screws up the only people in the mob are Republicans.

Since most /. members that are actually afiliated with either party are Dems, and the majority of the unaffiliated are Liberal, it's no surpise that you won't get as much vitriol aimed at this woman than if she were seated on the other side of the isle. The reaction will be more along the lines of "OMG, she should be a Republican. How could she betray us like that", or "all politicians are corrupt, Anarchy RULEZ!!" instead of the "Burn her at the Stake!!" that she deserves, regardless of party affiliation (and of course that goes for all of the bills sponsors).

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Lobster Quadrille]

Fortunately, I do all my cyberbullying from a sockpuppet blog.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[cawpin]

I'm no fan of "hate speech" myself but my right to free speech overrides your right not to be offended by what I say.

While I agree with the intent of your post I have to point out one glaring inaccuracy. NOBODY has a RIGHT to not be offended. That is the simple, logical mistake of every person who introduces, or defends, things like this proposed bill.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[hoggoth]

> This law will further criminalize every teenager in America.

A: "What were you two convicted of?"
G1: "Well... I took a nude picture of myself and sent it to my boyfriend."
A: "And how about you?"
G2: "I kept telling her she was an idiot for taking a nude picture of herself. I made her cry."

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[DesertBlade]

Unless you bog about how Windows Vista is horrible and continue to bog about your frustrations.. Microsoft may find that your blog is "severe, repeated, and hostile"

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[HTH NE1]

This law will further criminalize every teenager in America.

We effectively jail them about 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 9 months a year already. Might as well formalize it with charges for our charges.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[CrimsonAvenger]

If 'any reasonable person' would find it unconstitutional, this legislation should have never been proposed in the first place. These people are supposed to have taken an oath to protect the Constitution, not deliberately undermine it.

That rule stopped applying to Congress in 1937. Arguably earlier, but '37 was really the point that Congress found itself with no restraint on its powers.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[davidsyes]

Listenting to NPR and searching around the Internet(s), i learned that in the EU (or parts of it) or even in Australia, one can be charged with "Holocaust Denial". But, i suppose only those who go well out of their way to stridently and vociferously set out to dismantle the history and debunk the evidence will get charged. Then again, maybe high school kids or young adults just mouthing off might be sent to remedial or reeducation facilities...

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[poetmatt]

Umm, what if someone decides that your blog is "severe" enough. Severe is a subjective word with no definition, which is exactly the problem with this. Severe is akin to "I don't like you, thus I find your content objectionable" and suddenly you committed a felony.

Slashdot headlines can be a bit over the top, but I wouldn't assume that any blog is magically not objectionable even if there are no swear words or hostile phrases.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Locke2005]

As much as I hated the KKK, I reluctantly agreed that they should get their free speech rights.

Yes and no. They have the right to promote their unenlightened views, e.g. the right to state their opinion that certain races are "inferior" to others, despite the science that tells us we are ALL of African descent and the "racial" differences are merely differences in external appearance. What they do not have the right to is threatening speech or speech which incites violence against others -- and they have lost court battles on exactly that principle. Personally, given the well-known history of the SS or the KKK, I feel that marching down any street in a SS or KKK uniform constitutes an implicit threat, and therefore should not be allowed. Likewise, Orangemen parades though Catholic neighborhoods could also easily be construed at threatening, and therefore should be illegal. Merely saying "The Irish are pigs!" should not be illegal, but if there is any justice, it should get your ass kicked by a group of drunken Irishmen.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[assertation]

That is, unless you call someone names until you make them cry.

In the case that inspired the bill an adult targeted content at the teenage girl with the intent of upsetting her and the girl ended up killing herself. She is dead and her parents will have to live without the loss of their daughter for the rest of their lives.

Do you want to mock that too?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Jaysyn]

I wish we had a "three strikes" law for politicans. If you propose or sponsor Constitutionally illegal laws more than twice in your career, you get immediately shit-canned.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

its clear legally that the bill would be tossed out as unconstitutional.

No, they'd toss at the amendment as being illegal.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[khellendros1984]

Why wouldn't this be covered under laws for harassment or libel or something? Why do we need a special law because it's suddenly on the internet?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Are you surprised? Most European countries (which are regarded as further to the left than the United States in most instances) already criminalize "hate" speech. I'm no fan of "hate speech" myself but my right to free speech overrides your right not to be offended by what I say. Besides, the danger of the Government getting to say what is and what is not "hate speech" should be apparent to anyone.

I certainly hope this is not going to happen where I live. We had been living in a heavily censored environment for fourty years until 1989 and there are too many people here who have already become allergic to censorship performed for any reason whatsoever and these are not going to put up with this kind of crap so easily. Those silly Westerners that have never lived through anything like this have been lead on to think that silly laws like these are necessary.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Locke2005]

And furthermore, it makes wussies and nerds a protected class! W00t!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[jmorris42]

> ..and the "Fairness Doctrine" (currently more of a boogyman being trotted out by that blow hard Rush,
> than an actual rallying point for the Dems, but it does have it's supporters).

[SARCASM]

Ain't it the truth. Right now it only has a few back benchers like Congresswoman Pelosi behind it. But if Rush lets up on bashing it some of the more influential politicians might feel safe enough to start pushing it.

[/SARCASM]

It's all of a kind with this crap in today's article, previous attempt by the 'progressives' like McCain/Feingold, etc. But people refuse to connect the dots and see that one party just can't seem to stop attacking the Bill of Rights. If they aren't attacking the 1st Amendment they are attacking the 2nd. They won their fight against the 9th and 10th long ago, as those are are simply dead these days. Do you really believe they won't go after the others? They really have problems with the whole concept of a Constituition and the Rule of Law thing, they prefer the Rule of Men... so long as it is them doing the Ruling.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Hoi Polloi]

Well it is already illegal in Colorado to insult a sandwich.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[WCguru42]

What is logical and clear to us, may not be to the court.

Plus they can just refuse to hear any cases related to it, and let any new law stand without making any ruling. Much as they did with the 2nd for so many decades.

The only difference is that the supreme court has ruled on the first amendment much more often in the past than they have on the second (I believe that count is 1 ruling on the 2nd amendment in the history of the US). This law (as described in the summary) seems like a slam dunk to get bounced by the supreme court.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

You should have read more than the headline because frankly, the headline sucks. This bill strives to make "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech used in cyberbullying a criminal offense. Since MY blog doesn't have any of that stuff, this bill would not be able to declare my blog a weapon. By no means am I supporting this bill, but also by no means do I consider this alarmist headline to have any validity.

Does someone really have to trot out the tired old "At first they came for..." list for the risks to be evident?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[stewbacca]

Microsoft isn't the government, thus cannot be guilty of violating my constitutional rights via censorship. I could sue them for civil damages, however.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Shakrai]

While I agree with the intent of your post I have to point out one glaring inaccuracy. NOBODY has a RIGHT to not be offended. That is the simple, logical mistake of every person who introduces, or defends, things like this proposed bill.

Fair enough, I probably should have worded that differently. "My right to free speech overrides your desire not to be offended"

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[initdeep]

because congress needs to repeatedly validate their existence by passing new laws instead of merely modifying existing ones or writing ones that are good enough to be properly enforced.

Kinda like how we need repeateded attempts at new gun control laws so that only those attempting to follow the law are confused.

The criminals don't care, they've already proven that by being criminals.

I VOTE WE NAME THIS THE "DIRTY SANCHEZ" BILL!!!!!!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[ConceptJunkie]

Tough cases make bad law. So do emotional cripples. A healthy person would not kill himself over something like this. It's a very unfortunate situation, but this law is just another step down the Orwellian slippery slope our government has been rushing down the last 20 years or so.

How can a country founded on free speech enact laws that attempt to control what you think? That's what this is all about.

You cannot control people's thoughts. That's the worst kind of police state imaginable. Murder is murder. The pre-hate crimes definitions are only reasonable ways we can distinguish among different levels of culpability.

When it comes to speech, we cannot turn the whole world into Romper Room because some little emo girl took her nihilistic rock and roll records a little too literally. It's an ugly world out there. That's a shame, but it's true and you can't stop it or legislate it away.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[stewbacca]

Maybe it isn't old or tired enough, because I have no idea what "At first they came for" means.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[vlm]

Microsoft isn't the government

You must not be from around these parts... We've merged our government and multinational corporations together. There is no separation. Otherwise known as Fascism or Corporatism.

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[blueskies]

This will probably be used primarily against conservatives who oppose gay marriage, since homosexuals are currently attempting to control information sources to sway the voters who've rejected gay marriage in about 30 states. While most outspoken celebrities and MSM is on their side, they can't force their opponents off the internet unless they infringe upon their free speech rights, so that's what they're trying to do here.

How's the tin-foil hat?

Homosexuals are attempting to control information sources!!! ZOMFG! Quick! Activate hetero-defense systems. Everyone, touch their opposite sex partner to create a wave of Hetero-ness to defend us!!!!

I would hate for my marriage to be weaken by gay marriage to the point where i suddenly don't just like cock, but love it and need it. Please, Jesus, protect me from this!!!

Don't force me to reconsider my "choice" of being hetero!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[SterlingSylver]

Would a 10 day waiting period plus a background check before getting a blog REALLY be that bad? Maybe some red tape and bureaucracy to pass through? An education course? Something?

I'll find a way to get those internet kids off my internet lawn somehow

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[dwiget001]

Actually, you are almost correct.

The U.S. President swears to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...."

Whereas Senators, Representatives and other Federal officials (not judges) only swear to "... support and defend the Constitution of the United States...."

So, of the above mentioned office holders, only the President swears to "protect" the Constitution.

And frankly, from what I have seen since I attained voting age 29 years ago, Senators and Representatives don't really give a crap if the laws they pass could pass Constitutional muster or not. If the majority of them did care, probably more than 3/4ths of the laws passed in the last, roughly, 80 years, would have not been passed by either the House or Senate.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[ppanon]

Well, I think that there's already well-accepted laws (libel and slander laws) on the books to rein in certain types of speech which (deliberately or maliciously) attack individuals with lies. That's an accepted legal principle that few people would argue with. Well thought out and drafted "hate speech" laws just generalize those same concepts to identifiable groups, as opposed to just individuals. I think if it was made clear in the "hate" laws that the same existing underlying judicial principle was being applied to groups, and that previous existing libel and slander case law should be used as guidelines for determining culpability in "hate speech" cases, then it would be a lot harder to argue against those laws as an attack on free speech.

The difference of course is that slander and libel laws are part of civil law and hate speech laws are part of criminal law. However I think that there is a strong argument that the damage and scale of the activity, against a large group of people as opposed to an individual, is:

• harder to measure monetarily and not possible to redress through fines paid to the victims of the crime because of issues of distribution,
• more likely to result in physical harm against an individual as a result of the hate speech than slander or libel would.

In the first case, a proper evaluation of damages against a Holocaust denier or a similar hate speech proponent would render them destitute. At that point there's nothing to stop them from continuing their attacks. In fact, if part of their message was the existence of a controlling conspiracy by the target group (which is often the case) that result would just reinforce their beliefs of conspiracies against them by the target of their lies.

In the second case, that's because an individual who has been slandered has fewer contacts with others than a large group of people like blacks or gays, and thus the likelihood of physical harm resulting to individuals in the target group is much higher.

On the other hand, I'm starting to think that defining certain types of assaults and violent attacks as "hate crimes" isn't the appropriate way of dealing with that situation. I think the way to deal with it is to declare people who perform "hate crimes" as criminally insane, an ongoing danger to the public, and keep them locked up until they are "cured".

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[BrookHarty]

No, they're not trying to remove the First Amendment. It's still there, and if this bill conflicts with the First Amendment (and I can't see how any reasonable person could say otherwise), its clear legally that the bill would be tossed out as unconstitutional.

The thing about that, you sit in prison until the courts overturn your conviction.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[blueskies]

I hope they jail every single creator and distributor of child porn. Let's apply the law consistently so everyone can see how BAD IT IS!

Once the law ruins more lives than it protects (if it hasn't already), maybe, just maybe people will realize how stupid it is.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[PMuse]

(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.

See, unlike plain, old-fashioned in-person bullying, this newfangled cyber-bullying is scary and harmful and needs to be prosecuted.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=at+first+they+came+for

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[stewbacca]

Oh wow, now that I see what that is, I'm highly offended. I wasn't inferring that I don't do those things so I have nothing to worry about, as your "First they came for" insult infers. If you read my entire post, it should be clear that I understand the risks. That's why I said I dont' support this bill, but the ultimate success or failure of this bill does not depend on my opinion.

Actually, I don't even HAVE a blog--I was merely pointing out that if you personally don't write stuff that would violate this law, then there would be no way for you to be in violation of the law. Disagree with a law all you want, but your only recourse, if this thing were to pass, would be to challenge its constitutionality. You don't get to make the rules about what is constitutional or not, is all I'm saying. Your interpretation of the constitution, surprise, is not the final say, as much as you'd probably like to think it is.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Geoffrey.landis]

Um you might be wrong, unfortunately. Obama has four justices that will rubber stamp anything he signs...

Uh, this is a bizarrely weird thing to say. You're talking about a supreme court of which all but two justices were appointed by Ford, Reagan, or Bush; and many of whom have been on the court since Obama was a high school student. There's no reason to particularly think why they would "rubber stamp anything he signs." Anything? Huh what?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[WidgetGuy]

This bill strives to make "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech used in cyberbullying a criminal offense. Since MY blog doesn't have any of that stuff, this bill would not be able to declare my blog a weapon.

Right. I'm a homosexual gypsy. Why should I worry about what the Nazi's are doing to the Jews? Not that I agree with it, but I don't see how it will affect me...

Come to think of it, the Nazis also believed government was an appropriate substitute for good parenting.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[initdeep]

SURE.

it's called being able to deal with real life.

Not everything is roses and candy in this world.

Learn to deal with those that don't like you be ignoring them.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[zigmeister]

They really have problems with the whole concept of a Constituition and the Rule of Law thing, they prefer the Rule of Men... so long as it is them doing the Ruling.

This might sound very extremist and reactionary but they are going to have a problem doing that (instituting their bs rules over my and my family members' lives) and both me and them remaining alive. These two things are mutually exclusive.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does it seem like Democrats are at least as effective at infringing on civil liberties as Republicans are, but never seem to get called on their BS to the same degree?

It's all about who they pander to. The Dems pander to the masses, to the emotions of all people, and to the self-interest of all people. Therefore, they hold sway over more masses than the Republicans.
The Republicans, on the other hand, don't pander to anyone to obtain influence or political power *me ducks* One might say they pander to Big Business and Religious groups. Perhaps they do pander to religious groups and they need to work on that. What the Republicans do with Big Business needs some refinement, but I do believe in trickle-down economics if implemented under the right conditions.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[clone53421]

On the contrary, you have every right to not be offended by what I say, no matter how offensive it may be. You just don't have the right to keep me from saying things that do offend you.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Niris]

They may as well go full bang then and keep posting those phone pictures they all have. Yes!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[mea37]

To be clear, I've not formed an opinion one way or the other as to the merits of this bill. I'm inclined to think it's more bad than good; an emotionally-driven response to a specific case that probably casts to wide a net to make prosecuting specific actions "easier". BUT, your question was why defamation laws wouldn't arleady apply. Well...

It would be libel rather than slander. But judging from the reference to the Maier case, it seems this law is meant to address cases where libel can't be applied. (Prosecutors in that case struggled to find an applicable law, and eventually decided to abuse an old anti-hacking law. They got mixed results and IMO did considerable harm while failing to address the core issue. But that's another discussion...)

An example of the difference: I can pretty much make a libel suit impossible by clearly framing every statement I make as my opinion, rather than as fact. As far as I can tell, this bill doesn't appear to care whether the speech was presented as fact or opinion.

Libel is about the harm done to the reputation of the speech's subject (indirect harm due to the effect of the speech on third parties). This bill is about the harm done to the emotional state of the speech's subject (direct harm; the effect of the speech on the subject).

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it isn't old or tired enough, because I have no idea what "At first they came for" means.

I find your comments to be severely insulting and, as a cowardly internet outreach minister, I feel I have suffered great emotional harm. Since you posted twice (3x actually) in this thread, that means I have suffered repeatedly.

I move that you be banned from the internet.

Now imagine some asshole, who happens to be the sherriff's brother in law, for example, decides to target you in a similar way because you espouse a political belief he doesn't like on an unrelated matter.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[pwfffff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the slippery slope argument, but with Nazis.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[CohibaVancouver]

I have no idea what "At first they came for" means

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[mea37]

I've never shot anyone, so the law can't consider my gun a weapon?

The headline may be a stretch, but not for the reason you suggest.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing worth mocking is your attempt at an argument. Its a tragedy that someone thought their life was worthless. Mentally ill people should be helped before they take drastic actions.

This bill is a bulldozer for free speech and totally misses the point of the tragedy it hopes to correct. People will still harass others, outside of school. Bullying will not be stopped, nor will suicide, nor knee-jerk reactions to it.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[redcaboodle]

-1 showoff
-1 punning
-20/-20 sight

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

what i think you miss here, is the mobile definition of what qualifies as hostile, repeated, and severe.

maybe your blog doesn't contain those things how you define them, but i am willing to bet your definition isn't going to be one that is considered.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Eil]

I'm no fan of "hate speech" myself but my right to free speech overrides your right not to be offended by what I say.

This is very close to my personal mantra, except that there simply is not (and never has been) a right to not be offended.

Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it"? Why does it seem like Democrats are at least as effective at infringing on civil liberties as Republicans are, but never seem to get called on their BS to the same degree?

One of my problems with "the left" (and I'm a lot more liberal than conservative) is that they insist on everything being politically correct to the point that you're literally not allowed to say exactly what you mean anymore. This is particularly prevalent at public universities.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[anegg]

Lawyers argue and support positions that they know to be false all of the time. They consider it a win if the opposition fails to point out the fallacies of their argument. In this case, I'm not convinced that any President would resist selling the Constitution short if they thought there was a greater good. The better they know the Constitution, the more slippier their arguments will be about how the Constitution failed to anticipate this or that, or how the document needs to be updated to modern standards, etc... so the fact that a President is a "Constitutional scholar" (whatever that means) doesn't count for much in my book.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just that those who vote Republican hold their politicians to a (slightly) higher standard than the Dems do.

I certainly haven't seen that phenomenon in the US, where the opposite is true-- the Republicans hold their politicians to a very low standard indeed.

If you would write down a list of the main tenets of the Republican party as of the Reagan era-- starting with simple things like smaller government, fiscal responsibility, etc-- you can go down that list item by item and see that George W. Bush violated every single one.

Higher standard? As far as I can tell, the Republicans don't even care if their candidates have any Republican principals at all.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[stewbacca]

Hmmm, since you guys don't seem to listen and want to immediately Godwin my ass, maybe I should try a different approach.

I would like to make it illegal to murder people. If you shoot a person and kill them, I will come after you for murder, not for using a gun. The same thing here applies (I assume, not my law). It is impossible to ban words (guns) so you go after the action of bullying (murdering).

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[endianx]

...that is actually a great idea (rare for Slashdot). It would be impossible to ever pass something like that now, though. Still, I wish the founders had thought of it.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Hellpop]

When I was a kid, they used to say is as "Grow up, nothing they say can hurt you unless you let it!". I guess some kids never learned this. Does it matter in the slightest to them that this offends me? I would bet "no".

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Whiny victim much?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Maximum Prophet]

Disagree with a law all you want, but your only recourse, if this thing were to pass, would be to challenge its constitutionality.

How about we disagree with it enough to our congressbeings that they don't pass it in the first place, m'kay?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I will say now and I have always said it, this is an adult's world. I am tired of our elected officials, and these parent groups trying to turn the real world into some giant fucking playpen. I love how politicians upon election catch a tick that forces them to compulsively think of the children and try to legislate away our rights so that we can protect snot nosed little assholes. I'm sorry, your kid may be cute to you, your kid may be your pride and joy but they are also becoming an obstacle to the ideals of this country. Look at what is being done all over the United States to shelter kids from the air everyone else breathes. Phys Ed is started to take on a "no loser" policy where everyone must engage in an activity where there are no losers and everyone is a winner because of some need not to make a child feel bad. Do people honestly think that is in the child's best interest. Look at parent groups like the PTC trying to take anything and everything that aren't mindless programming off the air because a kid might see it. Now we have this cyberbulling bullshit because some kid(s) with emotional problems offed themselves.

Every generation of adults look at the world around them and realize that it is the same shitty world their parents inherited (just with newer technology) and thinks that if they shelter their children, they will grow up to create a perfect world. Doesn't seem to work like that. You keep a kid away from the feelings of losing, sadness, stress, and fear and when those feelings finally hit you have just created a generation of mal-adjusted assholes. Being a child is not some magic state that becomes undone on somebody's 18th birthday. A kid is just an adult in training and we (society AND parents) should keep that in mind. Having said that, fuck your children, they are your problem. I won't go out of my way to harm a child but I am also not going to curtail my rights and liberties because some kid might cry.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[dwiget001]

Uh, no. Funny, but no.

The amendment still stands.

Only two ways to modify it (or any amendment):

A) Passing another amendment (which would curtail, alter or otherwise define the 1st amendment) or
B) Constitutional convention which would basically scrap what we have and push the button.

Now "B" has not been done (other than such was convened to put together our original Constitution and the Bill of Rights). And, frankly, if option "B" came into play, you would probably see a whole slew of "Bill of Rights" amendments being either horribly altered or completely done away with. Why? Well, with the current powers-that-be, such a convention would be stacked with individuals that would be hell bent on molding it to solidify their political power. As opposed to fixing issues or problems with the current Constitution that have allowed 70 plus years of tyrants and thieves to run this country into the ground.

From my view, a good start on correcting things, would be for both of the major parties to become minorities in the House and Senate. That's about the only type of wake-up call that would get their attention, IMHO.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[AK Marc]

That's a lie. It's illegal to lie in order to harm trade in food. I think that lying in order to harm someone's livelihood is something that should be considered reasonable. Quit lying about everyone and you won't be in trouble.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[SirGarlon]

Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it"?

The guy who said that is dead now.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Rolgar]

Except, to censor the location or the content of their public displays is censorship, as much as controlling what they actually say, under American law. Now, should people who are demonstrating respect another person's right to exist peacefully and have their own constitutional rights be respected? Of course. But to censor their rights to say what they will in that space, even if they are advocating violence is still censorship, and I am reluctant to allow any censorship in cases I agree with for fear that I will eventually be censored because I disagree with a lot of what passes as common sense.

That's why we have the right to bear arms here in the U.S., because while we expect the threat of law enforcement to protect us from violence, the government doing so preemptively usually results in the government doing something when nothing was the better choice. With the right to bear arms, we are supposed to protect ourselves from immediate violence.

I've even found myself being affected by this in a very real way several times, because I live in the same city as Fred Phelps, and once even found myself in the unfortunate situation of standing a few feet from the man when I got out of my car, that I thought my heart was going to stop. Another time, one of his followers said something so offensive to me, that I'm pretty sure God doesn't consider his followers to be Christians, and I see his people protesting outside of many churches here in town. There have also been violent confrontations between him, his followers, and other people in town, and they often can't get a fair trial, so they've had some cases moved to other cities just to be able to find try to find an impartial jury. Despite my dislike for the man and the tone and content of his message, he should still have the right to say what he wants (although I wish they would force him to stop with the pornographic stick figures in plain view of children).

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[causality]

You should have read more than the headline because frankly, the headline sucks. This bill strives to make "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech used in cyberbullying a criminal offense. Since MY blog doesn't have any of that stuff, this bill would not be able to declare my blog a weapon. By no means am I supporting this bill, but also by no means do I consider this alarmist headline to have any validity.

The summary had it right. The emphasis is mine:

The bill is called The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, and if passed into law (and if it survives constitutional challenge) it looks almost certain to be misused."

When are you and the population in general going to learn that that's the whole point? Almost all politicians are lawyers; it's not like they don't understand the implications of a law and can't foresee its abuses. So, why would someone be perfectly capable of knowing that this will be abused and support it anyway? Because that's exactly what they want. What we call "abuse" they might call "consolidation of power." It doesn't even require some smoky-back-room conspiracy, all it requires is the understanding that people who love power want more of it and are willing to take measures in order to obtain it. What did you expect, exactly? Do you suppose that the Hitlers of the world obtain power by going out in public and delivering speeches which say "I want to rule all of you under an evil totalitarian police state that will cause much misery and suffering, so vote for me!" No, they don't. They have to be subtle and they have to have plausible deniability at each step.

Really, the level of naivete and downright stupidity on the part of the ruled (not the governed) regarding these basic things is pathetic and shameful. Even public education and all of the indoctrination and the snuffing out of natural intuitive brightness that goes along with it does not adequately explain how badly, how desperately, many of you want to believe that these hollow and soul-less mockeries of human beings (that is, our rulers) somehow have our best interests at heart. It is self-destructive and completely without excuse. Does that sound harsh? Is this Flamebait because you don't like to hear it? Consider that the widespread stupidity of the general public is materially damaging my life and the life of anyone else who does not wish to live in a totalitarian police state. Then tell me whether my response is so harsh or whether it's incredibly civil. Then talk to me about what you don't like to hear.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[stewbacca]

"...if this were to pass", as in after it passes, you really have no recourse. So get involved early and often--It's better than waiting for a stupid law to get passed then just blowing it off just because *randomslashdotuser* thinks it's unconstitutional. I think you are delusional if you think your congressperson cares what you think (unless it's close to election day).

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[fallen1]

I know I should not be a grammar/word "Nazi" but if (and I quote) she were seated on the other side of the isle (end quote) I would hope she has some coconuts and fresh water because the fishing is good on my side of the isle ;-)

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[crmarvin42]

It's akin to the misnomer that is the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU cares primarily about the 1st Amendment. Sometimes they'll step in over Amendments 4-8, but I've never seen them offer to pay to fight a new law that impinges on the 2nd, never mind the forgotten 9th and 10th.

Personally, I don't care which party your a member of, the Bill of Rights should not be impinged upon.

Freedom of speech trumps somebody's feelings over what gets said.
The Right to bear arms should trump the states desire to have complete control over the use of force.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Dreadneck]

I think that lying in order to harm someone's livelihood is something that should be considered reasonable.

That's why we have laws against libel and slander. This bill is a blatant assault on the freedom of speech. It is so broadly worded that ANYTHING you say on the web can get you arrested if it hurts someone's feelings. What happened to Megan Meier was tragic, but the answer is not to give the government the power to quash free speech.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Culture20]

This law will further criminalize every teenager in America.

Speaking of which... People keep assuming that criminalizing the masses is a sure-fire means of controlling them (police can do XYZ 'cause you're already a criminal), but the way I see it, Law itself becomes trivialized, to the point where you get the anarchic street thugs of England (they'll do what they want because they'll get in trouble no matter what).

Think of the Children: Reign in overbearing laws.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[stewbacca]

Alex Jones, is that you?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Rolgar]

"At first they came for the Communists but I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me and there was no one else to object."

Not sure if this is the original, but I found it with a quick search, and it conveys the meaning of the original, which I seem to recall being much longer.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a lie, it is on the books. So if you suspect a food processor of having poor cleanliness standards based on worker comments but they won't let you enter to definately prove it then they can prosecute you for slandering an inaminate object? Great system for crushing whistleblowers. It is called free speech and it trumps "your livelihood" whether you like it or not.

It is unreasonable to give "rights" to an inaminate object. In that case don't say anything bad about MS Windows.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[AK Marc]

Prosecutors in that case struggled to find an applicable law, and eventually decided to abuse an old anti-hacking law.

I don't see why they didn't just use a murder/manslaughter law. A person acted with the intent of causing harm to another, and in the commission of that harm, a death resulted. And numerous laws on child abuse could be applied. An adult acted to deliberately harm a minor, and in the course of that harm, a death resulted.

Libel is about the harm done to the reputation of the speech's subject (indirect harm due to the effect of the speech on third parties). This bill is about the harm done to the emotional state of the speech's subject (direct harm; the effect of the speech on the subject).

I find it funny that so many people are OK protecting indirect harm, like defamation, but direct harm, like emotional abuse, and "get over it" is all they come up with.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[supervillainsf]

Yes, just as we saw with the FISA amendment. First Obama said he would fight to get rid of the telecom immunity Then when he flopped I seem to remember some supporters here spewed the same constitutional scholar crap saying he would probably get rid of the immunity clause when he was elected. Now we see that was completely false. The only thing that his being a constitutional scholar means is that he has a good idea of what rights of the people he's violating as he's doing it.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Hellpop]

That's an awfully paranoid response from someone criticizing "tin-foil hats". That tin-foil helmet you are wearing suddenly doesn't count?

I do not know one single person against legalizing gay-marriage who thinks that gay marriage will weaken their marriage. As far as I can discern, that argument is an artificial construct created by liberals to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Me, I say, everyone should be allowed to get married. They can pay the marriage tax penalties like the rest of us. In fact, they should tax any couples who cohabit for more than a year the same way.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[jmorris42]

> These two things are mutually exclusive.

Really? So you launched the 2nd American Revolution when the 1st Amendment went away? It did you know, McCain Feingold's purpose was to carefully regulate political speech in the times when it matters most, near an election. It was passed mostly by Democrat politicians but was signed by President Bush even though he knew it to be unconstituitional. He was afraid of the MSM attacking him as a defender of big lobbists (which was no excuse to forsake his Oath) and then the Supremes suprised him and upheld it in one of their infamous 5-4 decisions.

So "Congress shall make no law.." is null and void because the Supremes said Congress CAN make a law so long as they approve of the law. So how many congresscritters did you bag? Uh huh.

When the 'assault weapons ban' was in effect that was most certainly an infringement. Hell, the machine gun ban is most certainly an infringement for the purposes of "..shall not be infringed." since at the time the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms included every weapon the military bore into war. Private militia companies even owned cannon. How many congresscritter and/pr faithless judges did you bag?

Nope, we be frogs slowly boiling to death.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[thejuggler]

"No, they're not trying to remove the First Amendment. It's still there, and if this bill conflicts with the First Amendment (and I can't see how any reasonable person could say otherwise), its clear legally that the bill would be tossed out as unconstitutional."

And proof of this are the so called Hate Speech laws, no wait those were not thrown out as unconstitutional

Laws that restrict Religious freedom have been thrown out? Oops,wrong again.

Laws requiring permits for the people to peaceable assemble have been tossed out. Hmm.. nope those are still in place.

About the only part of the First Amendment that is still in tact is the Freedom of the Press, but they've been bought and paid for in most part by the DNC PR department.

The Second Amendment has been under constant assault and now since the latest ruling by the SCOTUS the Government is now trying to eliminate the production of ammunition. The new Inter-America http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-63.html treaty Obama is looking at would ban all illicit ammunition production. Illicit is defined as anyone that makes or reloads their own ammo. Hunters do this all the time. So the back door to banning guns is now banning ammo.

I can see how my blog could be considered a weapon as I repeatedly criticize the Federal, Sate and local Governments. Based on the latest DHS report my blog is extreme and could be considered 'sever' or 'hostile' since I repeatedly call for limited Federal Government and lower Federal Taxes. Since the DHS can classify anyone that supports the 10th Amendment as a Right Wing Extremist and a possible terrorist threat they can claim anything meets the criteria for the 'blog as a weapon'.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad analogy, as in the US of A, you CAN be charged separately for using a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony or misdemeanor crime, as well as the main felony/misdemeanor itself. Both carry distinct prison sentences under the law. Some jurisdictions refer to the secondary action as "assault with a deadly weapon", if say for instance, you use a gun to rob a bank.

As an aside: It still doesn't keep the surrender-monkeys from trying to usurp our right to bear arms with ridiculous gun control laws (if they had their way, it would be a total ban) though.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[lorenlal]

God I hope. He's got quite an opportunity to stand up against some real winners on his side and tell them that what they're doing is fundamentally wrong according to the constitution.

Of course, if there's any decency left in the legislature, this won't even make it to a vote. This should die in committee.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Reziac]

I'd allow immediate withdrawal of such legislation, without penalty, as it's always possible to make well-meaning mistakes. So long as a politician is willing to correct his mistakes without coercion, okay. (And if he does this so often that none of his proposed bills go anywhere, his constituents may notice, and replace him.) But if the Constitutional Committee (we'd need one to enforce this) says NO and you still push your bill, it goes on your record as a Strike.

One strike, lose your ability to sponsor legislation for some period. Two strikes, lose your ability to vote in Congress for a similar period (rendering you ineffectual, and therefore liable to be removed by your constituents in due course). Three strikes, you're outta here.

Sound reasonable to you? I'm trying for a self-correcting system here, rather than just broad penalties.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[LordNimon]

Because the current harassment and libel laws failed to convict Lori Drew. She was convicted only under the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" (i.e. violating Myspace's terms), and only as a misdemeanor. And even then, the conviction under this particular law is debatable.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[AK Marc]

How can a country founded on free speech enact laws that attempt to control what you think? That's what this is all about.

What you think is private. No one is telling you how to think. They are stating that if you repeatedly lash out against others with the intent to harm, then you will be prosecuted.

When it comes to speech, we cannot turn the whole world into Romper Room because some little emo girl took her nihilistic rock and roll records a little too literally.

It wasn't records. An adult acted in a manner designed to cause a minor real harm. In the commission of harming her, the girl died. There was malace aforethought. There was a plan. There was intended harm. And an actual death occured. That's manslaughter at the least. The fact that it happened over a computer confused everyone involved.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[CastrTroy]

My first thought too. Continually harassing someone with hate speech should be against the law regardless of the medium. It shouldn't matter that they are doing it on the internet.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Rolgar]

On the most controversial cases (those decided 5-4), there are 4 justices that always side with the Democrats, Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg and Breyer. Three of those will probably retire in the next year or two, and now because they've been waiting for a Democrat to come to power so they could be replaced with somebody like themselves, Souter has already retired, Ginsberg has cancer, and Stevens is 89. Breyer was appointed by Clinton, and probably would be renominated by Obama if that had to be done periodically.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[lazn]

Rights are not granted by the constitution nor the amendments, rights are acknowledged by them, but no law, or lack there of can take them away.

In fact in the Declaration of Independence the founding fathers addressed this. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ..."

So as our Government becomes more and more destructive of our rights (it is there to PROTECT those rights, NOT to grant them) our right to alter or abolish it becomes stronger.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[causality]

I'm no fan of "hate speech" myself but my right to free speech overrides your right not to be offended by what I say.

While I agree with the intent of your post I have to point out one glaring inaccuracy. NOBODY has a RIGHT to not be offended. That is the simple, logical mistake of every person who introduces, or defends, things like this proposed bill.

I apologize because I am not a fan of "me too" posts. However ... I really wanted to say "Amen Brother!" I was about to make this correction myself until I noticed that you had already taken care of it.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[coolsnowmen]

Intrigued, I went and read that law.

It actually says that it is criminal to lie about the sandwich in an effort to disrupt the trade of said sandwich.

You can insult it, if it is true.
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1994/sl_176.htm

It is unlawful for any person...knowingly to make any materially false statement, for the purpose of maintaining prices or establishing higher prices for the same, or for the purpose of limiting or diminishing the quantity thereof available for market, or for the purpose of procuring, or aiding in procuring, or establishing, or maintaining a monopoly in such articles or products, or for the purpose of in any manner restraining trade, any fruits, vegetables, grain, meats, or other articles or products ordinarily grown, raised, produced, or used in any manner or to any extent as food for human beings or for domestic animals.

I think this might make a food critic's job harder, but that is ok because their job is too damn easy anyways.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

To prove the point, I consider your comment to be severe and hostile. Just sit tight while the law enforcement comes to your house.

Oh wait, you say my opinion doesn't count? Who decides that it doesn't count? The same people who will be enforcing this law?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[ringdangdu]

That is a fantastic idea!!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[steelfood]

And who's going to judge them if they violate that oath?

If you're thinking "the people," then think again, because most people calling themselves patriotic, full-blooded Americans barely understand that there is such a thing as the "Constitution," much less be able to understand it.

Or, to put it this way: How many people can quote the preamble? How many people can tell you what it approximately says but not in its exact words? How many people know it exists? How many people even know what a "preamble" is?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Taevin]

I do not know one single person against legalizing gay-marriage who thinks that gay marriage will weaken their marriage.

These people believe that gay marriage takes away their rights and punishes their beliefs. It makes no sense but it's all good though because they're doing it out of love (the love of punishing homosexuals, apparently?).

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[barkingcorndog]

Since most /. members that are actually afiliated with either party are Dems, and the majority of the unaffiliated are Liberal, it's no surpise that you won't get as much vitriol aimed at this woman than if she were seated on the other side of the isle.

I was going to mod you a troll but had to respond. Perhaps you haven't been reading the posts here, but ALL of them that I've read so far have been outraged.
Try pulling your head out of your ass.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[CastrTroy]

The fifth, from what I understand, only says you don't "have to" incriminate yourself, not that you can't willingly do so. Otherwise, there would be no way to plead guilty to a crime.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

> Once the law ruins more lives than it protects (if it hasn't already), maybe, just maybe people will realize how stupid it is

I hope you get to be one of the examples that sits in jail ... while congress discusses what to do about these stupid laws over fine meals at expensive restaurants paid for by prison industry lobbyists.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Sir_Lewk]

What you are proposing is a perfect example of "Doing the right thing for the wrong reason.". Your intentions and motives are good enough and hard to argue with on an emotional level but you are going to be committing a far greater crime by following through with this.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[BlatOdea]

should have never

supposed to

Yup... These are indeed key phrases to keep in mind whilst talking about the Government. Idealism and what's right fail in the presence of Government agenda.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[thelonious]

The hell you say. I consider any word with "bacca" in it to be offensive, hostile, and ugly. I also don't like the name "Sue". If I, or anyone like me, get to be a judge, you're toast.

So we have nothing to fear then.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

It's precisely because it was suddenly on the internet. If it had come on the internet slowly, there would have been time to adjust and understand the change. When diary postings are suddenly on the internet as blogs, there will suddenly be a perceived need for a new law.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[GodfatherofSoul]

Huh? Seven of 9 justices were put in place by conservative Presidents. Some people like to consider 2 others "liberal" by a very right-leaning standard. There isn't a solidly liberal justice on the court right now in the tradition of an Earl Warren. We don't have a Supreme Court that in any way approaches left-leaning. That's propaganda to get the right-wing based fired up. It'll take 3 picks, all replacing Conservatives, to sway the court. Sutter retiring is a one-for-one.

And, this bill was proposed by 15 kooky Congressmen. If it approaches even consideration for a vote I'd be shocked; much less passed by either House. It so shallowly smacks of an affront to the 1st amendment, the sponsors should be whacked with rolled-up newspapers for crapping on the spirit of Free Speech. BTW, I thought the court case was bogus too.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Archangel Michael]

You and the parent post are both wrong. The government shouldn't decide who and who cannot be married. PERIOD.

Marriage is a SACRED (ie Religious) ceremony instituted long ago. First Amendment Freedom of Religion dictates that ANYTHING resembling religion be excised from government, this includes Marriage (and Weekends by the way). I want my mail 7 days a week, and the only reason it isn't delivered on Sunday is a holdout from a more religious time.

Seriously I would love it if all the Atheists were at least consistent about their church/state separation.

Leave marriage to the sacred institutions, and get the government out of it.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't this be covered under laws for harassment or libel or something? Why do we need a special law because it's suddenly on the internet?

Because on the internet, we have to THINK OF THE CHILDRENS.

If a kid is so mentally fragile that cyber bullying is what pushes them over the edge into suicide or pulling a Columbine, then the kid has a LOT more problem than pixels on a screen calling them fat or ugly or a c*nt of a f*g.

Bullying sucks. I was a victim myself, as was almost everyone at some point. But the more we try to protect kids, the worse it is for them when they grow up and get out into the real world where Mommy and Daddy can't pad every sharp corner, mute profanity, censor sex and violence, etc.

I am so sick of the childcentric culture being created by people too lazy to tell their kids NO and SUPERVISE what they do online.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[blueskies]

I do not know one single person against legalizing gay-marriage who thinks that gay marriage will weaken their marriage. As far as I can discern, that argument is an artificial construct created by liberals to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Well, since you don't know anyone who thinks that then it must not exist. Go read some of the awful anti-gay websites (worldmagblog, etc). They all spread FUD about weakening people's marriages.

How is that paranoia? It's not even a strictly liberal argument. It's more of a libertarian argument. The state shouldn't be interfering with people's contracts.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[mrdoogee]

Oh boy! New laws against things that are already against the law (Libel, Slander). That'll show em. After all, making murder a felony stopped that trend right in its tracks!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Locke2005]

Fred Phelps? Gee, for somebody that professes to be straight, he sure spends a lot of time thinking about homosexuals and homosexual acts, doesn't he? My personal philosophy is that the sexual preferences of anybody else is irrelevant to me, unless I am planning on dating them. Phelps appears to be a textbook example of a "latent homosexual". In addition, I have absolutely no respect for someone who has attacked my hero, Fred Rogers! Unfortunately, I agree with you. As offensive as his speech is, there is no evidence that he has advocated violence against the people he hates, thus it still qualifies as "free speech". He has been implicated in repeated unlawful and violent acts, but I don't see any pattern of targeting any specific group as victims. Best way to deal with him? Don' reduce yourself to his level. Don't let them provoke you into physical confrontations. My best idea for dealing with his protests is to stage a counter protest wherein all the counter-protesters simply ignore his group and engage in blatant public displays of affection with members of the same sex. I'm straight, but even I would kiss a guy just to piss the assholes off!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Omestes]

They (the liberals) have already destroyed the first two parts of the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" by laws that 'separate church and state'.

Huh? It seems making laws to keep a separate church and state are completely in the spirit of the lines of the Constitution you cite. There is no law prohibiting you from being as religious as you want (if there was, all these mega-churches would be doomed). Yes, there are laws keeping us from having a theocracy (this generally fails, look at all the republican candidates and presidents of the last 30 years), and laws keeping religions getting federal funding. I see no objection with these, since they do not hinder your individual ability to practice your religion.

Hopefully we pass more laws against enforcing religion on a government level, since I find it silly to be forced to live by the tenets of a system whose basis I disagree with. Before you object to that, imagine yourself implanted into a Muslim theocracy, or a Hindu theocracy. And no, we are NOT a christian nation, our founders were not Christians anything like they are today. They were deists, who have more in common with atheists than modern Christians.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[mrdoogee]

I have my 20 twitter accounts do it for me.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[PhxBlue]

This will probably be used primarily against conservatives who oppose gay marriage, since homosexuals are currently attempting to control information sources to sway the voters who've rejected gay marriage in about 30 states. While most outspoken celebrities and MSM is on their side, they can't force their opponents off the internet unless they infringe upon their free speech rights, so that's what they're trying to do here.

This argument is about as tasteless, as illogical and as full of shit as saying the Jews are responsible for the economic downturn because they control the banks. Seriously, who the fuck modded this "insightful"?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[paazin]

When the 'assault weapons ban' was in effect that was most certainly an infringement. Hell, the machine gun ban is most certainly an infringement for the purposes of "..shall not be infringed." since at the time the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms included every weapon the military bore into war. Private militia companies even owned cannon.

The natural extension of which is that everyone should be able to buy their own tanks/howitzers/cruise missiles.

I sure as hell don't want to have to worry about some corporation or NGO pointing such things at me because they label me a 'nuisance', so where do you draw the line?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[crmarvin42]

There are levels to outrage. In my experience, the outrage is usually proportional to the offense unless the Republicans are involved. Then the outrage is frequently disproportionate to the offense.

And I have seen several posts on /. along the lines of my "They should be a Republican, how could they do this to us" comment when a Democrat made a stereotypically Republican decision on Free Speach. If you didn't see it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Your experience may be different. That doesn't mean anyone's head is located anywhere physically inappropriate.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[mrdoogee]

Are Hawaiian Republicans and Democrats across the isle from each other?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[icannotthinkofaname]

If 'any reasonable person' would find it unconstitutional, this legislation should have never been proposed in the first place.

Agreed. An extension of your logic: We have not elected reasonable people to positions of public office.

So, instead of sitting here, bitching about it on /., we should be taking political action ourselves, and doing what we can either to remove this bill before it has the chance to pass, or to change our government such that the system we put in place will satisfy us.

That's the beauty of our system - yes, the legislators can legislate whatever they want, but that's only as long as the People let the legislators do so. This is explicitly spelled out in one of our 200-something-year-old documents.

If you care enough, you will take your own political action against this bill.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Duradin]

*cough*Blackwater*cough*

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[GarfBond]

I thought it was meant to be funny. Shame to see it marked as "insightful."

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[clone53421]

It is... but only if the person being harassed gets legal protection. The law doesn't blanket-cover everyone's feelings.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[clone53421]

...which is why other people need to join in the fight.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Hatta]

if this bill conflicts with the First Amendment (and I can't see how any reasonable person could say otherwise), its clear legally that the bill would be tossed out as unconstitutional.

Boy, are you naive. Any reasonable person would say that wheat grown and consumed on ones own property cannot possibly involve interstate commerce. But the Supreme Court said that it did.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I would consider allowing this until the US agrees to a more reasonable copyright, say 20 years.

Because politicians don't get extra votes for pointing out the behavior is already covered by law. They can't say they made the world safer by their unnecessary law.

It seems like when they talk about, "The Internet", they have no clue that it is part of daily life, and should be treated as such. Remember when the judge first decided that the first spammers had a first amendment right to spam? It was already covered by the law which addressed things that cost you extra money to read.(like spam faxes.) Ah, the temptation to go on a tangent here...

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[cayenne8]

"Um you might be wrong, unfortunately. Obama has four justices that will rubber stamp anything he signs.

Where on earth did you come up with that craziness? Do you have any evidence for this astounding assertion?"

Err....you do know that is precisely why any president tries to load the court with justices that think in line with their party don't you?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw "three strikes." How about "zero tolerance?"

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Where were all you freedom fighters a few years ago when Bush was IMPRISONING JOURNALISTS AND AMERICAN CITIZENS WITHOUT CHARGES?

Oh right, when a republican violates the constitution, it's totally OKAY!

You fucking hypocrites.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[pete6677]

Exactly. This reminds me of all the various laws against driving while texting, talking on the phone, etc. Why not just use the perfectly good existing laws against distracted driving?

Just like in this case, some worthless senator wants to get their name in the headlines as "doing something" about the problem.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Slyfoot]

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. :)

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Thinboy00]

An example of the difference: I can pretty much make a libel suit impossible by clearly framing every statement I make as my opinion, rather than as fact. As far as I can tell, this bill doesn't appear to care whether the speech was presented as fact or opinion.

IANAL, this isn't legal advice.
You're wrong. If I write "It is my opinion that John Doe robbed a bank." on my blog, he can and probably will sue me for libel, and I would probably lose.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Kreigaffe]

No, but you're completely misunderstanding what's going on here.
If Microsoft found your blog to be full of severe, repeated hostile language, then you would be in violation of the law. Not CIVIL law, but FEDERAL law. This wouldn't be a case where you sue for damages. This would be a case where they show evidence to a jury of your peers that the language on your blog was, indeed, severely hostile and repeated, and thus in violation of the law, and then you'd go to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
If they found that the contents of your blog were also harmful lies, well, that's a civil matter. THAT would be libel.

But that's a whole different case. As far as I can see, this bill makes no distinction between truth and falsehood -- therefor, you could be locked up for saying things that are COMPLETELY TRUE, yet cause somebody to feel severe emotional distress (PEOPLE GET SEVERELY EMOTIONALLY DISTRESSED WHEN POPEYE'S RUNS OUT OF CHICKEN FFS).
Now isn't that a fun idea?

Let's actually look at the wording of the law.

"(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."

Wait, coerce? COERCE? TITS OR GTFO would be in violation of federal law. I wish I was joking -- I am not.
Intimidation, coercion, what the fuck? These are not things that are illegal to do in person. There are circumstances that MAKE them illegal, but let's say you're talking to your significant other and trying to talk them into sex even though they're kinda tired.
Nothing wrong about that at all.
Now, this law passes. Now repeat the above, but via some sort of electronic means. You are now attempting to coerce -- perhaps even intimidate would be able to be used, it depends on how Wymyn's-Lib the judge is (ZOMGS SEX IS INNATELY ABOUT VIOLENCE AND DOMINANCE AND ABUSE bitch please) -- and you're in violation of the Illustrious Idiot Sanchez of the glorious state of Cali-less-free-than-the-rest-of-the-country-fornia.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[NoobixCube]

Because it's a deliberately ambiguous power-grab. All the laws passed after 9/11 were done in the name of fighting terrorism, and they have stripped away so many freedoms. If the average American weren't a politically uninformed blob of work and meat, we'd have seen the Second American Civil War by now; or at the very least a bloodless coup. The net censorship in Australia is being pushed for in the name of stopping child porn, but it's clear it will be misused if it's ever introduced (what does 'other unwanted content' mean?). Now, America is going to have it's own blog-stopper law. Before, if the government didn't like what a blog said, it would have to act through a company which claimed to not like it, and issue a C&D. If this bill becomes law, the government will be able to silence bloggers on a whim.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I don't remember the Republicans passing laws against homosexuals speaking in public. Did they make it illegal for unions to speak out to the press? Did they try to censor ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN? Did they cut the budget for NPR? Sounds like the Republics act responsible, the Democrats don't but it 'common knowledge' that the reverse is true

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Requiem18th]

Those laws aren't broad enough!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

What an ignorant thing to say. You must be one of those types that thinks because they have nothing to hide that federal warrantless wiretapping must be okay. Once you start clamping the vices, there's no going back.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[rho]

Still, I wish the founders had thought of it.

More importantly I wish they had enshrined "shit-canned" into the Constitution.

Talk about a clear and unambivalent meaning. Pretty sure Ben Franklin used "shit-canned" on a daily basis.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[nomadic]

Anyone who has followed the court at all knows perfectly well that justices frequently go against the wishes of the presidents who appointed them and the political parties which they are a member of. Look at Souter. The judges are more concerned with their own place in history rather than pleasing a president/party who, to put it in practical terms, can't really hurt or hinder their career anymore.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Jane Q. Public]

How do you know that a future political administration would not consider your support of another party to be "hostile"? And "severe"? Those are pretty vague words.

And if you support that other party in print more than once, it is "repeated".

Do not underestimate the power of stupidity. This is a "slippery slope" bill, and it needs to be killed.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it funny that so many people are OK protecting indirect harm, like defamation, but direct harm, like emotional abuse, and "get over it" is all they come up with.

That's because emotions are extremely ambiguous and anti emotional abuse laws are ripe for abuse. Anyone can claim that "their feelings were hurt", and how can you prove otherwise? On the other hand, defamation is clearly and unambiguously harmful. Whilst there may be gray areas in application, in theory, you can easily say "I have lost $XYZ directly because of this persons' inaccurate words". The minute that such an unambiguous correlation can be made between someone's emotional state and another's words is the minute that most people will start supporting anti-emotional abuse laws*.

*Not me though, since I personally think "get over it" is valid in the vast majority of cases. I've been called more bad names than I can remember, and growing a pair is the only realistic way to deal with it (because life will always throw shit at you no matter what, so a thick skin is necessary for survival). If the world were as inevitably physically challenging as it is emotionally challenging, then a "protect fatties" law would be an impractical nuisance at best, and any pragmatic, sensible person would stress fitness as the solution.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[rho]

Why does it seem like Democrats are at least as effective at infringing on civil liberties as Republicans are, but never seem to get called on their BS to the same degree?

This always happens, whichever Party is in power.

Republicans have a good point with regard to a robust national defense. But as soon as they acquire power they go invade another country or something.

Democrats have a good point with regard to the government protecting people who may have fallen through the cracks. But as soon as they acquire power they start nanny-stating all over the place.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

No insult intended. Just pointing out how your post read - and how it /still/ reads to me, even after going back and checking it again.

Actually, I don't even HAVE a blog--I was merely pointing out that if you personally don't write stuff that would violate this law, then there would be no way for you to be in violation of the law. Disagree with a law all you want, but your only recourse, if this thing were to pass, would be to challenge its constitutionality. You don't get to make the rules about what is constitutional or not, is all I'm saying. Your interpretation of the constitution, surprise, is not the final say, as much as you'd probably like to think it is.

I agree. The important thing, then, is that this bill not pass. And saying that "well, I won't run afoul of this law in MY posts" comes across as taking a very easy way out of getting involved. Easy, but dangerous because of the implications should this law pass - as you say, we have no guarantee that it will be found unconstitutional.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Jane Q. Public]

What is your definition of "reasonable"?? And history contradicts you. Many, many Congresscritters who took that same oath did, in fact, seek to undermine the Constitution.

Please show me some valid statistics showing correlation between being in Congress and being reasonable. I do not believe one follows from the other.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[ImOnlySleeping]

I didn't know that defendants and plaintiffs had to identify themselves as republicans or democrats. I guess you learn something new on Slashdot everyday.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[hoooocheymomma]

When are you and the population in general going to learn that that's the whole point?

Never.

Really, the level of naivete and downright stupidity on the part of the ruled (not the governed) regarding these basic things is pathetic and shameful.

That's right! They like it. The people as a whole like it when you take their rights away and screw them. The first thing the general public does when you even the playing field is falls on its face, and then it begs for somebody to come and protect it from itself. Then any oppressor that wants to can just rape them all to hell.

I'm so sick of it. Everybody is so happy to put tons of laws in place that restrict them from doing anything. So you know what? You can't let them decide. Democracy does not work. We gave it a good run, but it really turns out that the world population would really be better off with warlords running around hacking off limbs. At least then, even the very stupid can tell when their leaders are doing something wrong. Because it physically hurts.

As sarcastic as it sounds, I'm serious. People really really don't seem to want to make any decisions for themselves, or make any effort to watch their own backs. Every time any kind of personal responsibility or vigilance is required, people let their guard down and get screwed, and then demand that somebody else help them. So you know what I say? Take advantage of all the helpless losers while you can before the entire world is baby-proofed. They will screw *you* by voting all your rights out the window.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[kurzweilfreak]

So you are against the freedom of speech of a group based on a supposed "implicit threat" of violence, but you appear to condone actual violence against someone else exercising their freedom of speech? Wtf man?!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[ConceptJunkie]

It wasn't records. An adult acted in a manner designed to cause a minor real harm. In the commission of harming her, the girl died. There was malace aforethought. There was a plan. There was intended harm. And an actual death occured. That's manslaughter at the least. The fact that it happened over a computer confused everyone involved.

So why is a new law needed? Sounds like we've got a perfectly good case of manslaughter or aggravated manslaughter or something like that. There couldn't possibly be anything that this new law, which will undoubtedly be poorly or vaguely worded, and quite probably voted on without being read, that isn't adequately covered by existing law.

This is just another opportunity to harass the politically incorrect speech du jour... because we all know that "intended harm" can mean just about anything from "fired a weapon at the target point blank" to "made some vague implication in a negative tone of voice" once the PC Mafia gets fired up.

Free Speech. Who needs it?

This is coming from the same group of morons that recently voted to define pedophiles as a protected class against hate crimes but refused to do so for pregnant women and members of the military. These are people (and I use the term loosely), who have nothing but contempt for everyone and everything but their own wealth and power.

Let me be very clear about this. Congress does NOTHING right, and hasn't for many years. If it weren't for unintended consequences they would be of no consequence at all. There is no way this law will do anything but make things worse in a country where the Constitution is already all but irrelevant. I wouldn't trust that pack of bloodsuckers to take out my trash.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you missed it, but Republican voters didn't re-elect their Congresscritters in 2006. A number of them voted for conservative leaning Democrats instead. Others voted third party or just stayed home. That resulted in the Democrats taking over both houses of Congress, not because they had any grand ideals that people were clamoring for, but because they weren't Republicans. That is, the base punished them for not living up to the standard they expected them to.

To some extent, that played out again last year, with the added bonus of Congressional and local Democrats riding the coattails of Obama... and base Republican voters being upset at having to choose between Obama and McCain. McCain got a couple million votes less than GWB did in 2004 simply because the base didn't want someone even worse than Bush in the White House representing their party.

Democrats and liberal Republicans keep whining that the GOP needs to abandon conservatism to win... but they're wrong. If that were the case, McCain would have won last year. What they need to do, is embrace those conservative values, especially the fiscally conservative parts and then actually follow through and behave like conservatives when they're elected. If the choice is between Democrat and Democrat-lite, why vote Democrat-lite?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

So "Congress shall make no law.." is null and void because the Supremes said Congress CAN make a law so long as they approve of the law.

Well, when you get around to revolting, be sure that the next constitution isn't just a goddamned piece of paper and provides for some real method of enforcing "the supreme law of the land" other than hoping that the supreme court will exercise it's (not constitutionally derived, btw) powers to shout no really loudly and stomp their feet when someone misbehaves.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[StikyPad]

"I don't like you, thus I find your content objectionable" and suddenly you committed a felony.

Why not? That's how sexual harassment works.

</sarcasm>

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Dragonslicer]

Offensive and ugly are not part of "severe, repeated, and hostile". In a sane world, "hostile" would be well-defined to only mean threatening to cause physical harm or intentionally and knowingly trying to cause physical harm (e.g. intentionally harassing a person when you know that the person has emotional problems and that your actions are likely to cause the person to commit suicide). Of course, I'm sure that this law will be vague, overly broad, and end up being abused to the point that calling a person fat or ugly costs you a couple million dollars in a lawsuit. And why existing harassment laws don't already cover this is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Locke2005]

No I don't condone violence. Idealistically, I support your legal right to stand in the middle of Watts shouting "Nigger!" at the top of your lungs. But no one should be surprised when the inevitable result occurs, nor would I have much sympathy for you when it does, for you would have to be one incredibly stupid honky to actually exercise this right.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[alexborges]

I find it funny that you think that there is such a thing as "emotional abuse" over what *can* be a solely written medium.

I understand the need to protect everyone's privacy and thus would support punishment for those sharing personal information, be it true or false -with the purpose of smearing a reputation- of a person.

But "emotional abuse"? What in the lamest fuck is that?

Oh wait, I'm emotionally abusing you right now on account of my harsh language and my questioning of your arguments, arent I?

Nah nah.... lets kick this evil freedom-hating fuckers out of the net.

NOW.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[flaming error]

> to carefully regulate political speech in the times when it matters most, near an election.
Hogwash. Its purpose was to "carefully regulate" campaign financing. Anybody can still say whatever they want, anybody can still advertise wherever they want if they don't withhold/obfuscate their identity.

Perhaps you could argue that the lack of anonymity will have a chilling effect on the two major political parties, Corporate America, and George Soros.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[ring-eldest]

Drug war laws have ruined MILLIONS of lives and protected almost none.

I know you're being tongue-in-cheek but CP laws amount to the same thing. The government doesn't learn from the suffering of the people, the government learns when the people start killing them. And that's the ONLY time any government learns or changes for the better.

With, you know, blood and bullets and bombs. Not with tears and letters.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[severoon]

Yea, people might read your example and say that you're being ridiculous or facetious. But let's take a moment to consider US workplace sexual harassment law, shall we? According to the law, sexual harassment has occurred in the workplace if someone feels harassed. That is the legal standard. If you feel as though harassment has taken place, then from a legal standpoint, it has.

Surely, you say, there must be some other context or requirement besides. You would be wrong.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[LordEd]

but let's say you're talking to your significant other and trying to talk them into sex even though they're kinda tired.

This is slashdot. I recommend using a car analogy instead if you'd like more people to understand it.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Maximum Prophet]

"No snowflake in an avalanche feels responsible"

That quote applies to mobs and elections.

Yes, they do care, *if* they feel what you think alters their chance for getting re-elected. Because it's always close to election day. Use to be pols started the re-election campaign the day after the election, now it's started several months before.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[mckinleyn]

Here's the thing. You see the header on your comment? Flamebait? So you offended someone, and they thought you did it intentionally. Under THIS law, that makes you screwed. Maybe, just maybe, points a-e given in the bill are valid. But this particular bill is NOT the right way to deal with the issue of cyberbullying. ANY bill that I would even come close to supporting would have to be infinitely less inclusive and define specific offenses ("intended to ... cause emotional distress"?!?) and very specific punishments ("Up to two years imprisonment"?).

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Funny, but I just want to know, what part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..." does Sanchez not understand?

It almost makes me wish for the "good old days" of B-1 Bob.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[greyhueofdoubt]

but this law is just another step down the Orwellian slippery slope our government has been rushing down the last 20 years or so.

I see this slope comes equipped with an extraordinarily slow escalator? ;)

-b

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Most /.'ers are Libertarian from what I can gather from reading the comments over the past 4 years. But then again, I might just be biased because I'm Libertarian, too.

2) [Citation Needed]. I don't even know where you heard such random garbage. "Imprisoning Journalists," Really? You must have had a bad dream or something.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Maximum Prophet]

Yep.

Actually I was paraphrasing from the TV series "Dinosaurs". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101081/ In that episode, the dinosaurs tried to remove everything from TV that was offensive to anyone and someone opined that he was offended by the name "Sue", so a the newscasters could no longer call each other by name.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[AHuxley]

Lets say you blog about a car company.
One that makes a roll over, exploding or parts snaps and steering lock at speed kind of car company.
You include witness statements, local news reports, show a history, talk to universities, doctors and scientists.
Something is very wrong with a generation of cars from the company. They will fix it but not until the recall loss vs court loss is correct.
The company see's you blog and shuts you down.
No more digital Ralph Nader's, ever.
If you make a fuss you are named and shamed on the BOX as one that likes to 'cause substantial emotional distress through "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech."
So will your lawyer and anyone who helped you.
In Capitalist America is freedom of speech. In Capitalist America they get you after speech.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who pays attention knows that it is the conservative appointees who drift to the left. The liberal appointees do not drift to the right.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[jmorris42]

> .. be sure that the next constitution isn't just a goddamned piece of paper and provides for some
> real method of enforcing "the supreme law of the land"

I have pondered that problem. Ultimately it is a problem in US in that we elect these faithless people again and again. But of course the majority of US are products of government schools which have carefully neglected teaching the founding principles for a couple of generations now. But it is still our fault and the ultimate solution has to come from We The People.

However one nice partial solution I have pondered from time to time would be an Amendment. Yes I know what you are thinking, they ignore everything else why would one more bit of paper do what the others didn't? Ah, but I had an idea.

Proposed Amendment

It shall be legal to slay a faithless Congressman or Senator. When a Citizen is accused of the crime of killing a sitting member of Congress he or she has the option of invoking this Amendment. This implies that the accused is thereby confessing to the act of Murder and is seeking the protection of this Amendment to escape the traditional punishment. At the moment this Amendment is invoked the normal trial is thus finished and a special phase is entered.

The Jury shall be provided with a copy of the US Constituition, including all Amendments. The Accused must cite a specific Act of Congress which was introduced or co-sponsored by the slain Member, and which was enacted into Law after the Member last stood for election. The Jury shall be provided with a complete copy of said Bill. The Jury will then deliberate upon the sole question of whether in fact the Bill was a violation of the Member's Oath of Office. If the Jury, by simple majority vote, decides the Member's Bill was indeed a violation of this Constituition's limited powers the Accused shall be set Free and all reference to his crime of Murder shall be expunged from all official records leaving no impairment to the Accused's liberties. However, to discourage use of this Amendment in place of the normal use of the ballot, should the Jury find the Accused killed a Member who was keeping Faith with his Oath the Accused shall be put to Death by means most cruel within twenty four hours of the verdict being entered.

The Jury shall have the final decision in this matter. No appeal shall be permitted, no mistrial may be declared and no Judge may enter a directed verdict. The Jury shall deliberate until they reach a verdict. In way of guidance to such future juries facing such a weighty decision it should be noted that if the case be not so clear that you have little difficulty deciding you should probably vote to have the killer executed, this Amendment is intended to focus the minds of Congress on the limits to their powers, not to start a bloodbath.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[AK Marc]

But "emotional abuse"? What in the lamest fuck is that?

Try a dictionary.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

We seem to be operating under different definitions of the word "defend"

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[AK Marc]

Anyone can claim that "their feelings were hurt", and how can you prove otherwise?

The real problem is people with no idea how the laws work commenting on one specific piece. How can I prove otherwise? The same way everything else subjective is measured in law. If you don't know what that is, then you aren't worth talking to because you are willfully ignorant and proud. If you do know what it is, then you are intellectually dishonest in pretending you don't know.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[AK Marc]

It isn't a lie, it is on the books.

I didn't say it wasn't on the books. I called you a liar for the characterization.

So if you suspect a food processor of having poor cleanliness standards based on worker comments but they won't let you enter to definately prove it then they can prosecute you for slandering an inaminate object?

You are an idiot. They can't prosecute you for "slander" because you suspect poor cleanliness. You'd have to say something. And, based on the article linked, what you say has to be provably false. If they want to take you to court over it, then they must prove you made a factual statement that was demonstably false. So you'll get your chance to go in and inspect it, or they can't charge you. Furthermore, it's only for false statements. "I've heard that it's a horrible place and the food is all poisoned" is not an inaccurate statement, and thus is legal. "I believe they make food that is bad for you" is also a true statement, and thus wouldn't be a problem.

It is unreasonable to give "rights" to an inaminate object.

The object doesn't have rights. The person that is the owner of that object does. The law does nothing more than say that it is essentially slander against Bob to say "Bob's hot dogs are 50% dog poop." The hot dogs don't get to vote, or serve on juries or have any rights at all. It just expands slander to include statements that would affect one's livelihood directly, even if not made specifically about the person themselves.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[AK Marc]

Do you have the right to lie in order to harm someone if it doesn't benefit your financially? Currently, fraud really only comes into play if you benefit, but if you are just mean and don't try to benefit but just want to harm others, it should be legal?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Foobar of Borg]

This bill is about the harm done to the emotional state of the speech's subject (direct harm; the effect of the speech on the subject).

Then it would be covered under intentional, or negligent, infliction of emotional distress. Of course, this can also be gotten around by free speech arguments. You can even joke that Jerry Falwell's "first time" was with his mother in an outhouse. Of course, that goat fucker now uses trademark law to try to crush anyone who dares state anything negative about him. Did I not mention that he regulary fellates goats and loves to swallow?

Anyway, the law is a way around that, so you can sue the hell out of anyone who expresses anything negative about you. I can only hope that this will be deemed unconstitutional, since even Scalia and other conservatives don't stand against the first amendment. But, damage will already be done before it gets to the Supremes.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[ConceptJunkie]

but this law is just another step down the Orwellian slippery slope our government has been rushing down the last 20 years or so.

I see this slope comes equipped with an extraordinarily slow escalator? ;)

It's a REALLY long slope.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[dooguls]

I couldn't agree with you more. Why is it that congresspeople think they can circumvent or undermine the constitution?

It blows my mind, for example, that they're trying to make Washington D.C. a state. Article 1, Section 8: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places..."

The District is explicitly NOT a state. Without an Amendment, how can they even consider this legislation?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[dwiget001]

Hmm, not really.

I would say, that the people *swearing* to defend the Constitution, have a problem with the definition of "defend" as sworn to in their oath. :)

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Dragonslicer]

But there are some senators that think that gay marriage will lead to children being born out of wedlock. The video isn't working for me right now, but I think this is the right clip.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Shakrai]

I sure as hell don't want to have to worry about some corporation or NGO pointing such things at me because they label me a 'nuisance', so where do you draw the line?

Pointing any weapon (be it a .22LR or a 5" artillery piece) at you without justification would be considered a crime in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[rantingkitten]

At first they came for the hostile bloggers but I said nothing, for I was not a hostile blogger...
Then they came for the annoying myspacers, but I said nothing, for I was not an annoying myspacer...
Then they came for the Fark photoshoppers, but I said nothing, for I was not a Fark photoshopper...
Then they came for the vapid Tweeters, but I said nothing, for I was not a vapid Tweeter...
Then they came for the Slashdotters, and there was no one left to say anything.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Shakrai]

Well, I think that there's already well-accepted laws (libel and slander laws) on the books to rein in certain types of speech which (deliberately or maliciously) attack individuals with lies. That's an accepted legal principle that few people would argue with. Well thought out and drafted "hate speech" laws just generalize those same concepts to identifiable groups, as opposed to just individuals. I think if it was made clear in the "hate" laws that the same existing underlying judicial principle was being applied to groups, and that previous existing libel and slander case law should be used as guidelines for determining culpability in "hate speech" cases, then it would be a lot harder to argue against those laws as an attack on free speech.

I would still argue against such laws. I do not feel that the regulation of speech is a proper role for Government. Slander and libel laws are tort actions provided as a means for the aggrieved party to seek redress. I think it's a very dangerous slope for the Government to get into the business of deciding what kind of speech is criminal. Today it's criminal to deny the holocaust or rant against black people. Tomorrow will it be criminal to point out the sheer stupidity of Scientology? I would draw the line where it is currently drawn in the US -- incitement to riot and/or violence is a crime. Merely stating that some racial subgroup is prone to some stereotype is not and should not be a crime.

In the first case, a proper evaluation of damages against a Holocaust denier or a similar hate speech proponent would render them destitute

Why? How does denying the Holocaust harm anyone? Why should someone be rendered destitute because they choose to believe that the Holocaust never happened in spite of all evidence to the contrary?

On the other hand, I'm starting to think that defining certain types of assaults and violent attacks as "hate crimes" isn't the appropriate way of dealing with that situation. I think the way to deal with it is to declare people who perform "hate crimes" as criminally insane, an ongoing danger to the public, and keep them locked up until they are "cured".

No, the way to deal with it is to punish people who commit hate crimes in the same manner as you would punish people who commit a regular murder or assault. Murder and assault are already illegal. Pre-meditated murder or assault are already treated as more serious offenses. Why does it need to go any further than that? Being murdered because your gay is not worse than being murdered because your ex-lover couldn't stand to see you with someone else. In either scenario the murderer deserves to be punished severely.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[rtb61]

Well perhaps there should be a slight differentiation between adults targeting adults and adults targeting children. Aside from that of course the reality is that on the internet, the insulted party must actively seek out the insulter, in order to be insulted, if they are reading a blog or even a social networking site. Of course if it is directed messages, email directly from the insulter to the insulted or even on person hounding another on a forum, then it might be viewed differently.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Monsuco]

Are you surprised? Most European countries (which are regarded as further to the left than the United States in most instances) already criminalize "hate" speech.

Hell, US colleges have similar policies.

True it is much worse in Europe. Hell, I have heard of some countries that have prosecuted members of their legislature for "hate speech" for such crimes as criticising radical sects of Islam.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Dreadneck]

I think a better approach would be to issue a restraining order against contacting the person who feels harmed or threatened.

With a restraining order both parties still have the right to speak their mind - just not to each other. The first amendment is protected and there is a legal recourse which protects both parties' rights.

If an individual breaks the restraining order then he or she can be charged with violating the no contact order of the court. This means the person is not being punished for their speech but rather their actions.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

current harassment and libel laws failed to convict Lori Drew

I don't recall anyone trying to use harassment laws to charge Lori Drew.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Wildclaw]

But "emotional abuse"? What in the lamest fuck is that?

Emotional abuse is the main reason why actions such a rape and childporn are considered such serious crimes. A physical beating heals in a couple of weeks, while emotional damage can take years to pass.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[ppanon]

Merely stating that some racial subgroup is prone to some stereotype is not and should not be a crime.

Well I think the standard defense against slander would be applicable. It wouldn't be a crime if you can show some solid statistical evidence defending your claim that was published in peer reviewed journals. I would also allow exemption for academic research because otherwise you've got a chicken and egg problem.

Otherwise I would be free to proclaim that my experience is that slashdot posters with eastern European and central Asian sounding pseudonyms steal babies for the purposes of child pornography and child molestation. Seems like a catchy troll post to use for the next year or two, no? Or maybe instead that your people tear them apart at the full moon.

Why? How does denying the Holocaust harm anyone? Why should someone be rendered destitute because they choose to believe that the Holocaust never happened in spite of all evidence to the contrary?

Because that's usually only one step in turning "The Holocaust" into a conspiracy by Jews to distract from the fact that they control the world and should be overthrown. It's hard to scapegoat them while they're recognized as victims.

Jews have a culture which respects learning and encourages that pursuit, which means that they will naturally have a competitive advantage in an information economy against your average person/industrial cog who is either ambivalent or outright hostile to book l'arnin'. There's also certain aspects of their religion which facilitate the mistreatment of people outside that religion, but then that's been true of most religions at one point or another. I respect them for the former, and decry the latter behaviour if I see it. They have also historically had a fairly insular culture (probably encouraged by centuries of religious persecution). The three together make them natural targets for prejudice and antipathy. Generally though, when one group of people spread lies about another people, it's rarely in the best interest of the people being lied about and usually to their detriment one way or another. As I said, quantifying it with a dollar value can be hard, but proving that there's been a lie, not so much.

Being murdered because your gay is not worse than being murdered because your ex-lover couldn't stand to see you with someone else.

Yes it is, for a reason very related to your argument above about how lying about the Holocaust isn't a crime. It's inconsistent for you to hold that position as you describe it, and then argue the above statement as well. There is a fundamental qualitative difference in acting violently against someone who you perceive to have wronged you personally directly, versus someone who has never harmed you in any way. It's further along the path of insanity to be willing to commit violence against someone who has done you no wrong just because of who they are, rather than because of something they have done to you. The latter are a greater risk to members of society. It's a comparable difference in risk to the populace and risk of recurrence as there is for someone who will kill someone else in a fit of passion, vs. someone who pre-plans a murder. Assaulting "uppity" well-dressed blacks or guys just for walking down the street holding hands? That shows a deeper and more dangerous sociopathy than your average mugger or punch thrown in a drunken bar brawl.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Kreigaffe]

Sometimes, Slashdot just works wonderfully.
I suggest you look at the other reply to my post, where a car analogy is made!

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1222985&cid=27839807

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Steel on target.
Wish more people thought this way.
Pain, loss, embarrassment?
Not fun experiences, but important ones. They provide motivation to change and improve.
Some react badly, some see a challenge, face it, and overcome it and are better for it.
Which is which is largely dependent upon how they were raised and what the important people in their life taught them through word and deed.
Oh, wait. Most of them can't be bothered; go play Nintendo, and don't bother us with your problems, Junior.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[initialE]

"What are you in here for?"
"Raping kids"
"Robbing the convenience store"
"I told Steve Ballmer to throw a chair at me"

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[temcat]

Could you nevertheless explain briefly how exactly it's measured in law how much someone's feelings were hurt? I honestly don't know.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[temcat]

You mean sexual exploitation, not child porn per se. (And child porn is bad because it supposedly provokes child abuse.)

But all of this involves physical interaction without consent. You'd better give some examples where no such interaction exists.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[master_p]

In the first 10 seconds of reading the headline, I thought it was Bill Gates!!!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Linda T. Sanchez is an idiot. I'm going to take her lunch money. And then i'm going to give her a swirlie. What a dumb whore. seriously.... and i'm not making an account. My Name is Brad Kendall. She can eat my poo.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicely said. I MUST agree whole heartedly with you.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Shakrai]

Well I think the standard defense against slander would be applicable. It wouldn't be a crime if you can show some solid statistical evidence defending your claim that was published in peer reviewed journals.

So now I need to back up my public statements with peer reviewed evidence or you'll throw me in jail? Do you understand the meaning of the 1st amendment and the importance of free speech?

Otherwise I would be free to proclaim that my experience is that slashdot posters with eastern European and central Asian sounding pseudonyms steal babies for the purposes of child pornography and child molestation. Seems like a catchy troll post to use for the next year or two, no? Or maybe instead that your people tear them apart [partiallyclips.com] at the full moon.

Go for it. Why should I feel the need to legislate against such stupidity or to support such legislation?

Because that's usually only one step in turning "The Holocaust" into a conspiracy by Jews to distract from the fact that they control the world and should be overthrown. It's hard to scapegoat them while they're recognized as victims.

Again, so what? If I want to stand on a street corner and shout that the Jews control the world and should be overthrown who the hell are you to use the power of the state to silence me? If you want to organize a counter-protest be my guest, but you don't have the right to muzzle me just because you find my views to be abhorrent. I can't help but notice how you ignored my point about it eventually being made illegal to point out how stupid Scientology is. If you can legislate against racist statements, why not against those that attack religion? You gonna throw the South Park guys in jail too?

Jews have a culture which respects learning and encourages that pursuit, which means that they will naturally have a competitive advantage in an information economy against your average person/industrial cog who is either ambivalent or outright hostile to book l'arnin'.

Be careful, you are dangerously close to racial stereotyping there. I might have to call the thought police on you :)

The three together make them natural targets for prejudice and antipathy

Yes, the Jews have a history of oppression. You don't have to tell me this -- I have ancestors who got out of Germany in 38. How does this justify the fact that you would infringe upon free speech?

There is a fundamental qualitative difference in acting violently against someone who you perceive to have wronged you personally directly, versus someone who has never harmed you in any way.

It's a comparable difference in risk to the populace and risk of recurrence as there is for someone who will kill someone else in a fit of passion, vs. someone who pre-plans a murder. Assaulting "uppity" well-dressed blacks or guys just for walking down the street holding hands? That shows a deeper and more dangerous sociopathy than your average mugger or punch thrown in a drunken bar brawl.

The law already covers that without getting into "hate" crimes. A punch thrown in a drunken bar brawl that results in a death would typically be considered manslaughter. A pre-meditated assault that leads to a death would typically be considered murder. I have no problem with this concept. If you engage in a pre-meditated assault and/or murder you should be punished more severely than someone who snaps for whatever reason (the classic find the wife in bed with another man scenario comes to mind) and carries out such an act without pre-meditation. There is no reason to add further penalties because of the views of the perpetrator and to do so suggests to me that my life is worth less if I'm murdered for my property than if I'm murdered for my skin color.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[tech_fixer]

From the headline only, I honestly thought it was about Bill Gates deeming Google marketing blogs a weapon.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Shakrai]

The Right to bear arms should trump the states desire to have complete control over the use of force.

The state still has control over the use of force, even with the 2nd amendment. If you doubt this, open fire at the next person who cuts you off in traffic and see what the consequences are......

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[crmarvin42]

That was why I used the word "Complete".

The 2nd amendment does not remove the State's ability to use force, or punish those that use it inappropriately. The State can decide after you've used force, whether or not the force used was justifiable, or excessive.

However, the second amendment explicitly denies the State the authority to deny the people the option of making that determination on their own in the absence of agents of the State. In DC with the ban on hand guns, the only people who even had the option of using force where the police, or the criminals. The law abiding citizens that got rid of their guns now had the choice to use force removed from their hands.

Besides, the 2nd amendment was not just about hunting and self defense. Whether people like to remember it or not, our country was created out of an armed rebellion. Enough of the people had decided that the British Government was not respecting our rights, and decided that they didn't want to be subject to the crown anymore. The King decided not to let us have our independence (Why would he?), and that left war as the only remaining option. They would either re-subjugate us, or we would win our freedom.

Turns out we won. However, the founding fathers recognized that there was nothing particularly unique about the crown trampling all over our rights. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They decided that certain inalienable rights needed to be spelled out to prevent our government from repeating the mistakes of the crown (Constitution + Bill of Rights). As a way to ensure that the government stayed responsive to the People, the People were guaranteed the right to bear arms so that if rebellion again became necessary, the People would have a fighting chance against the State.

We Americans like to think that rebellion will never become necessary. I agree with the sentiment, but do not believe that it isn't at least possible that a large enough portion of the population will decide that rebellion is necessary. I pray that it never comes to pass, not because war is undesirable, but because I hope that the power brokers in DC never become so disconnected from the wishes of the People. However, if that day does come, the People have a constitutional right and obligation to fix the government, and to use force to do so if necessary.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Psmylie]

It's easier, better, and more effective in both the long and short run to world-proof a child than it is to child-proof the world. I agree with you 100%.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Shakrai]

I thought about commenting about rebellion but I let it pass because the point that I was trying to make was that the state still has control over when and where you can use force. I've never understood the arguments advanced by the gun control crowd that privately owned guns will erode this monopoly of force, led to vigilantism, shootouts over traffic accidents, etc, etc.

The right of revolution obviously exists above and beyond the state's control of when and where you can use force. Absent such a revolution though, I don't think people can make the claim that the private ownership of weapons gives the owners of said weapons any special right to violate the law. Those who do so should be punished accordingly.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

That's manslaughter at the least. The fact that it happened over a computer confused everyone involved.

So why is a new law needed? Sounds like we've got a perfectly good case of manslaughter or aggravated manslaughter or something like that

Because it "confused everyone involved". Just like the patent office will let you patent any everyday item or action if you add "with a computer", politicians and lawyers need new laws when am everuday crime is done "with a computer".

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[crmarvin42]

In the words of Old Man

"So say we all!"

I have no problem with someone being punished for use of excessive force. Regardless of whether they use a gun, a knife, a car, their fists, etc. Guns are not some magical talisman that turns normal/peaceful people into homicidal killing machines incapable of making rational decisions as to the appropriate use of force.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Shakrai]

Guns are not some magical talisman that turns normal/peaceful people into homicidal killing machines incapable of making rational decisions as to the appropriate use of force.

A friend of mine had the observation that liberals treat guns in the same way that conservatives treat sex ed. Conservatives think that a kid who knows how to use condoms is going to lose all self control and jump into bed with anything that moves. Liberals think that owning a gun will make you lose all self control and open fire at the next person who cuts you off in traffic or steals your parking space at the grocery store.

The irony is that the experience of most rational people suggest the opposite in both instances. Having an appreciation for the dangers of STDs makes you less likely to sleep around. Having a holstered gun attached to your waist makes you less likely to pick fights over stupid shit. I know that I stopped flipping moron drivers off after taking a few classes on self-defense and concealed carry. Why escalate a situation like that and run the risk of it spiraling out of control?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[alexborges]

ID call that psicological abuse... I guess its a semantics problem.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[crmarvin42]

I totally agree. Sex ed scared the crap out of me, and kept me from thinking of casual sex as a "good idea"... Of course, being one of the geeks in HS made casual sex less of an option for me than for others, but that's a completely different issue.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[mdwh2]

As a general rule, if it turns out that existing law can't be applied to a particular case, legislators should first ask themselves why that is, and whether the thing should be a matter for criminal law in the first place - perhaps there was a good reason for there not being a law against it.

Unfortunately all too often, the Government thinks that any case where a person can't be criminalised someone is a "loophole" in the law that needs closing (I'm in the UK, but I see it here too). And in some cases, even if someone can be criminalised, they still use such cases as an argument for new laws (e.g., here in the UK a murderer had previously looked at naughty pictures, so even though he was convicted under the perfectly good laws we have for murder, the mother of the victim went on a rabid emotional crusade against naughty pictures, so now it's illegal to look at or possess naughty pictures).

Also note that even libel where you make untrue statements is, AIUI, a civil matter, but this law would make even true statements a criminal offence.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who doesn't see this proposed law as another attack on the Bill of Rights is a stinking no-good smelly Communist snake-in-the-grass with hairy arm-pits. See, I know my rights and I exercise them every day. Freedom means you have to be VIGILANT to guard against assholes who recommend such crap. This bill is in reaction to someone who committed suicide because some stupid parent called her names on her Myspace account. That is NOTHING comopared to the damage done to this nation if we give these people the right to censor everything we say in public.

Check out some books on the Constitution. Read up on a little common sense and then rethink your position. It's apathetic dingbats like you that are this country's biggest dangers.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Tuoqui]

Except a corporation has no feelings and thus cannot be 'Severely Emotionally Distressed'. Not that they wouldn't try to argue that in court but if that was the case the EFF or ACLU could be on that case so fast your head would spin.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Danse]

There are levels to outrage. In my experience, the outrage is usually proportional to the offense unless the Republicans are involved. Then the outrage is frequently disproportionate to the offense.

There are a few million registered /. users now, yet you take a couple posts as being indicative of the feelings of an entire group of people, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of posts are ready to hang the sponsors of this bill? Why do so many Republicans seem to have a serious persecution complex? Even when they're running things they still seem to have it. It's weird.

Since I may not post again in this story, I'd just like to add myself to the list of folks that calling for the heads of the sponsors of this bill. I'd also like to agree with the AC post way up above that went off on them for trying to turn the country into a giant playpen. Right on. Also agree with the post that nailed the ACLU for supporting the 1st amendment but not the 2nd. That's all I think :)

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[clone53421]

McCain got a couple million votes less than GWB did in 2004 simply because the base didn't want someone even worse than Bush in the White House representing their party.

HEAR, HEAR.

I voted for GWB the first time around. He turned out to be a mediocre Republican. I voted for him again. He was even lousier the second time.

I didn't vote for McCain.

Given the choice between Democrat and Democrat-lite, I voted for neither.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The threat of a lawsuit is frequently enough to stifle discussion or dissent.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[crmarvin42]

I never said that my comments applied to everyone on slashdot. I did say that, in my opinion, they applied to a majority. It's obviously anecdotal. I didn't do any sort of survey or poll, and never claimed otherwise.

I'm not even basing my comments on the number of posts that I've seen along those lines alone. My impression was also based on the +5 Interesting, and +5 insightful mods that I saw attached to the posts when I read them. For each one of those posts there were at least 3 more people with mod points that agreed enough to use their points, than there were people with mod points that disagreed enough to use their points.

It's possible that the posts were later modded down. I hope they were, but since I didn't bother to check back on the ultimate rating I don't know.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but notice how you ignored my point about it eventually being made illegal to point out how stupid Scientology is.

On the contrary, he stated that "Well I think the standard defense against slander would be applicable. It wouldn't be a crime if you can show some solid statistical evidence defending your claim that was published in peer reviewed journals.". I don't think it would be too hard to do a social science study picking a large random sample of people, handing them some of the xenu.org documents to read and getting their feedback on how boneheaded the whole thing is. As long as your poll representation was nationwide instead of centered on Scientology hubs like Hollywood, I think you would be able to pretty easily prove that most people thought Scientology was totally borked.

Getting it published in a peer-reviewed paper not afraid of feeling the wrath of the CoS would be the tough part, but any documented actions the CoS took to prevent that would give you more ammo in legal court and the court of public opinion if you played your cards right. You would need deep pockets to fight it for a couple of decades though. If I was going to do something like that (which I'm not!) I would try to find some megachurch to back me. Anyways, if you try to do anything like that now, they'll still tie you up in court and drain your funds with the current law. That's just how they work.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[ppanon]

The law already covers that without getting into "hate" crimes. A punch thrown in a drunken bar brawl that results in a death would typically be considered manslaughter. A pre-meditated assault that leads to a death would typically be considered murder. I have no problem with this concept. If you engage in a pre-meditated assault and/or murder you should be punished more severely than someone who snaps for whatever reason (the classic find the wife in bed with another man scenario comes to mind) and carries out such an act without pre-meditation. There is no reason to add further penalties because of the views of the perpetrator and to do so suggests to me that my life is worth less if I'm murdered for my property than if I'm murdered for my skin color.

I'll try one last time. When you commit murder for a wrong against you (or because you stand to profit by it), you are saying that you don't recognize the authority of the state to govern you. You are an anarchic barbarian or bandit at the gate.

When you commit violence on someone else because they violate your personal laws and beliefs that are not recognized by the state, you are declaring yourself not just above the law, but the creator of law. Unlike a vigilante who might only enforce existing laws not being enforced due to corruption, you are not just judge, jury and executioner, you are declaring yourself king and tyrant. It seems entirely appropriate to me for the people to further condemn that additional usurpation of their collective authority.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[AK Marc]

Could you nevertheless explain briefly how exactly it's measured in law how much someone's feelings were hurt? I honestly don't know.

There is no "how much" in law, except in a very few cases almost all involving specific dollar amounts. That's a different question that the previous one of determining *if* (not how much) harm was done. That's simple. The "reasonable man" doctrine would be applied. "Would a reasonable man have [whatever]." That's used countless times a day in law, and is well established. Would a reasonable man have had his feelings hurt? If so, then feelings were hurt in the eyes of the court. That's not hard. There may be some judgement needed for determining that, and that's why there's a jury. Regardless of whether it's a good thing to do, it wouldn't be hard to craft a law about it.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Now get off my Starwars Blog or i'll SUE YOU!!!

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Jaysyn]

Because Zero Tolerance = Zero Sense

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[blueskies]

Like MADD? Tears and letters have led to dui check points and SCOTUS even ruled it as constitutional only because "there was no way to address dui" unless the police had DUI checkpoints!

When enough crying mother's talk about how their son and daughter got sent to jail, politicians might have the support they need to not be afraid to "be against CP".

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Danse]

I never said that my comments applied to everyone on slashdot. I did say that, in my opinion, they applied to a majority. It's obviously anecdotal. I didn't do any sort of survey or poll, and never claimed otherwise.

Still don't see how you can even figure it's anywhere near a majority.

I'm not even basing my comments on the number of posts that I've seen along those lines alone. My impression was also based on the +5 Interesting, and +5 insightful mods that I saw attached to the posts when I read them. For each one of those posts there were at least 3 more people with mod points that agreed enough to use their points, than there were people with mod points that disagreed enough to use their points.

Did you miss the 50 other +5 posts rebutting those few and hammering the idea of the bill? I think we have very different ideas of what constitutes a majority.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Danse]

Libel is about the harm done to the reputation of the speech's subject (indirect harm due to the effect of the speech on third parties). This bill is about the harm done to the emotional state of the speech's subject (direct harm; the effect of the speech on the subject).

Which is exactly why this proposed law is so ridiculous. Everyone has a different emotional state and something can affect two people very differently. Proposing that we should all walk on eggshells for fear of saying something that might make someone else cry is just antithetical to the first amendment. You don't have any right to not be offended by something, even if it was intended to offend you or make you feel bad. You can feel however you want. Nobody else is responsible for that.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Headcase88]

I hate to use the "slippery slope" argument normally, but I think this is a pretty good case of it. Before, you wrote a blog, people listened. If it was overly hateful to someone, the blog would be mostly ignored, problem solved. If the blog was popular, good for them, the person they hated was probably a jackass. If not, other blogs will spring up in his favour... it all works out.

I can see why someone would say "but it's not fair, even if no one reads it, no one should be able to say such hateful things about me", but too bad, grow thicker skin. No one reads this site, no one is putting a gun to your head to read it, just chill out and ignore it.

Instead, we have another ambiguous bill out to (talking point incoming) turn everyone into a criminal.

For any well-intended (if any) politicians pushing this bill; thank you for your concern, but we don't need your help. We know how to ignore websites on our own. You want to clamp down on bullshit, start with advertising and continue from there.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Remember that all of us were once this age. While I don't agree completely with this legislation, I don't agree completely with you either.

I don't think that anyone believes that we can create a perfect world by sheltering their children. No, children need exposure to the real world, but in appropriate doses. Conditions have gotten better for humanity over time. It will never be perfect, but the quest for something greater drives many.

"You have just created a generation of mal-adjusted assholes" - I would definitely agree that overinflated sense of self-importance is a definite problem in today's society. But these people won't last long without changing. I don't see any reason to speak out against an entire generation. And perhaps you're overlooking the past...

"Being a child is not some magic state that becomes undone on somebody's 18th birthday." Then, can it be undone before? Or does it have to be after? How do you determine this? Does it really matter? The fact is that new citizens are just as much citizens as anyone else from a legal standpoint.

"Having said that, fuck your children, they are your problem." - I'm guessing you don't have children. At any rate, there's something called without children the human race dies off.

"I won't go out of my way to harm a child but I am also not going to curtail my rights and liberties because some kid might cry." - True. I think that this legislation should be targeted at social networking sites and the like.

I'm sorry, but implying that an entire generation is selfish and then turning around and saying things like "Having said that, fuck your children, they are your problem" is hypocritical.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Headcase88]

Libel is about the harm done to the reputation of the speech's subject (indirect harm due to the effect of the speech on third parties). This bill is about the harm done to the emotional state of the speech's subject (direct harm; the effect of the speech on the subject). I find it funny that so many people are OK protecting indirect harm, like defamation, but direct harm, like emotional abuse, and "get over it" is all they come up with.

If "get over it" isn't enough for you, here's another piece: "walk away".

And yes, defamation is more direct harm. People might believe you, stop trusting your target, or even be violent. If they do that to your target just because you were hateful to him, well, they either they were about to do it anyway, or they're very stupid.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Kreigaffe]

I don't think it matters. I don't believe I saw anything in the law that would disclude someone who is severely emotionally distressed due to hateful, repeated whatever speech NOT directed towards them personally. They might, at most, have to demonstrate that they consider Brand X to be a part of them, just the same as you or I might get pissed if someone started talking shit about our cars. We are not our car, but we identify with it as ourself. Maybe I'm not Apple, but maybe I've worked there for a long time, and I love Apple more than my family and all this hateful talk about Apple is just REALLY terribly upsetting -- whoops, jail time for you.

eh, this law will never, ever, ever even make it to a vote.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[docwatson223]

..for now. What if you decide that a certain political candidate just sucked as a human being and you blogged your opinions and rants about their performance? If they are an incumbent, you can bet your latte-drinking self that you'd get slapped with this in a heartbeat. This could very, very easily be used as a tool to discourage dissent.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[docwatson223]

Electronic means = phone, text, web, fax. You say the president sucks 3 times in a row on any one or combination of those formats and it's off to the pokey. People thought dissent was crushed under Bush ain't seen the dark end of this particular dungeon yet.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Pandrake]

Isn't "hate crime" really "thought crime" in all sense of the words? I don't want to cry wolf, just that if we're going to discuss legislation let's call it for what it is rather than turn it into something that only sounds palatable so it'll pass the court of public opinion.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[stewbacca]

Or, Physical Education could focus on the science of physical fitness instead of games. If PE would teach kids that moving more and eating less = weight loss instead of what a double-play is in baseball, PE would be relevant again. If PE would teach students the lifelong benefits of exercise, and how calories work, and which muscle groups do what, instead of lining up 10 goth-kids to get blasted in the face by the one jock kid during dodgeball, then PE would be relevant again.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[ring-eldest]

Tears and Letters only work when there is no risk to the politician. None of the buzzed-impaired-intoxicated driving crowd are sympathetic figures, so SCOTUS (and grandstanding politicians) was happy to curtail our rights to combat it.

It's the same with CP and those who trade in it; they induce no sympathy so lawmakers happily stop at nothing to combat it, too. Hence the current witch-hunt.

Politicians are only careful about their policy decisions when there is an equitable division between registered republicans and democrats. Everything else is meaningless to them, and if they can use some extreme act to justify themselves to their voters, they'll happily undermine the foundation of our country to do it. The population as a whole is kept slow, stupid, and fearful to promote this activity.

It is in no politician's interest to really stand up for something as nebulous and all-encompassing as free speech when it is much easier to appeal to fear. Tears and letters from a small group who do care about things like that are meaningless to them.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Hellpop]

I never said the Gov't should decide. All I mean is I am in favor of "civil unions" as long as anyone can claim one. Why shouldn't two hetero people be able to get one as well? Two siblings who live together could consolidate things legally under this sort of arrangement. I want the Gov't to decide very little in anyone's life.

The arguement that Marriage is a sacred contract was thrown out the window long ago imho. When people were able to just go to city hall and get a piece of paper that made them husband and wife legally. None of those are "sacred", they are gov't sanctioned civil unions. You want sacred, get married in a church by a priest.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Hellpop]

Stop putting words in my mouth, moron. What I said is what I said. Period. It means simply, "I have not met one single person who is against gay marriage who is against it because they believe it will weaken their marriage."

Lots of people I know are against it for illogical, bigotted reasons. I know some who just hate "gays". I don't really give a damn either way, but for parity's sake: if the gov't is gonna offer secular unions to some people, they should give them to all people. Three way unions, hetero unions, famillial unions. They would all just be contracts anyway...

I have never set foot on the moon.

(Should I be worrying that in your paranoid frenzy, you will take that to mean that I believe that the moon doesn't exist? You seem to be looking for (and finding) arguments that aren't really there and interpreting statements to mean more than they say. Pretty paranoid to me. Me, I'd rather relax.)

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[blueskies]

What words have i put in your mouth exactly?

Didn't these words come out of your mouth: "As far as I can discern, that argument is an artificial construct created by liberals to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them."

If you had said "i have never set foot on the moon" and then followed it up with "As far as I can discern, the moon is an artificial construct created by liberals...," would that me make paranoid for thinking you didn't believe in the moon?

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[mea37]

I'm not wrong - in fact the reference you cited agrees with what I said. The reason you think I'm wrong is, you misinterpreted my words. I didn't say "you can state a fact as an opinion", I said "you can frame every statement as an opinion". There's a difference.

Re:Covered By Twenty Percent of the Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

So your blog does not contain any hate speech? Neither does mine. Bluegrass Pundit, but who will be the judge? I have been called a racist because I am anti-Obama.

AKA the ED law

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure this law would shut down Encyclopedia Dramatica, and most of 4chan in a heartbeat.

That said, nothing of value was lost.

Re:AKA the ED law

[nitehawk214]

That said, nothing of value was lost.

Aside from our freedom of speech, that is.

Re:AKA the ED law

[Anonymous Coward]

4chan is already shut down. Well, sort of.

Re:AKA the ED law

[Veggiesama]

That said, nothing of value was lost.

Aside from our freedom of speech, that is.

And lolcats.
 
:3

Re:AKA the ED law

[neoform]

That said, nothing of value was lost.

Aside from our freedom of speech, that is.

That's strange, I didn't realize the constitutional amendments could be voided with the passage of regular laws.

Re:AKA the ED law

[gringofrijolero]

Freedom of speech?? We have copyright to deal with that meddlesome inconvenience.

Re:AKA the ED law

[gnick]

That's strange, I didn't realize the constitutional amendments could be voided with the passage of regular laws.

You must be new here.

Regular laws don't actually void the constitution, they just 'clarify' it into ineffectiveness.

Re:AKA the ED law

[Anonymous Coward]

I just hope Natalie Portman doesn't get wind of slashdot... years and years of detailed fantasies involving her and a pile of hot grits may be too much to bear

Re:AKA the ED law

[HTH NE1]

That's strange, I didn't realize the constitutional amendments could be voided with the passage of regular laws.

They can when one cannot afford to file appeals over the course of years to eventually get heard by The Supreme Court.

Re:AKA the ED law

[sneilan]

If we can't slander each other, where will will our lulz come from?

Classic ploy

[shellster_dude]

I love how the bill starts with the classic, "for the children" clauses to rationalize the trampling of the bill of rights.

Re:Classic ploy

[Anonymous Coward]

Established countries need legitimate ways to control the populace. Dictatorships are much more efficient in this regard -- and the end result is generally the same.

Re:Classic ploy

[commodore64_love]

I sumbit that our children don't want their free speech rights to be taken away. We need to protect the first amendment "for the children" who will someday be bloggers themselves. In fact many of them already are.

Re:Classic ploy

[PsychoKick]

Totalitarianism usually worms its way into power by appealing to "strong father" imagery, but it's equally adept at exploiting "protective mother" emotions as well.

Re:Classic ploy

[Anonymous Coward]

I submit that there is no better gaming system than the C64... Buy one for your kids, and don't be alarmed if they pick up BASIC. Maybe they will graduate to ASM, or maybe they will de-solder that SID chip later on in life...

-Impossible Mission

(If you're really a good parent they will figure out Who Framed Roger Rabbit AND go Below The Root! THAT would be a "Classic ploy")

Re:Classic ploy

[dracphelan]

In my almost 39 years on this planet, I have learned that as soon as someone says "It's for the children," I need to say no and make sure that my wallet is secure.

Re:Classic ploy

[megamerican]

I love how the bill starts with the classic, "for the children" clauses to rationalize the trampling of the bill of rights.

I completely agree and yet no one looked at why this poor girl was on 3 different medications, one for Depression, one for Bipolar disorder and the other for ADHD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier

SSRI's, used to treat anti-depressants are known to increase the risk or suicide for people under 18. The FDA has even required drug companies to put warnings on these drugs.

No one in the media, nor the defendants lawyers bothered to ask any serious questions about how these medications could have effected her behavior.

The parents were looking to blame anyone but themselves or their doctor for the tragic loss of their daughter. It couldn't have been a poor decision by them, it must have been that evil 'free speech.'

No, I'm not some scientologist who believes all medication is bad but it is quite apparent that people are too quick to give their children medication which can have disastorous effects.

Re:Classic ploy

[hottoh]

Life is like first grade, over and over again.

It is ok have many things, paper airplanes, or a rubber band in first grade. That is until one kid misuses one of them, then that thing is banned for the rest of the year. Remember those days?

When there are already laws and regulations to protect the well being of the population, then the real criminal is the one who further causes the collective suffer because of the actions of the one.

One person does one thing to well adjusted person and nothing comes of it. Another does something to a unbalanced person and the House of Representatives has to write a bill to further limit the speech of the masses?

The misguided have power.

Re:Classic ploy

[initdeep]

Nor could it have been just plain old poor parenting.

You know, letting the schools/doctors/internt/community raise your child for you.......

what's next, bitching to the world that pictures of your coked up daughter's fatal car accident being spread around are "damaging" to your mental health?

maybe preventing her from "stealing" your car in the first place would have solved all of your problems.

Re:Classic ploy

[timeOday]

I love how the bill starts with the classic, "for the children" clauses to rationalize the trampling of the bill of rights.clever

So you think their ultimate goal is to overthrow the Constitution, and drawing attention to kids committing suicide is just a cynical ploy? Give me a break. Bullying is a real problem. I'm not saying it's a good bill, I don't support it, but you won't get anywhere by assuming the "other side" is just inherently evil and wants to destroy motherhood and apple pie, and that any half-reasonable thing they say must be a trick.

Re:Classic ploy

[Niris]

Hey now, I'm 21 now and I learned BASIC on an old C64 my dad had when I was 8. I'd get one for my kids someday :p

Re:Classic ploy

[Erioll]

It could be worse, they could call it a "Human Rights Commission". Oh wait, they already did that in Canada to stomp on free speech rights (and lots of other insanity occurring too). Read Shakedown: How Our Government Is Undermining Democracy In The Name Of Human Rights to get a summary of how much things like this have screwed up anything resembling free speech in Canada. I've been following the insanity of HRCs in Canada and I was STILL surprised by the content of this book, and it's a STRONG forewarning to anybody in any other countries trying to stifle free speech in the name of preventing "hate crimes."

Re:Classic ploy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get me wrong, I'm somewhat serious...the C64 was a great experience quite the learning tool and it continues to be one for me at the age of 25. I started on it when I was 5 or 6... Now I own a few of them...for parts...check out www.midibox.org

It's probably not a bad idea to introduce kids to the very basic workings of a computer through a C64, or other old hardware.... if nothing else because it's fun and easy to understand.

Re:Classic ploy

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'm all for taking away the rights of children to have Free Speech; or noise in general when I'm trying to watch TV.

Re:Classic ploy

[AK Marc]

No one in the media, nor the defendants lawyers bothered to ask any serious questions about how these medications could have effected her behavior.

Perhaps it was the adult that crafted a plan to harm a minor, then created a criminal conspiracy to bring about that harm, and in the course of committing the harm, the minor she was assaulting died. With someone that, as far as I can tell, committed murder, it doesn't seem like you need to look much further. The eggshell skull doctrine indicates that it doesn't matter how fragile her mental state really was, the intent to harm and death while committing that actual harm is sufficient.

Re:Classic ploy

[Rogerborg]

Their ultimate goal is to stay in power indefinitely by populist rabble rousing, and supping on the funding that follows. In a system where 90%+ of standing incumbents get re-elected, the Constitution is the only thing that holds back the tyranny of the mob.

Re:Classic ploy

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurting someone's feelings isn't illegal, even if it's done on purpose. That she killed herself over it... well, that's tragic, but she clearly needed help that she didn't ask for... and nobody was paying enough attention to her to figure out that she needed help. That's more tragic.

Re:Classic ploy

[Anonymous Coward]

assuming the "other side" is just inherently evil and wants to destroy motherhood and apple pie, and that any half-reasonable thing they say must be a trick

Nobody said that. GP's point was that this idiotic bill, which any sane person would normally look at and say "what the fuck, that's completely unconstitutional", is suddenly legitimatized because we're doing it "for the children".

Re:Classic ploy

[AK Marc]

and nobody was paying enough attention to her to figure out that she needed help. That's more tragic.

But someone was. The adult in a position of power over her knew she needed help, denied her help, advised her to not seek help, and encouraged her to come to harm. And you think that's not tragic...

Re:Classic ploy

[Tuoqui]

I love how the bill starts with the classic, "for the children" clauses to rationalize the trampling of the bill of rights.

I agree... if it's that important to remove the right to free speech "for the children" then don't try to use back door methods and underhanded techniques. Go and suggest an amendment that removes the first amendment. If you cant pass that muster then you shouldn't be making the law.

Not too worried

[captaindomon]

This is just a clarification of "harassment" as it already exists. It's not an attempt to shut down blogs. If someone is obviously and intentionally harassing someone else, I have no problem with them having legal recourse.

Re:Not too worried

[HaeMaker]

Until Apple find your criticism of the iPhone hostile.

Re:Not too worried

[ultrabot]

This is just a clarification of "harassment" as it already exists. It's not an attempt to shut down blogs. If someone is obviously and intentionally harassing someone else, I have no problem with them having legal recourse.

Yeah, it seem a part of the internet subculture feels it their constitutional right to be a total asshole on the internet, and god fordib if someone complains about it.

Re:Not too worried

[nurb432]

its not an attempt to shut down a blog i agree, its a direct attack on ones ability to speak in a public forum unless its 'approved' by the government.

If you think its just an 'innocent clarification' you are sadly mistaken and naive.

Re:Not too worried

[garcia]

On my website I directly attack those in the public eye--especially local politicians--using my standard colorful language choice, I link to a video of an interview where I appeared on a local public access TV show and was accused of being too harsh in my tone and language when I directly attack these people for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.

Being that this proposed law mentions nothing of the right of the people to directly attack public officials (protected speech, not harassment regardless of how many times I choose to talk about their poor choices at my expense) means that I could be held liable for this and imprisoned. How cute.

You specifically mention that this type of behavior towards the general public (not public officials) is already defined by preexisting harassment law. IOW, there is absolutely no need for this bill to be presented, discussed or passed. Why must politicians create unnecessary laws? Hey you fucking douchebags, stop wasting your time and our tax dollars formulating and discussing unnecessary legislation just so you can look better in the public eye. Assholes.

Yes, I purposefully used the language I did to make a point--I would be arrested and imprisoned under that proposed legislation for posting what I just did. I hope I made my point.

Re:Not too worried

[malchus842]

Complaining is one thing. Fining you and sending you to jail is a completely different thing. Free Speech pretty much guarantees that you are going to be offended by someone, somewhere, sometime. Deal with it.

Re:Not too worried

[fm6]

This is just a clarification of "harassment" as it already exists.

There's already a federal law against harassment? Citation please.

It's not an attempt to shut down blogs.

Dude, read the law: "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.". That would cover most slashdot posts! Never mind all the angry blogs out there.

Re:Not too worried

[prisoner-of-enigma]

If someone is obviously and intentionally harassing someone else, I have no problem with them having legal recourse.

Oh really? Define "obviously and intentionally harassing" in a legalistic manner that is so clear cut that it cannot be abused, misused, or given an extremely broad interpretation? If I post a scathing blog indicting the Ku Klux Klan and a Klan member finds it harassing, can my blog be shut down? Last year, the Canadian government prosecuted someone for "hate speech" because they were critical of Islam, and some Muslims found it offensive. Do you really want to start down this road?

Folks like you scare me. You think just because *you* can easily define things like "harassment" that everybody else conforms to your definition of the word. You don't think beyond your own idea of the concept, and you're willing to trade First Amendment protections because of it. Frightening. Truly frightening.

Re:Not too worried

[Jason Levine]

Why must politicians create unnecessary laws?

So that, during election season, they can proclaim that they were responsible for "tough new measures against...." It is a lot more impressive than "closed a few loopholes to make an existing law better." If they can get spin any opposition their opponent gave as being soft on crime/terrorism/child porn/etc, then all the better. In other words, they pass unnecessary new laws to help themselves out, not to help us out.

Re:Not too worried

[MightyMartian]

So you think being an asshole should become a criminal offense? If I call you a mealy-mouthed anti-intellectual pompous turd-brained gutter rat with a Terry Schiavo-like IQ and all the sense one would expect from a decayed chunk of dog vomit, you think I should be fined or go to jail?

Re:Not too worried

[R2.0]

This is just a clarification of "harassment" as it already exists. It's not an attempt to shut down blogs. If someone is obviously and intentionally harassing someone else, I have no problem with them having legal recourse.

But according to you, they already HAVE legal recourse - harassment is already against the law. The real heartache is that what happened to Megan Meyers while certainly evil, was not apparently illegal. therefore, since we don't want the Bad Thing happening again, we must pass a LAW!

Of course, it could be that the prosecution was simply incompetent, or that the case was more complex than a senator can form into a 20 second sound bite. But then Ms Sanchez wouldn't be getting the free campaign advertising she now has.

Oh, yeah - in keeping with the theme from another poster:

Ms. Sanchez, I believe you are a cunt. Pass your law, and you can arrest me for saying it, but that doesn't remedy your cuntiness one iota.

Re:Not too worried

[Rary]

Until Apple find your criticism of the iPhone hostile.

Apple isn't a person. It's not possible to illegally harass a corporation.

Corporations have waaaay too much power, but they don't have that much power (yet). And if someone tries to give them that power, well then, that's the bill we need to stop. Not this one.

Re:Not too worried

[ultrabot]

So you think being an asshole should become a criminal offense?

Pretty much, yes.

If I call you a mealy-mouthed anti-intellectual pompous turd-brained gutter rat with a Terry Schiavo-like IQ and all the sense one would expect from a decayed chunk of dog vomit, you think I should be fined or go to jail?

Depends on the context. Here, you are just making a point, which doesn't quite qualify you as being an asshole. But the fact that you like assholes (and probably all the assorted "moral relativism" that usually goes with your kind) so much just might.

Re:Not too worried

[commodore64_love]

And issue a DMCA notice.

Hey isn't it great how all these laws complement one another? It's almost as if it was all planned. Nah that's crazy talk - planning requires brains and few of our Congresscritters use those things. ("Read the bill? Before I vote for it??? Nah.")

Re:Not too worried

[RightSaidFred99]

It kind of is your constitutional right to be an asshole pretty much anywhere, for nonviolent, non-frauding, non-libel/slander, non-likely-to-cause-imminent-violence values of asshole.

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we have separate laws for harassing someone by taping a "Kick Me" sign to their back? Or by leaving dog poo on their doorstep? If it's harassment, then prosecute it as harassment, there's no need to keep tacking on laws.

Re:Not too worried

[Attila Dimedici]

This is just a clarification of "harassment" as it already exists. It's not an attempt to shut down blogs. If someone is obviously and intentionally harassing someone else, I have no problem with them having legal recourse.

See, the problem is that you have already surrendered your right to free speech. "Harassment" under current law is about what the "injured" party perceives, not what the accused intended.

Re:Not too worried

[flitty]

Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad disagrees with you.. oh, and as recently as 2008.. (from wikipedia)

Blackwater sued the City of San Diego to force the city to issue them a certificate of occupancy for its training facility in Otay Mesa before the plan went through the city's public review process. "U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff ruled in Blackwater's favor. Blackwater is a person and has a right to due process under the law and would suffer significant damage due to not being able to start on its $400 million Navy contract."

Re:Not too worried

[Foolicious]

It's not possible to illegally harass a corporation.

Finally someone understands. That's EXACTLY what I kept trying to explain to both my parole office and the judge!

Re:Not too worried

[julesh]

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to [...] 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.

I'd say I was substantially emotionally distressed when I clicked on a goatse link. The link was a communication using electronic means. I'd categorise posting such a link as "severe". It is quite clearly a "hostile" act. Most people who post them, I suspect, do so repeatedly.

This law would make trolling a criminal offence.

Re:Not too worried

[FutureDomain]

Yeah, it seem a part of the internet subculture feels it their constitutional right to be a total asshole on the internet, and god forbid if someone complains about it.

No, you can complain about it all you want right now. God forbid if you try and force someone else to not say something they want to say, even if they are being a troll. The first amendment is there for a reason.

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah asshole = someone that makes you cry inside because you are so insecure with yourself that you want the other person to hurt as well! So sweet. You do with jailtime and tax payers money what they do with words!

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

First line of the fourth paragraph in the Wikipedia entry on corporations:

"Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people."

Basically, corporations have rights like an individual, so really, some corporate lawyer could find a sleazy way of misusing this.

I also suggest watching The Corporation.

Re:Not too worried

[johnsonav]

If I call you a mealy-mouthed anti-intellectual pompous turd-brained gutter rat with a Terry Schiavo-like IQ and all the sense one would expect from a decayed chunk of dog vomit, you think I should be fined or go to jail?

No, I don't... And neither does this bill. It is criminalizing communications, sent "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 [...]". So, no your statement does not apply.

If you're going to debate the issue, try debating, you know, the issue; not some random stuff you make up.

Re:Not too worried

[commodore64_love]

No.

This whole Megan Meier thing is nonsense. Yes she was harassed by somebody who claimed to hate her, and said person is an ass, but it was she who pulled the gun's trigger (or however she ended her life). A wiser course would have been to pull the plug on the computer and tune-out the blogger. Or talk to her parents. Or her parents talk to her and ask, "Why are you so unhappy?". Or something. The fact she choose death is her problem, not mine, and no reason to take-away my human right to own my mouth and use it to express my opinions (even if they are unpopular or not politically-correct).

Re:Not too worried

[Rary]

"Person" in that sentence refers to a juristic person. They have many of the rights of a "real" person, but not all of them. You still can't be charged with harassing a corporation.

Re:Not too worried

[fwr]

No, I didn't RFTA, but I would have to assume that the law is geared towards harrassing speech at a particular person, not a group, company, policy, product, religion, or I would even say, race, sexual perversion, etc. This is specifically with the knowledge and understanding that companies are considered "people" for certain legal issues - they would be exempt from this particular type of harrassment. To use your example, you can criticize the KKK all you want, but if you are vindictive against a particular KKK member by the name of John Doe who lives at 123 KKK Lane and repeatedly harrass them, they should have some recourse to spot that harrassment. You should not be able to "stalk" them on-line any more than you could stalk them in the normal sense of the term. Again, without RTFA I can't say for sure, but if this is just bringing reaction to activities on-line on par with the reaction people would have with similar actions outside of the Internet then I wouldn't have a problem with it. If it is attempting to make activities on-line illegal, when similar activities are not illegal now outside of the Internet, then it would be a growth of government, which I would be against.

Re:Not too worried

[ultrabot]

It kind of is your constitutional right to be an asshole pretty much anywhere, for nonviolent, non-frauding, non-libel/slander, non-likely-to-cause-imminent-violence values of asshole.

How about 4chan kind of assholes? Or all the blatantly racist AC trolls that are currently spamming slashdot?

A lot of the time scumbags are not productive at all, really. Requirement of civil behaviour should be universal, whether electronic or not.

Re:Not too worried

[HasselhoffThePaladin]

So you think being an asshole should become a criminal offense?

Pretty much, yes.

That's horrifying.

Re:Not too worried

[DutchUncle]

This is just a clarification of "harassment" as it already exists. It's not an attempt to shut down blogs.

I would amend: This is PROBABLY INTENDED as just a clarification of "harassment", but is so broadly defined that it is dangerous. I don't understand why "harassment" needs such specific extension to electronic communications, either. Anything online should just automatically come under "publication" because it's "distributed to the public" as much as any newpaper or magazine ever was.

Re:Not too worried

[RealGrouchy]

So I guess the JREF blog will be illegal, because it could cause "substantial emotional distress" to hard-working snake-oil salespeople like Matthias Rath?

- RG>

Re:Not too worried

[johnsonav]

Yes, I purposefully used the language I did to make a point--I would be arrested and imprisoned under that proposed legislation for posting what I just did. I hope I made my point.

No, you just failed to make your point, and evidently, failed to read the bill, as well. I know it's very easy to argue against straw-men, but this is a serious issue, which deserves a serious debate.

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

Please leave the united states at your earliest convenience.

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

that would cover most telephone conversations, email, blogs, most websites (as they could be considered communication), radio (incl amateur), television (incl public / free broadcasting), and could arguably incl taped recordings if anyone but the creator happened to listen to em.

(may sound a bit much, but legislation often gets used as written not as intended *or as intended but we cant say that when we try to pass it :/ *

Re:Not too worried

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, you certainly have a right to be both of those kinds of assholes. What you're advocating is called "fascism".

Re:Not too worried

[garcia]

I most certainly did read the bill:

`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:

What part of that specifies that my First Amendment rights aren't being violated especially about political discussion? Nothing. If I continuously call a politician a slimy bitch for taking my tax dollars and wasting them on a $20 million performing arts center that is leaking money faster than the city leaders ever could have possibly imagined all while smiling and ignoring the question when it's posed by others, then according to what I just pasted above, I'm harassing them--which I am not.

Re:Not too worried

[ultrabot]

Yeah, you certainly have a right to be both of those kinds of assholes. What you're advocating is called "fascism".

Godwin => seems we are pretty much done with this thread.

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

You're freedom of speech extends only so far. All bets are off if you try to infringe on someone else's rights using your speech. This is already the case in the real world; this is mostly just a clarification on the Internet.

Re:Not too worried

[spoilsportmotors]

If I call you a mealy-mouthed anti-intellectual pompous turd-brained gutter rat with a Terry Schiavo-like IQ and all the sense one would expect from a decayed chunk of dog vomit, you think I should be fined or go to jail?

No, but I do think that you should work harder on your insults if you really mean them 'to cause substantial emotional distress'.

Re:Not too worried

[Rary]

I've seen "The Corporation". As I stated originally, I am well aware that corporations have far too much power, particularly with respect to their status as "legal persons", which gives them many rights similar to "natural persons", but not all rights. But that still doesn't make this bill magically apply to corporations in ways that existing harassment laws have never applied before.

Re:Not too worried

[flitty]

You still can't be charged with harassing a corporation.

I'm interested in knowing the details of why, do you have a citation for this? I couldn't find any information that limits what kind of lawsuits Juristic personhood imposed.

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice answer. So he is essentially saying that freedom of speech should have limits, and you should get punished for some thing you say. You disagree with him. And because you don't like how he excercises his freedom of speech you want him to get punished for this.

So you are one of the people who say that freedom of speech should have no limits, as long as everyone agrees with you.

Re:Not too worried

[RightSaidFred99]

Fascism =/= Nazism.

You can certainly have a fascist state (of varying degrees) without the "toss people into ovens" aspects.

Best way to deal with assholes is ignore them or socially castigate them. Take the AC racist comments. Who gives a shit? They think they're shocking, but I'm not shocked at all - I'm bored by it. I've shit more shocking things. You'll find the same things if you play online games - little dweebs acting out who think it's shocking to say n*g*er over and over.

Just don't be shocked by it. Problem solved.

Re:Not too worried

[shrubya]

Megan suffered from clinical depression, and she had told the other party. Pretending to befriend a depressed person and then brutally turning on them is no different from giving a soft drink mixed with a few drops of peanut oil to an allergic person.

Re:Not too worried

[lorenlal]

From Your Source:Special rules related to legal [or juristic] persons in relation to the law of defamation. Defamation is the area of law in which a person's reputation has been unlawfully damaged. This is considered an ill in itself in regard to natural person, but a legal person is required to show actual or likely monetary loss before a suit for defamation will succeed.

There is nothing in there discussing harassment. Defamation != harassment. There is overlap, but they are not equal.

Re:Not too worried

[ultrabot]

You'll find the same things if you play online games - little dweebs acting out who think it's shocking to say n*g*er over and over.

Just don't be shocked by it. Problem solved.

I don't get shocked by it, but such behaviour done just for lulz should have some repercussions. Showing the stuff to the troublemakers parents so they could be duly chastized could be a good start.

Freedom of the internet used to be this exciting thing in the nineties - you could acquire all kind of questionable material, pictures of scantly clothed women and crack smoking instructions if you wanted. And that was just fine, since back then there was some selection of who got to the internet in the first place. These days everybody has internet, and some control of what you can do there would not be entirely out of place.

OTOH, I wouldn't mind controlling the freedom of sleazy tabloids either.

Re:Not too worried

[HasselhoffThePaladin]

In fact, they're very different things. One is murder, the other is not.

Re:Not too worried

[Locke2005]

Right... so under this bill, criticizing the actions of NAMBLA members with young boys would also be regarded as harrassment? Pedophiles rejoice, you have now become a protected class! Won't somebody please think of the children?!?

Re:Not too worried

[HasselhoffThePaladin]

I've shit more shocking things.

Now that's shocking.

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think he asked him to be punished. He asked him to leave at his earliest convenience. Which isn't asking him to have a felony added to his record nor asking him to goto jail or pay a fine or be limited in anyway of his free choice to do something.

Re:Not too worried

[JCSoRocks]

Holy ownage. Also, I agree with you. We absolutely do not need laws like this limiting our ability to publicly disagree with our elected officials.

Re:Not too worried

[Duradin]

Remind me to never come into any contact with any clinically depressed people lest I be charged as an accessory to murder.

Also, you don't get to make the choice to have an allergic reaction or not.

You do get the choice of hanging yourself or not.

Re:Not too worried

[mea37]

Not exactly. In the case this law is nick-named after, prosecutors could not find any appilcable law. If they had brought a harassment suit, legal opinions differed on whether that law applied, and in the end there was an acquittal resulting from that uncertainty, then we could say that this law were a clarifiaction. But the prosecutors couldn't find any law that even they thought applied. When they did decide to stretch a law's definition to apply to the case, they picked an anti-hacking law rather than a harassment one.

So I'd say this law is intended to change, not clarify, the bounds of harassment-related law.

Re:Not too worried

[mangu]

If someone is obviously and intentionally harassing someone else, I have no problem with them having legal recourse.

So, you are obviously and intentionally harassing all of us who believe in free speech. How do you plead? Would you like a jury trial or are you willing to make an agreement?

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not frightening. "Harassment" is a legally defined term. So is "intentionally". Anyone who "intentionally harasses" another person is already guilty of a crime.

But worse, your understanding of the system of law is naive. The law exists precisely to define such terms and the judicial system exists precisely because that's impossible. Saying it's scary won't make it go away because that's the best legal system anyone has come up with in 5,000 years of trying.

Re:Not too worried

[commodore64_love]

Precisely. If you pull the trigger yourself, that's called suicide not murder.

And even the peanut thing is probably blameless, since the person giving the soda with peanuts might not be aware of the dead person's allergy, and therefore not guilty. A few years ago I handed a coworker some cake with milk in it - I had no way of knowing he was lactose-intolerant. Not my fault he threw-up later.

Re:Not too worried

[NeutronCowboy]

No, not at all. See, since he's being an asshole, I get to put him in jail. Wait - that's not how it's supposed to work?

Re:Not too worried

[ememisya]

Why not simply block people as you are able to in most social networking applications. If I told you to kill yourself and you do, that means you lack one of the core self preservation skills which is NOT doing everything people tell you to. If you punish my ability to express my hatred, you are in fact cutting to the root of free speech. I might not like the ideals of other people but without the random factor, we make the assumption that everything we are allowed to say is exactly all we need to say. That's where evolution stops. It's tragic that the girl killed herself but I do think this case was an exception which does not necessarily need to be a law. People tell me to kill myself on a daily basis on my online gaming console. By the way I like you very much, and I want you to eat this candy. -Erdem

Re:Not too worried

[Satanicolas]

depression affect cognition witch then affect free will.

Re:Not too worried

[NeutronCowboy]

Folks like you scare me. You think just because *you* can easily define things like "harassment" that everybody else conforms to your definition of the word. You don't think beyond your own idea of the concept, and you're willing to trade First Amendment protections because of it. Frightening. Truly frightening.

The way I found this to work is that some people in power decide that some other people who aren't in power are making too much trouble. If they'd just go away, EVERYTHING would be better. So the people in power pass inane laws like this.

Then, shockingly, something happens that changes the power structure. Suddenly, the shoe is on the other foot... and the wailing begins. "It isn't fair! That's not what I meant!"

Sadly, the cluster fuck is on at that point, and it will take a whole lot of time to rectify it. I'm with you in that it pisses me off to no end to see people be so incredibly short-sighted that they want to piss away one of the greatest social constructs of the last 5000 years.

Re:Not too worried

[DerekLyons]

Oh really? Define "obviously and intentionally harassing" in a legalistic manner that is so clear cut that it cannot be abused, misused, or given an extremely broad interpretation? If I post a scathing blog indicting the Ku Klux Klan and a Klan member finds it harassing, can my blog be shut down?

Why shouldn't it be shut down? Unless you are exposing criminal activity, the Klan is every bit as protected by the Constitution as the Roman Catholic Church and your local Linux user's group.
 

Folks like you scare me.

And folks like you, who seem to believe that the Constitution doesn't apply to people you don't like, scare the piss out of me.

Re:Not too worried

[fm6]

Well, since you put it that way, I'm all for it! What's freedom of speech against the sheer trauma of being forced to view the super-rectum?!

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

You should not be able to "stalk" them on-line any more than you could stalk them in the normal sense of the term.

Um, no, you shouldn't. They should go before a judge, trot out the evidence, and get a restraining order. After that, and only after that, will your continued harassment of the person be illegal.

We already have laws for this sort of thing.

Re:Not too worried

[mooingyak]

Public figures already fall into a different category for things like this. You'd be fine there. What bothers me is that this singles out electronic harassment. Do existing laws on the subject of harassment specify that communications must be non-electronic? Why do we need a new law?

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

If I repeatedly call you dumb-sh!t whore on my blog, how is that "harassment"? How can anything I post on my blog be deemed "harassment"? Can I make someone visit my blog? Do they have to visit my blog? The definition of 'harassment' should be clarified instead.

Surely we can all agree that if you repeatedly knock on my door, and I scream insults at you and make you cry, that I am not harassing you...you are, in fact, harassing me.

Re:Not too worried

[johnsonav]

If I continuously call a politician a slimy bitch for taking my tax dollars and wasting them on a $20 million performing arts center that is leaking money faster than the city leaders ever could have possibly imagined all while smiling and ignoring the question when it's posed by others, then according to what I just pasted above, I'm harassing them--which I am not.

Depending on how you "continuously call" that politician a "slimy bitch", you're probably not engaging in an activity which would qualify as harassment.

Sorry. Simply posting your rants on some blog doesn't count as harassment. And this bill does not change that.

Re:Not too worried

[MightyMartian]

So if I, say, consistently attack the mayor of my town as a small-minded roach with the ethics of a five dollar whore and the administrative capability of an schizophrenic chimpanzee, I could be charged with harassment?

Re:Not too worried

[Rary]

There is nothing in there discussing harassment. Defamation != harassment. There is overlap, but they are not equal.

I didn't say there was anything in there discussing harassment, nor did I say that defamation == harassment. The link was merely meant to explain what a juristic person is. I'm not quite sure what your point was, though, since you quoted text showing that defamation against a corporation is possible, and implied that I was using that to mean that harassment against a corporation is not possible.

Are you trying to say that harassment against a corporation is possible? Can you find any actual examples of individuals being charged with harassing a corporation? Can you find any legal definitions that explicitly (or implicitly) define harassment laws as applying to juristic persons as well as natural persons?

I am, of course, not a lawyer, nor in any way involved in the legal profession, so I will readily admit that I may actually be wrong here. But, to the best of my knowledge, laws that involve the infliction of physical or emotional damage, which is what the various types of harassment do, generally apply only to natural persons, who, unlike juristic persons, have both a physical body and emotions. Defamation is specifically mentioned in the previously mentioned link as an exception to that, as defamation can result in another kind of damage — financial damage — which does apply to juristic persons as well.

Re:Not too worried

[5KVGhost]

This is not a clarification. It's an expansion, and a big one. And it's so vague as to leave the enforcement and interpretation of the law almost entirely random. That's not how laws are supposed to be written, but it's how our legislatures often operate. They prefer to treat new laws as performance art and leave the hard work of figuring out what it all means to judges (who are happy to become de-facto lawmakers) and police (who enjoy authority and are easy to blame when bad publicity comes your way).

Yeah, it's almost certain that it would be struck down by the Supremes, but they can't do that until after it drags some poor person through the legal system.

Re:Not too worried

[johnsonav]

So if I, say, consistently attack the mayor of my town as a small-minded roach with the ethics of a five dollar whore and the administrative capability of an schizophrenic chimpanzee, I could be charged with harassment?

No, probably not. But, it depends on how you say it.

Are you calling him 20 times a day, on his home phone, and telling him that? Then maybe it's harassment.

Are you calling his friends/family, and telling them the same? Maybe harassment.

Do you come to his office every day, with the sole purpose of telling him that? Maybe harassment.

Are you following him around town, leaving notes on his car, mailing him letters, or handing out fliers to his neighbors? Maybe harassment.

But... Posting your opinions (no matter their content) on your blog. Probably not harassment.

It's not so much about what you're saying, but how you say it. Hell, repeatedly calling someone on the phone, and saying nothing, can still be harassment.

All this bill is attempting to do is apply the same logic to the "cyber" realm.

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the problem is that you have already surrendered your right to free speech. "Harassment" under current law is about what the "injured" party perceives, not what the accused intended.

So... it's like manslaughter?

Re:Not too worried

[mrdoogee]

Thing is, we already have laws against harassment. This just makes it double secret probation if you happen to use a computer.

Re:Not too worried

[icannotthinkofaname]

Take the AC racist comments. Who gives a shit?

I do. Sometimes, I find the AC troll comments hilarious (usually the ones specifically directed at certain comments, rather than the generic first post spam). AC trolls are the reason I keep my threshold at -1. :)

Re:Not too worried

[mrdoogee]

interstate or foreign commerce is what interests me here.

I live in CA. Say the server hosting the instant messenger/website is in CA. I say mean things to another resident in CA. Am I violating this proposed law?

Re:Not too worried

[Zironic]

Wikipedia:
Death

Soon after opening an account on MySpace, Meier received a message from Lori Drew, using a fabricated account attributed to a 16-year-old boy, Josh Evans. Meier and Josh became online friends, but never met in person or spoke. Meier thought he was attractive.[19] Meier began to exchange messages with this person, and was described by family as having had her "spirits lifted".[14] This person claimed to have just moved to the nearby city of O'Fallon, was home schooled, and did not yet have a phone number.[15]

On October 15, 2006, the tone of the messages changed, with Drew saying (via the account) "I don't know if I want to be friends with you anymore because I've heard that you are not very nice to your friends". Similar messages [20] were sent; some of Megan's messages were shared with others; and bulletins were posted about her.[14] After telling her mother, Tina Meier, about the increasing number of hurtful messages, the two got into an argument over the vulgar language Meier used in response to the messages and the fact that she did not log off when her mother told her to.[14] After the argument, Meier ran upstairs to her room. According to Meier's father Ronald Meier, and a neighbor who had discussed the hoax with Drew, the last message sent by the Evans account read: "Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you." [14][21][22] Meier responded with a message reading "You're the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over."[7]. The last few correspondences were made via AOL Messenger instead of Myspace [23]. She was found twenty minutes later, hanging by the neck in a closet.[7] Despite attempts to revive her,[24] she was pronounced dead the following day.[14]

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, but those laws are not enforced in "cyberspace." It also does not address harrassment that is usually handled outside of the courts, at the local or even school level. If you are an adult and you are being stalked or harrassed, then you should be able to take care of yourself and go get that restraining order. However, if you are under-aged then in all likelihood the action will not be to get a restraining order. I've certainly never heard of one student getting a restraining order against another student. What if they are in the same classes, which they likely are if one is harrassing another? Do you kick out one student? I'm sure you can search for the answers, but it's obvious that we are avoiding the real purpose of this proposed law. It is to punish those who harrass young people who would not or could not use the existing laws to protect themselves and get pushed to the level of snapping, either harming themselves or others. There may be some deterrent effect, but I think the goal is just to punish those who commit these types of acts.

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids get bullied at school. This is a very dangerous bill.

e.g. given that the OIC have just been trying again to get their religious blasphemy law through the UN, and our commander in chief is bowing before Saudis, the timing of this law seems awfully convenient for said parties.

Speaking out against the religion of peace causes, among other things, a great deal of emotional distress for believers. The likes of CAIR will see this bill as a godsend for silencing their critics.

Re:Not too worried

[arminw]

....This law would make trolling a criminal offence...

This law would also make old-fashioned hellfire and damnation preaching a criminal offense if it were done electronically. According to what is written in the Bible, Revelation 21:8, all LIARS will burn forever in hell. Since nobody tells the truth all the time, that means such a preacher could offend everybody severely, ensuring that many would be emotionally upset. There are many other biblical statements which would also be construed to be offensive and emotionally upsetting and therefore earn such a preacher a prison sentence under this proposed law.

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is to also make lies told by a politician a felony punishable by a mandatory 10 year prison term. End of this bill!

Re:Not too worried

[tellthepeople]

some corporate lawyer have found sleazy ways of misusing this.

There fixed that for you.

Re:Not too worried

[arminw]

....I've certainly never heard of one student getting a restraining order against another student....

I certainly have heard of parents protecting their children by getting a restraining order or taking whatever steps are necessary to protect their children. The business of protecting the children belongs primarily to their parents and begins with knowing what their children are doing in cyberspace and elsewhere. They can then nip such harassment in its beginning stages by forbidding their children to communicate with the abuser. Problem solved, the state need not intervene with its heavy hand.

The parent(s) of Megan Meier were negligent by being ignorant or uncaring what their daughter was experiencing online. If they had intervened at the beginning of this whole episode, there would have not been such a tragic ending.

Re:Not too worried

[arminw]

....what happened to Megan Meyers while certainly evil, was not apparently illegal....

But it was within the power of her parent(s) or guardian rather than the law. By not knowing or caring what she was doing in cyberspace, they shirked their responsibility of parental oversight and are directly responsible for the tragic outcome. If you want to know the truth of parental irresponsibility, talk to any teacher in any school and they will confirm this. Too many parents or abdicate their responsibility to know intimately what is going on in the lives of their kids. Doing this, takes time and effort over other goals such as career and a higher standard of living. It means spending time with your children.

It seems that there are many politicians out there who think that every societal problem can be solved by passing another law. We have more laws on the books today than ever before, yet the behavior of selfish people is more evident than ever, by rampant lawbreaking. God himself carved 10 straightforward laws into stone and gave them to mankind through Moses, but nobody keeps these. Jesus Christ boiled these 10 down to only two. It is quite obvious that it takes more than a huge pile of laws to make law-abiding people.

Re:Not too worried

[Anonymous Coward]

So, this coercive law meant to harass and intimidate me from exercising my first amendment rights and causing me so much emotional distress was posted electronically on the internet where it is automatically repeatedly transmitted to anyone in the world. If it passes, Congress is guilty of violating it and should be the first group prosecuted. I would suggest starting with the bill's sponsors.

Re:Not too worried

[clone53421]

All this bill is attempting to do is apply the same logic to the "cyber" realm.

Then it's redundant, and the only purpose served by redundant legislation is to introduce loopholes and be exploited.

Re:Not too worried

[clone53421]

Same.

Re:Not too worried

[R2.0]

I never said that the parents bear no responsibility; but that doesn't excuse the woman's actions. And moral responsibility doesn't need to be parsed up - the parents can be "fully" responsible and the harasser can be "fully" responsible. It isn't a zero sum game.

There's also intent to take into account. The woman INTENDED to cause harm, although perhaps not as much as a
happened. The most you can argue about the parents is that they may have been negligent. BIG difference.

Only way to respond

[Locke2005]

Let me be the first to say "Fuck you, Linda Sanchez! Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!" There - does that meet your definition of severe, repeated, and hostile speech, you dumb bitch!

Re:Only way to respond

[TheRealMindChild]

In the House of Representatives, Linda Sanchez fucks YOU

Re:Only way to respond

[Icegryphon]

I think slashdot is becoming a very hostile site and might need to be considered a weapon.

Re:Only way to respond

[Locke2005]

Let unequivocally state that I would not hit that! Well, at least not unless I was really, really, drunk, and I don't drink, so it is really unlikely. Heck, I'd even rather do my wife than her! There Linda... is that offensive enough for you yet?

Re:Only way to respond

[Anonymous Coward]

In the House of Representatives, Linda Sanchez fucks YOU

Sanchez represents "South Central" Los Angeles (e.g. the Watts neighborhood of "Watts Riots" fame). To quote Wikipedia: The name "South Central" had become almost synonymous with urban decay and street crime. Anyway, Sanchez does not generally represent an educated and intellectually sophisticated constituency - as much as making blog posting may seem totally crazy, she's probably just pandering to what, unfortunately, is her base.

Re:Only way to respond

[Ethanol-fueled]

You make a good point - Linda is, after all, one dirty Sanchez!

Re:Only way to respond

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!" There - does that meet your definition of severe, repeated, and hostile speech, you dumb bitch!

Looking at her photos that would be very hostile on the horse...

Re:Only way to respond

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather do your wife too. When's the next time you're out of town?

Re:Only way to respond

[Reziac]

[looking] At a guess, she mighta been the chubby girl who got snubbed in high school, and now she gets her revenge...

Re:Only way to respond

[Anonymous Coward]

Man the harpoons!

Every single person who's gonna bitch here

[Reality Master 201]

Write your congresscritters. If you fail to do so, you're complicit in whatever happens.

That said, it's a stupid bill.

Re:Every single person who's gonna bitch here

[basementman]

Really? So every time my government representative does something stupid I have an obligation to write them a letter expressing my distaste, or I automatically comply with what happens? Who's to say bitching on slashdot is less/more effective than writing your congressmen a letter they won't even read?

Re:Every single person who's gonna bitch here

[Reality Master 201]

Actually, yes.

We have representatives in congress, and they perform their jobs based on their personal beliefs and attitudes, as well as the perceived wishes of their constituency. If the constituents fail to make noise when it's warranted, then they're being lax in their responsibilities as citizens.

And, in my experience at least, my congresscritters do actually pay attention when I write them about things; at very least, I get a message back explaining the representative/sentator's position on the issue. Calling is effective, too.

If you do nothing because you're cynical, then nothing ever gets better.

Re:Every single person who's gonna bitch here

[Itninja]

Well, silence equals consent under the law...or so I have been told.

Re:Every single person who's gonna bitch here

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Calgary, AB, Canada. Who should I write to? I understand we're the 51st state, eh?

Re:Every single person who's gonna bitch here

[PhxBlue]

You're right. So I did:

Congressman xxx -

... I write to you regarding two concerns with legislation recently reintroduced in the House Judiciary Committee: HR 1966, known as the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act.

The act, sponsored primarily by Congressman Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), seeks to protect children who use the Internet and are active on social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook. It is named for Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl who committed suicide in October 2006 after an adult female allegedly posed as a 16-year-old male and harassed Meier online. The full text of the bill is available via the THOMAS search engine at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1966, and information on Megan Meier is available via Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier.

Sir, HR 1966 would unreasonably and unnecessarily expand the power of the federal government. Harassment is already a crime at the state level, and state legislatures can easily amend their laws to include online behavior if they feel it necessary. Online harassment that crosses state or national boundaries is not, in my opinion, an issue that the federal government needs to address at this time.

But more serious is the bill's potential chilling effects on First Amendment rights to freedom of expression. Under the bill, "cyberbullying" is defined as "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 ..." But what constitutes "substantial emotional distress," and is it really something we want federal prosecutors and federal judges trying to hammer out? Worse yet, what if a judge finds, e.g., that a political party's Web site contains content that "causes substantial emotional distress" to members of the opposite party?

The federal government's time and money are best spent on securing our nation's borders, economy, and energy supply -- not determining whether someone is a "cyber bully." Moreover, Americans have a fundamental right to express themselves freely as long as that expression does not endanger others; we do not, and should not, have the right to be sheltered to ideas and beliefs that may offend us. I hope that you will vote "No" on HR 1966 if it should be submitted to the House of Representatives for a full vote.

Re:Every single person who's gonna bitch here

[Arthur Grumbine]

I live in Calgary, AB, Canada. Who should I write to?

Anyone that can get you the hell out of there?

Bang!

[actionbastard]

Oh, sorry. I didn't know it was loaded.

Re:Bang!

[buchner.johannes]

My blog is a WMD :-\

Re:Bang!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is hosted in Iran, isn't it?

Re:Bang!

[Anonymous Coward]

Treat all blogs as loaded at all times!

Keep booger hooks off of blog switches until ready to blog!

Never point a blog at something you aren't willing to see hurt! .. I can't think of a way to blogify the last rule of firearms safety.

Re:Bang!

[TrekkieTechie]

Then you're safe, our government will never find it.

Repeated and hostile speech.

[cbiltcliffe]

.....make it a federal felony to use your blog, social media like MySpace and Facebook, or any other Web media 'to cause substantial emotional distress through "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech.' Rep. Sanchez and colleagues want to make it easier to prosecute any objectionable speech.....

Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.

Hostile enough for ya?

(Apparently, /. filters already limit repeated speech, as I need to add a bunch of crap in to get past the "postercomment compression filter", whatever the hell that is. So /. is a giant government conspiracy, implementing constitution-destroying legislation before it's even proposed....)

Re:Repeated and hostile speech.

[bit trollent]

I'm going to have to agree with the /. repetitive comment filter on this one.

Re:Repeated and hostile speech.

[cbiltcliffe]

You completely missed my point.

I haven't RTFA, and don't care to, as I'm not in the US. But, according to the summary, my previous post would probably be a felony.

Stupid? Yes. But, what do we expect from nanny-state politicians?

Re:Repeated and hostile speech.

[htrn]

No, that's not enough...you have to include the other 13 that are behind the bill too.

Re:Repeated and hostile speech.

[cbiltcliffe]

Ok...

10 PRINT "Sanchez and the other 13 behind the bill are dicks."
20 GOTO 10

the pen

[overcaffein8d]

so this is that they mean when they say that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Re:the pen

[Anonymous Coward]

so this is that they mean when they say that the penis is mightier than the sword.

Let Me Fix That For You...

Re:the pen

[dr_dank]

I'll take "The Penis Mightier" for 200, Alex.

Instead of making new laws

[LuxMaker]

Instead of making new laws, why can't they just enforce the ones already on the books? Yes, this is nothing but an extra power grab designed to keep you in your place.

Re:Instead of making new laws

[PhxBlue]

Instead of making new laws, why can't they just enforce the ones already on the books? Yes, this is nothing but an extra power grab designed to keep you in your place.

Passing, or at least advancing, meaningless and unconstitutional garbage is how Congresscritters keep their jobs. When it comes time for re-election, they have to show that they did something to a bunch of people who, generally, don't know squat about the Constitution. Better still is if they can show that (a) they supported Popular Measure X and (b) the evil Opposite-of-Them Party opposed it, because that polarizes their election and gets all the members of their "base" out to the polls.

It's kind of sad, actually, but it reflects back on a population that either doesn't know or doesn't care about the scope of its rights under the Constitution.

Re:Instead of making new laws

[Attila Dimedici]

Because the current laws do not give the government enough power. It is just like the response of many elected officials after Columbine. The guys who committed the murders at Columbine had broken somewhere over 10 existing laws to obtain the weapons they used, yet the response of the government wasn't to ramp up enforcement. It was to pass new laws further restricting the citizen's right to bear arms. This was not an isolated incident. Historically, administrations (federal, state and local) who most stridently want to extend gun restrictions have been the most lax in enforcing existing laws restricting guns.

Re:Instead of making new laws

[dwiget001]

>

Good!

Are there any other laws we can use to give the government even less power? If so, I am all for them!

Re:Instead of making new laws

[pete6677]

Case in point: Chicago. Good people would be heavily fined and possibly jailed were they to own a gun. But gangbanging criminals only get a few months in jail for shooting someone.

A B C...

[Anonymous Coward]

D D D

D is the missing letter when these Slashdot postings are made, but the R R R is nevR missing when the stinky shoe is on the other foot.

Dear Linda Sanchez

[Locke2005]

If you don't like the things I say in my blog, wouldn't the most rational reaction be to simply don't fucking read it???

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Anonymous Coward]

But I have to read it to feel insulted by it before I can sue you. Don't you see how it works?

1. Read
2. Feel Insulted
3. Sue
4. Profit

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe this _Criminalizes_ said behavior. If that is so, you would have to wait until the state is finished prosecuting and hope there is something left to sue for.

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Anonymous Coward]

Then how would they know how to go about "protecting the children"?

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Anonymous Coward]

In simplest terms yes, the problem occurs when others read and believe what you write. A good example would be the conservative news networks trying best they could to make Obama a terrorist in the run up to the election. I could ignore that and the harm would still be happening. The right to free speech should come with the requirement of responsibility not the right. Another example is you cant yell fire in a crowded public place.

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Locke2005]

Seems like you would have to read it more than once to qualify as "repeated" offensive speech. If you can't figure that out the first time you read it, then you really are a stupid twat. While I agree misrepresentation or fraud should be illegal (i.e. pretending to be someone you are not), saying that you think someone is an ass is and should be protected speech. I make the same argument that you can't be harassed through email -- the first time you read an email from me, you knew what my address was, and had every opportunity to block that address or refuse to read emails from that address in the future. Unless I change my source address each time, how can you complain about subsequent rude emails? If no one is forcing you, coercing you, or using fraud to get you to read the objectionable speech, and yet you continue to do so, then it sounds like you have a problem, not the author of the speech!

Grow up and get a life, Linda!

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, that doesn't stop someone else from reading it, and then coming to a conclusion about Linda Sanchez, or using the material in the blog to harass her.

Criticism is a fine line to walk sometimes, and while I can understand the problem you're concerned about, with regards to somebody writing "Linda Sanchez is a bad politician" and fearing this law will be applied to it, I fear you're ignoring the problems that actual harassment can cause.

Not that I expect you to acknowledge that problem, it's been my experience that people on the internet usually decline to recognize the concerns of others even when it can settle an argument.

But hey, maybe this will be a first.

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the things I say in my blog, wouldn't the most rational reaction be to simply don't fucking read it???

Well, now that we have rational out of the way, lets get back on topic about the government...

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[AndrewNeo]

Ooh, can we just criminalize feeling insulted by something you read on the internet, instead?

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[RealGrouchy]

If you don't like the things I say in my blog, wouldn't the most rational reaction be to simply don't fucking read it???

Won't somebody *please* think of the obsessive-compulsive masochists?

- RG>

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[DutchUncle]

But how can I know if I don't like your blog until I read it? And continue checking it forever? And then once I've read something that I don't like, it's YOUR fault for posting something hurtful to me.

Gee, properly read, this probably makes *every* online post actionable.

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[SGDarkKnight]

If you don't like the things I say in my blog, wouldn't the most rational reaction be to simply don't fucking read it???

This comment sorta reminds me of a story some researchers did a while back about Howard Stern. Their findings came to two intresting conclusions; the average listner who enjoyed his show, would listen for around 20 minutes a day; the average person who hated his show and couldn't stand him, would listen for roughly 45 minutes a day (granted my numbers may be a bit off, but i'm fairly certain they are pretty damn close).

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry. That makes too much sense.

We are in the business of not making sense these days. Specifically, we must always think of the Children first. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Anonymous Coward]

But nobody's going to come help if you yell "CHOCOLATE!"

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[melikamp]

So, OK, let's see, it's not OK to put hate speech on my own freaking website, even though no one is obligated to read it or believe it, because some people may voluntarily read it, believe it, and get confused because they are dumb.

The following paragraph describes a hypothetical content of a hypothetical website. It does not reflect my or anyone else's opinions, only investigates the consequences of having such a website around.

So one should be able to start a website with "This entire website should be regarded as a work of fiction. All names and events described herein should be viewed as fictional and any similarity with actual people and events as purely coincidental", and then put there whatever is not copyrighted or child porn, right? Because there is no danger of confusion, right? And if one says there that the president of the United States [insert his real name here] is "a fucking retard" and "a dirty nigger", and that Jews "aren't done yet, we should put them back till they are crispy", one should be OK, right? Because, after all, (1) one does not compel people to read the website, people volunteer to do that, and (2) the disclaimer indicates that the author of the website believes the content to be fictional, so there is no danger of confusion.

Right? Personally, I do not subscribe the the views presented in the previous paragraph, but I just fail to see how some wanker's blog can do any harm to anyone who is not already mentally ill. If a certified journalist prints something like this, fine him and throw him in jail, but do you really want to go after wankers?

IMHO, holding personal non-commercial blogs to the same high journalistic standard as FOX is clearly an attack on the freedom of speech: many bloggers are not journalists, and they do not want to be. A blogger keeps an essentially private journal which is available by request only. Moreover, the proposed legislation cannot be effective against anonymous hate speech, which is trivial to publish on the web, which totally defeats the purpose of the legislation.

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Locke2005]

Hmm... that does go a long way towards explaining Rush Limbaugh's high ratings, doesn't it?

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Locke2005]

Right. But instead of criminalizing talking smack, wouldn't it be better to criminalizing hiding behind a mask to talk smack? If I know my critic on the web is a well-known wacko, then I can choose to disregard anything they say -- and so can anybody else. As it currently stands, I just have to assume that everyone who posts as "Anonymous Coward" is actually a wacko, as I have no way of distinguishing those that are from those are are not. Unless you care to post your name, address, and what times you are home so I can come there and kick your ass, your opinion is pretty worthless to me.

The problem with this law is that it can just as easily be applied to victims making legitimate complaints about their oppressors as it can to people using the 'net to harass others.

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's the obvious solution, so it'll never work. Frankly, I'm surprised that most people in this country can even read nowadays.

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[steelfood]

Or I could say something bad back about you in my blog.

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that she doesn't like the things in your blog, per se - she doesn't want ANYBODY ELSE to read them.

It's the JEWS, stupid.

Who else benefits from all these 'thought crime' laws which have been undemocratically IMPOSED on us, the majority, who never got to vote for them?

You should try living in the U.K.. You are simply not allowed to disagree with 'The Party', or you will be sacked from your job, and more than likely imprisoned.

Non-white invaders are now 'special' people, who cannot be criticised in any way, and are ALLOWED legally to PHYSICALLY ATTACK you, if they perceive that you have 'slighted' them.

For example, if a white man says the word 'nigger' in the close proximity of any black man, the law in the U.K. says that the black man is ALLOWED TO PHYSICALLY ATTACK HIM, and will get off with no jail time.

Don't believe me? Look it up. It's already happened.

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Locke2005]

Yeah, that reminds me of the story of the old lady how called the police to report that her neighbor was sunbathing nude. The police came over and said "I don't see anything". "Well, look out the upstairs window!" said the lady. "Still don't see anything," said the police. To which the lady replied, "But if you lean way out of the window, and use these binoculars, than you can plainly see..."

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Blakey Rat]

That's from his fictionalized biographical movie, Private Parts. Do you have any evidence that that research exists and draws that conclusion?

I find it really sad that some people confuse "movies" with "history." And no, Admiral Yamamoto never said "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve"-- that was a line of dialog from a movie.

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Monsuco]

If you don't like the things I say in my blog, wouldn't the most rational reaction be to simply don't fucking read it???

No, it's to post goatse links as comments.

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[clone53421]

As it currently stands, I just have to assume that everyone who posts as "Anonymous Coward" is actually a wacko, as I have no way of distinguishing those that are from those are are not.

You could always try reading what they wrote. That works for me.

It's surprisingly easy to just ignore the trolls, you know.

Unless you care to post your name, address, and what times you are home so I can come there and kick your ass, your opinion is pretty worthless to me.

I guess my opinion is worthless, then. Wow, I'm... not bothered by that at all. Astonishing.

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[Locke2005]

You could always try reading what they wrote. That works for me.
If I already know whether or not what they are saying is true or false, then the message contains zero information for me. This is basic information theory -- only messages that tell me something I do not already know actually contain information.

It's surprisingly easy to just ignore the trolls, you know.
Yes, but it is still a waste of my time to read enough of their messages to categorize them as trolls.

I guess my opinion is worthless, then. Wow, I'm... not bothered by that at all. Astonishing.
And well you shouldn't care what my opinion is. However, since you didn't actually post anonymously, and I can look at your remarks in the context of all other posts made with the same name, your post DOES carry a lot more weight than the average Anonymous Coward post.

Back to the original point: people are (usually) nice to each other in person because there is no anonymity; you never know when you'll run into that person again. People aren't so nice on the 'net because there is an illusion of anonymity; you can always change your name if you piss to many people off (this is not my first slashdot user id). Take away that perception of anonymity, and people would be much nicer to each other on the 'net. Who wants the online pissing contest you got into 20 years ago to suddenly come up in the context of your presidential candidacy?

Re:Dear Linda Sanchez

[clone53421]

Yes, but it is still a waste of my time to read enough of their messages to categorize them as trolls.

Isn't "a waste of my time" the categorical description of virtually everything you read on Slashdot?

End of /.?

[c0d3h4x0r]

could make it a federal felony to use your blog, social media like MySpace and Facebook, or any other Web media 'to cause substantial emotional distress through "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech.'

So basically this would mean the end of Slashdot...

Re:End of /.?

[jgtg32a]

Judging from all the comments above yours I don't think it is a bad thing.

Re:End of /.?

[MaggieL]

After all, the only purpose of a gun is to kill, and the only purpose of a blog is to troll.

Re:My Blog Is a Weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Two times scale.

How far does free speech go?

[chris098]

There's always a fine line where free speech "goes to far". I think this bill is trying to clarify that line by imposing penalties. The bill restricts itself to situations:

"with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person"

The common argument is that free speech should always be free, no matter what. This bill goes against that by trying to establish some limits on free speech.

...but should someone be allowed to say they want to kill all members of [group X]? If so, do members of [group X] have the right to take that threat seriously and act accordingly by pre-emptively defending themselves against the threat?

Re:How far does free speech go?

[plague3106]

Your question has already been answered. AFAIK, it's not a consipricy unless you take any action to implement said conspiricy. So in your case, those saying that group x should be killed don't cross the line until they get a weapon or start looking for a member of group x to kill.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[Unending]

If I give plans for committing some crime against you then it is evidence of conspiracy to commit the crime.
The speech itself should never be punished it's the crime that is indicated by that speech that should be punished.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[chris098]

I think this bill goes too far by trying to "protect peoples feelings". In my opinion, that's an infringement on free speech. But I also don't think people should be able to say whatever they want without consequences. Like you point out, if you say you're going to commit a crime, that could be interpreted as evidence that you're going to commit that crime. ...but that's just my opinion.

As written, I think this bill infringes on "free speech". But I don't think people should be allowed to say anything they want without consequences. At some point, hate speech can be interpreted as a real threat, and people have the right to defend themselves against real threats.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[malchus842]

There's always a fine line where free speech "goes to far".

Really? And what would that be? Something you don't like? Something your mom doesn't like? Something Senator Bedfellow doesn't like? Sorry, Free Speech means that you are going to be offended and hear lots of things you don't like.

but should someone be allowed to say they want to kill all members of [group X]? If so, do members of [group X] have the right to take that threat seriously and act accordingly by pre-emptively defending themselves against the threat?

An actual threat is one thing - and it's already covered in current law. So is a conspiracy to commit a crime. But saying that all XXX's ought to be killed? That's free speech. Acting on it or threatening by saying "I am going to kill all XXX's" is not.

Calling someone names is NOT, and should NOT be a crime. Ever.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[flitty]

But that's not the part that most people have a problem with, threats are threats, no matter where you make them. This law does nothing to resolve the "anonimity" of the internet threats, which seems to be the distinguishing factor of threats made online or in person. However, the language, as you quote, says "...Coerce, intimidate, harass..." which is what most people are pointing to as being overreaching.

Does Orac over at Respectful Insolence (Scienceblog) and his constant attacking of Anti-vaccine lunatics get to keep "harassing" morons who are peddling their Woo through unscientific claims? Do other groups get to constantly bring up issues, which are designed to Coerce and Harass companies and people who are more powerful than they are?

There are limits to free speech, but disagreements are not one of the limits, and the wording of the bill is vague enough to include disagreements. The intent of the bill is probably pure, but jesus it needs to be fixed.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Something your mom doesn't like?

Funny. Last night your mom said she really liked it.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[chris098]

So it sounds like we agree that there are some things that don't fall under free speech - threats and conspiracies to commit crimes. I completely agree with that, and I think that this bill goes way too far (trying to "protect peoples feelings", as I said in reply to an earlier post). ...but that's how I see the world. Some people, such as an earlier poster, appear to think that all speech should be valid - even threats. Other people, such as the author of this bill, seem to think that things like name calling should be a crime.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[Rary]

The speech itself should never be punished it's the crime that is indicated by that speech that should be punished.

And this bill doesn't seem to be trying to punish speech. It's punishing the harassment that is indicated by the speech.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'm interested in is if this law passes, will I be forced to take down my previous harassing speech? Is speech on the internet 100% persistent and considered to be in the present? What about Ex-Post-Facto, how can I be brought to court for violating a law which was not a law when the supposed violation occurred?

Interesting questions indeed.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[TheGeniusIsOut]

"with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person"

Who determines intent? Is it what I say my intent was, or is it what they say my intent was?

...but should someone be allowed to say they want to kill all members of [group X]?

Yes, they should.

If so, do members of [group X] have the right to take that threat seriously and act accordingly by pre-emptively defending themselves against the threat?

Yes again, and all involved have the right to pay the consequences of any unlawful actions they may take. Declaring the desire to do harm to a group of people is protected speech, however planning to do harm to a group of people and making preparations to do so is pre-meditation. The specifics of the situation determine the legality, and we already have laws to account for them. If [group X] decides to preemptively strike the threatener, then they have commited a crime unless they can justify self-defense to the satisfaction of the court.

Words are words, by themselves incapable of causing harm unless uttered at extremely high volumes. It is only when those words are acted upon that they become harmful, and blame then falls upon the perpetrator, not the author. Slander and libel are a different matter, of course, but again, we already have laws to deal with those situations.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, Free Speech means that you are going to be offended and hear lots of things you don't like.

Simplistic bullshit. Shouting "fire" in a theater is not about being offended. This is not a new debate.

Calling someone names is NOT, and should NOT be a crime. Ever.

What if the name is "CIA Agent" and the person is an al Qaeda contact? What if the name is "murderer" and the person is in a police lineup? Aren't there consequences for speech?

This issue isn't about free speech, it's about personal responsibility. Say what you want but be prepared to face the logical consequences of your actions.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[dkf]

An actual threat is one thing - and it's already covered in current law. So is a conspiracy to commit a crime. But saying that all XXX's ought to be killed? That's free speech.

Or incitement (i.e., attempting to induce others to commit murder). There is a long-standing principle in law that trying to get other people to commit crimes on your behalf is also a crime (with circumstances dictating whether this is conspiracy or incitement) and I'd be startled if your right to free speech totally overrides this even in the US. After all, the SCOTUS has held that there are circumstances where "free speech" is in fact law-breaking (the "FIRE in a crowded theater" example is a classic).

Re:How far does free speech go?

[EdIII]

There's always a fine line where free speech "goes to far".

This is a very limited situation though. AFAIK, Free Speech only goes to far when it puts people in danger like "Bomb" or "Fire" in a theater or airport.

The bill restricts itself to situations:

"with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person"

Yes, those are the restrictions of the bill, but that is not nearly the problem.........

I think this bill is trying to clarify that line by imposing penalties.

Only indirectly. What it is really doing is classifying speech subjectively to become like a physical weapon. Making it a felony. Why? People that have been harrassed already have recourse available to them.

The common argument is that free speech should always be free, no matter what. This bill goes against that by trying to establish some limits on free speech.

I don't feel that free speech should always be free, no matter what. "Fire" and "Bomb" are obvious, but then there is also private property, slander, libel, etc.

The real problem here is that these "so called" limits are being put into place by creating felonies. Since when is slander, libel, or otherwise harassing speech a felony?

...but should someone be allowed to say they want to kill all members of [group X]? If so, do members of [group X] have the right to take that threat seriously and act accordingly by pre-emptively defending themselves against the threat?

That's a bad example. Nobody IS allowed to say that right now. If I stated that I was going to find you and kill you tonight, and in a way that any normal person would believe it to be true, you can already call the police and "defend yourself". Threats against someone's life are taken seriously.

You are trying to be bring a bit of reason to this discussion with your assertion that free speech needs some logical limits, but my problem with this is in respect to this bill is that the laws and legal recourse already exist. This bill is just creating an overly broad tool that can be misused to quash unpopular speech as "substantial emotional distress to a person" is bullshit. There is no way on Earth that your "emotional distress" should put me at risk of a weapons charge.

How ridiculous is this:

Prisoner 1: "Yeah man. I killed a fucking cop during an armed robbery".
Prisoner 2: "Well I killed a little girl and wore her head as a meat helmet across three states".

Prisoner 3: "Ummm. I hurt this kid's feelings on Slashdot when I said his pasty white ass needed to get out of his Mom's basement and get a real life".

Other Prisoners: "Ooooooooooh. That's hardcore man. Your like the toughest dude on D-Block".

Re:How far does free speech go?

[Ares]

Who determines intent? Is it what I say my intent was, or is it what they say my intent was?

Always them. Because, at least in the US, they can't put you on the stand and ask what your intent was. All they typically have to do is assert it, because, again, without putting yourself on the stand, its hard to refute what your intent was.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling someone names is NOT, and should NOT be a crime. Ever.

Until someone in YOUR family is killed. Then it will be "END FREE SPEECH NOW!!"

Re:How far does free speech go?

[Anonymous Coward]

...but should someone be allowed to say they want to kill all members of [group X]? If so, do members of [group X] have the right to take that threat seriously and act accordingly by pre-emptively defending themselves against the threat?

Yes they should be able to say I want to kill those people. If they said they are going to kill those people, then you have a problem. There is a difference between desire and intent.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[malchus842]

In my 'actual threat' notion I was thinking of both making the threat and inciting others - in other words, I agree with you on this one. But saying "All FOO's should be killed" is neither a threat nor an inducement, as I see it.

Re:How far does free speech go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prisoner 2: "Well I killed a little girl and wore her head as a meat helmet across three states".

I was never convicted, how did that get out??

Re:How far does free speech go?

[PhxBlue]

There's always a fine line where free speech "goes to far".

Really? And what would that be?

I think it's a city in North Dakota ... actually, no, that's Fargo.

Oh, goes too far! Well, that's something altogether different ...

Re:How far does free speech go?

[Attila Dimedici]

"with intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person."
Exactly who determines what constitutes the above? If I state that I intend to force a politician to take some action as relates to their office, can I be prosecuted under this law? If not, what in the law grants me that exception? If so, how does that not contravene the purpose of the First Amendment?

Re:How far does free speech go?

[LuxMaker]

You are making too much sense and that may be considered coercion by some.

Good bill

[ezwip]

This is a good bill. People like myself with bad karma are unlikely to overcome their handicaps. We should be segregated from society or sent to Australia. All we do is post insane theories and links to the new zombie virus. I don't see how we fit into society and the sooner we are kept down the better. I know that personally I offer nothing of worth and can't wait to be visited by the FBI for calling Cowboy Neal a homosexual.

The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic...

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

police state! It's time to stand up for what we believe in. It's time for our voices to be heard. We can't be passive citizens anymore. As each week passes we loose more and more of our rights as American Citizens.

I think we should seriously design an underground internet, just in case we need it.

I'm going to a "tea party" gathering on July 4th.

Radiation bulling

[Anonymous Coward]

So how about radiation bulling? Is that covered since the laser is just the communication medium and the signal is what causes distress and intimidation, harassment.

Admin...

[Anonymous Coward]

Our current administration as was the three before could give a flying shit about our Constitution and Bill of Rights...all they currently care about is silencing the voice of dissent which should be part of a freedom we exhibit.

another chance to use the word STUPID

Thank goodness for the First Amendment!

[MarkvW]

The word repressive was created to describe statutes like this. It's so stupid an unconstitutional that it's laughable. That woman is an enemy of liberty!

Looks like a congressperson wanted to get her name in the paper.

Re:Thank goodness for the First Amendment!

[cptnapalm]

The problem is that the Supreme Court upheld the "hate speech" stuff. The court has accepted that what you say or believe can, in fact, lead to criminal penalties.

Re:Thank goodness for the First Amendment!

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like someone wanted to get their article posted to Slashdot and drum up some hysteria. Looks like you fell for it.

If there's anything at all repressive about this legislation I have yet to hear about it. So far the entire complaint is based on the assumption that the gestapo are going to haul you out of your parents' basement for posting "Obama is a looser lol" on your rant blog.

Re:My Blog Is a Weapon

[clone53421]

I like to believe parent was not trolling but trying to point out, in his own way, that Slashdot's anonymous posting feature could come under fire if "objectionable speech" is criminalized.

Weapon?

[blueg3]

Interesting title, considering the bill does not include, anywhere, the word "weapon" (or, as far as I can tell, any synonym).

Blog post commenting on the bill seems to almost exclusively harp on the fact that many of the terms in the bill (particularly those addressing intent) are subject to interpretation. That's neither new or interesting when it comes to laws.

Re:Weapon?

[mfnickster]

"Stop Using Text as a Weapon!"

(with apologies to anyone too young to remember Pat Benatar's song.)

Linda Sanchez D-CA

[Anonymous Coward]

Since, once again, the political affiliation of a Democrat has conveniently been left out of the summary, I feel it necessary to do the job the poster and /. editors have failed to do.

Re:Linda Sanchez D-CA

[jdgeorge]

Since, once again, the political affiliation of a Democrat has conveniently been left out of the summary, I feel it necessary to do the job the poster and /. editors have failed to do.

Yes, we definitely need to perpetuate the idiocy of associating all the members of a group with its most unappealing members.

Re:Linda Sanchez D-CA

[Locke2005]

Since, once again, the gender of a reactionary twat been left out of the summary, I feel it necessary to do the job the poster and /. editors have failed to do. Linda Sanchez is a woman, therefore all women should be judged by her unenlightened actions. All women should be tarred with this same brush, even the women that vehemently disagree with her!

There, does that make as much sense as pointing out that she is a Democrat?

Re:Linda Sanchez D-CA

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Talk about missing the point.

If she were a Republican, then it would have been mentioned in the summary, next to her name, separately again within the summary, and then probably once again towards the end where Cowboy Neil would stick in (Ed: Fucking Republicans).

But since it was a Democrat, it was never mentioned anywhere in the hopes that it would be assumed that politician who is attempting to pave over the 1st Amendment was a Republican because all bad political news stems only from them.

Re:Linda Sanchez D-CA

[pentalive]

Yes, we definitely need to perpetuate the idiocy of associating all the members of a group with its most unappealing members.

The wide brush is more often used on republicans.

Why Doesnt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't the summary mention she is a Democrat/Socialist? ^__^

Re:Why Doesnt...

[DamienNightbane]

To avoid redundancy.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what socialism is, do you?

Not designed to help the little people

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not looking to protect little Timmy here from people picking on them. Were looking to stop you dissidents from criticizing the goverment! The wording of something like this can be so vauge that it would be extremely broad, and you will no longer be able to criticize your goverment.

If something like this passes, I wonder how long before people give this whole Obama experiment an Epic Fail!

Can we apply it to the President please?

[Shivetya]

because between his vilifying AIG employees to Chrysler bond holders I think he more than qualifies.

IOW - Sanchez and company want to stop certain speech on websites because many of their opponents have been very successful there. This will go great when they find a back door method to implement the "fairness doctrine" by other means (diversity in radio or some of the child act)

So it has come to this, because we have become so good at getting the truth out about what these people are doing in Washington they now think that since they successfully got McCain-Feingold to block us from timely disclosure during an election period that they need to cover the rest of the time?

Just when is change going to happen where something good happens? This shit doesn't just pop out of Congress without someone in the White House giving it approval.

Hell Bush only listened to what we were saying private, these guys would prefer duct taping our hands together and our mouths shut.

Do we have an open square and some tanks they can use? (in eight weeks they are making eight years of Bush look friendlier)

Benjamin Franklin would tend to agree with you . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Sweet, the right to a blog would be protected by both the first and second amendments!

He was not only a Founding Father and signer of The Declaration of Indepence and the Constitution . . . he was the first US American blogger. He not only wrote wacky and insightful stuff . . . he printed it himself as well!

If he were alive today, he would be writing a blog . . . and working at CERN . . . functioning as an ambassador . . . and doing Buckaroo Banzai stuff on the side.

This might be worse than expected...

[helbent]

What usually happens with these kinds of unconstitutional laws is they are rammed through with the authors knowing full well they won't stand up to a constitutional challenge. Think about certain aspects of the Patriot Act, the laws regarding civil asset forfiture, and the Lautenberg amendment to the Brady Bill (AKA the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban where you are denied 2nd amendment rights forever after having a restraining order lodged against you or being merely accused of a crime, even in absence of a conviction thereof).

What happens is the courts pile on the charges so high that defendants are forced to settle for a plea bargain, which is how 95% of all trials are resolved. Thus laws which blatantly violate the constitution are allowed to sit on the books forever with no effective challenge against them, generating eternal revenues for the state and ensuring that a long line of semi-innocents head off to the hotel-with-barred-windows for violating some petty legal technicality. The Branch Davidians were gassed and incinerated alive for nothing more serious than an unpaid tax or unfilled-out form regarding certain firearms laws.

The same nasty precedent set by the previous examples will be precisely how it plays out here. Not only will this law pass but it will be misused and abused left and right, and nobody will cut it off because that would stop the gravy train.

Re:This might be worse than expected...

[geoffrobinson]

Not only that. If you have the temerity to plead your case because you actually think you are innocent, you'll have legal bills out the nose. And if you lose, you'll be gone for a long, long time.

Re:This might be worse than expected...

[Logical Zebra]

If by "nothing more serious than an unpaid tax or unfilled-out form regarding certain firearms laws" you mean "stockpiling illegal weapons," then, yes, the Branch Davidians did nothing wrong.

Re:This might be worse than expected...

[tbird20d]

The Branch Davidians were gassed and incinerated alive for nothing more serious than an unpaid tax or unfilled-out form regarding certain firearms laws.

The AFT suspected that the Branch Davidians were stockpiling illegal weapons, and when they sent officers to investigate the officers were shot at. One can complain about how events escalated, but to whitewash the Branch Davidian role in the conflict is deceitful.

Re:This might be worse than expected...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in the case of civil asset forfeiture, the courts rule them constitutional for all sorts of crazy purposes and it wasn't until a big business (tobacco) was involved that they finally limited that mess. The Branch Davidians fought back with guns. I wouldn't call that innocent.

Re:This might be worse than expected...

[Just Another Poster]

If by "nothing more serious than an unpaid tax or unfilled-out form regarding certain firearms laws" you mean "stockpiling illegal weapons," then, yes, the Branch Davidians did nothing wrong.

None of the firearms or weapons possessed by the Branch Davidians were "illegal" as per Amendment II, which trumps all federal firearm laws.

Re:This might be worse than expected...

[Just Another Poster]

The AFT suspected that the Branch Davidians were stockpiling illegal weapons, and when they sent officers to investigate the officers were shot at.

Or, when they sent agents to investigate, the Branch Davidians were shot at.

Re:This might be worse than expected...

[Anonymous Coward]

>The Branch Davidians were gassed and incinerated alive for nothing more serious than an unpaid tax or unfilled-out form regarding certain firearms laws.

And shooting at the police too.. I forgot about that, I don't want to defend the BATF too much. But if you've broken the law a little, when they come to kick your door down, once you shoot at them... you've just escalated the situation.

But my blog doesn't use SSL yet

[Cajun Hell]

I have not yet deployed the munitions.

How about...

[RingDev]

instead of reducing the number of rights people have, we increase the responsibility that they must take for exercising those rights?

You want to cyber bully some one, go for it. But if that person commits suicide due to your actions, we'll hold you accountable for it.

Same with gun laws. You want a full auto machine gun? Go for it! You screw up with a gun, and we'll destroy your life.

Instead of teaching people not to do things, we should be teaching them that there are repercussions to the acts that they take. You have the freedom to f' up. But with that freedom comes the personal responsibility to not f'up.

-Rick

Re:How about...

[Morphine007]

That sounds great in theory (I suppose), but, if you RTFS a bit more carefully, it's the potential for abuse that ends up being the problem.:

Scenario 1:
Teenager A is emo. Teenager B is a shit disturber. Teenager A and B are friends. Teenager B thinks it would be funny to blog every single secret they know about Teen A, and add in a few other things just for added humiliation. Teen B reads it, becomes the laughingstock of their school and commits suicide.

Potential Law Application: Teen B is prosecuted under the new law, and gets some time in "juvie".

Scenario 2:
You get repeatedly screwed over by your ISP/Cellphone Provider/Phone Company/whatever, and you get so upset, that you decide to do the equivalent of creating a www.<insert company name>-sucks.com website. You link to that website on your blog and rant a bit on both sites - partly to vent and partly to serve as a warning for other potential customers of that company.
Potential Law Application: You are prosecuted under the new law and get some time in federal prison.

Some would agree with you that the utility of the law in scenario 1 is a good thing. Many wouldn't. However, most would agree that the potential for the abuse noted in scenario 2 is something no one wants. And I'd be willing to give you 100-to-1 odds on the bet that there would be a lineup of companies who would love to abuse this kind of law.

Re:How about...

[Veggiesama]

You want to cyber bully some one, go for it. But if that person commits suicide due to your actions, we'll hold you accountable for it.

Same with gun laws. You want a full auto machine gun? Go for it! You screw up with a gun, and we'll destroy your life.

Some of us believe in preventative legislation. The "do whatever you want until you fuck things up for the rest of us" just doesn't sit well with us.

Instead of teaching people not to do things, we should be teaching them that there are repercussions to the acts that they take.

I prefer the "teaching people not to do bad things" route as opposed to teaching them not to do things that will get them in trouble.

Deterrence only works if someone believes they can't get away with it. Most of the time people erroneously believe they can get away with it. Unfortunately, logic doesn't work too well with criminals, crazy people, and angsty teenagers, so I'm not a fan of relying solely on deterrence to prevent bad things from happening.

Re:How about...

[theripper]

Sorry, but if you kill yourself because I call you a fucking pansy I should not be held responsible for that act.

You killed yourself.

I did not kill you. I called you a name.

Last I checked name calling was legal.

And you know what, it always should be.

You fucking pansy.

Re:How about...

[EvolutionsPeak]

Unfortunately, logic doesn't work too well with politicians, legislators, law enforcement officers, and judges, so I'm not a fan of relying solely on legislation and law enforcement to prevent bad things from happening.

Fixed that for you.

Teaching people not to do bad things by making them take responsibility for their actions forces them to learn to think before they act and prepares them to meet new situations.

Just telling people, "don't do these things cause they're bad, mmmk", is telling people not to think.

I would rather live in a society with people who use critical thought to make decisions and I believe it is vital to a strong democracy.

Re:How about...

[bjourne]

You want to cyber bully some one, go for it. But if that person commits suicide due to your actions, we'll hold you accountable for it.

No you wont. The bill is obviously a direct response to that case, in which a womans cyber harassing was a clear trigger to a girls suicide. I don't see any philosophical reasons why one would not want to curb behavior that is just plain old bullying. The bill is probably misguided as laws seldom improve things, but the problem does exist.

Re:How about...

[Nekomusume]

Of course, if he's not actually a fucking pansy, you've just comitted libel...

Re:How about...

[theripper]

Not really.

Calling someone a name is not the same as stating a false fact about somebody.

If I said somebody liked to wear ladies shoes and that was not true then it would be libelous.

Calling someone a douche-bag would not be libelous, just rude.

Re:How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to cyber bully some one, go for it. But if that person commits suicide due to your actions, we'll hold you accountable for it.

Here's a novel concept: let's hold the person who commits suicide responsible for that.

Re:How about...

[Just Some Guy]

Some of us believe in preventative legislation. The "do whatever you want until you fuck things up for the rest of us" just doesn't sit well with us.

Then get out of America. That's not part of our system design, and your ideas are incompatible with our requirements document. Seriously.

Re:How about...

[Reziac]

"You want to cyber bully some one, go for it. But if that person commits suicide due to your actions, we'll hold you accountable for it."

So if I write that X is an unstable idiot, and X then commits suicide, I'm to blame for X's mental instability??!

How are you going to prove that X wrote what I read? Even then, how are you going to prove that what I wrote drove X over the edge? What if EVERYONE who writes about X says the same thing?? which of us do you put on trial??

This is just codifying passing-the-blame, and freedom from responsibility for your OWN actions.
Similarly, it follows from this law that if X reads your blog, then commits a crime, X can disclaim responsibility for his actions via "But reading this blog made me do it!"

Re:How about...

[Jerrry]

Some of us believe in preventative legislation. The "do whatever you want until you fuck things up for the rest of us" just doesn't sit well with us.

I agree. Let's ban computers. That'll prevent the indiscriminate copying of music and movies in violation of the copyright laws, because, after all, computers have no other lawful use.

Re:How about...

[steelfood]

But, think of the children that could be saved if people didn't have guns in the first place.

I think that's the problem with today's world. I don't remember where the quote's from (and too lazy to look it up), but it seems people are so afraid of anything happening to themselves or their loved ones that nothing happens to anybody, ever.

Re:How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

But the courts and folks like you already try to destroy people's lives if they own guns.....

Oh yeah, you're ignorant of that somehow. oops?
    Nick

Re:How about...

[RingDev]

I don't think name calling should be illegal either you illiterate humunculous. If that infantile jar of rotting grape fruit you are claiming to be your brain could keep up, you would see that I am all for the ability to call some one like you, of lessor stock, a cod sucking gutter slut.

That said. If I were to continuously do so, knowing that you were mentally unstable or knowing that my actions were having a destabilizing effect on your psyche, then it should be up to a Jury to decide if you are responsible.

Or would you like to claim "free speech" while screaming "FIRE!" at the back of crowded theaters?

If your actions, even just verbal actions, result in the death of another, why shouldn't you be held accountable?

-Rick

Re:How about...

[theripper]

I in fact do think that screaming fire at the back of a crowded theater should be free speech. And if people were injured because of that, or if property was damaged because of it, I should be held liable.

However I should not be liable if someone in the theater decided to commit suicide in the theater rather than try to exit it.

There is a difference between my actions causing the death of another through accident, or mishap, etc., and someone deciding that it's easier to kill themselves rather than deal with name calling or other harassment.

In the movie theater example my actions caused a panic and that panic caused bad things to happen. I should be held responsible for that panic.

In the harassment example my actions caused you to feel bad and have some emotional distress. I should not be responsible for your decision to off yourself.

If my harassment falls afoul of harassment laws then I should be punished for those offenses, but that is a far cry from being responsible for your death.

By the way, fantastic insults! I had to look up homunculous.

Re:How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I don't take arguments that start with "get out of America" very... Seriously.

Re:How about...

[Veggiesama]

Semantics. We're talking about the same thing. I was criticizing your insistence on "repercussions", not "responsibility"--two entirely different concepts.

I am criticizing it because it is an after-the-fact response, rather than a preventative measure.

For example, bullying is a bad thing for both the bully and the bullied, psychologically speaking. The bully is continually rewarded for antisocial behavior (praises from peers, parents), while the bullied generally ends up with self-esteem issues. While everyone bullies/gets bullied sometimes in their life, some experience it so much that it negatively affects them later in life.

So we gasp when we hear someone commits suicide, or we shake our heads who gets locked up for antisocial activities.

So I maintain that if we want to live in a free, thinking society (where we are not coerced by others or live in fear of humiliation), then teachers, parents, and--hell--law enforcement need to stamp their feet on this kind of behavior early on, BEFORE the dumb kids grow up and does something really stupid to you or me.

Once they're getting taunted by high school football players or posting hateful pictures on their blog, it's already way too late to help. So let's just lock 'em in jail and throw away the key? I guess that's the only thing you can do at that point. That's not the kind of society I want to live in.

Note, that this does not mean I support the legislation at all. I simply do not support the reactionary "THEY TAKING OUR FREEDOMZ!" about some silly bill that probably won't even pass.

Re:How about...

[Just Some Guy]

Sorry, I don't take arguments that start with "get out of America" very... Seriously.

There are times when it is appropriate. If you disagree with the majority politics, religion, or other subject, fine. If you disagree with the fundamental underpinnings of our socio-legal system, then perhaps it's time to look elsewhere for a set of believes less inherently incompatible.

Examples of the former:

"I can't stand Bush/Obama/whoever."

"Christians/atheists/Muslims/Pagans suck."

"Capitalism/Socialism/Communism sucks."

"Democrats/Republicans/Greens/Libertarians are the party of the devil."

Examples of the latter:

"If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide."

"It's for the children."

"Freedom of expression should be limited when it's for the best." (Not counting specific "fire in a theater" or "criminal conspiracy" exceptions.)

"The good of the many outweighs the good of one."

See the difference? Each of the second set could be logically defended within certain frameworks, but is antithetical to the Constitutional system we've built this particular country upon. If you believe strongly in any of them, then this might not be the best fit for you.

Re:How about...

[rdnetto]

Unfortunately, there are some people who would still do those things, as they have little value for their own lives or do not think of the consequences.
That said, it's an excellent idea with one central fallacy: it assumes the government has enough common sense to implement it.

Re:How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is *your* list. *Your* interpretation about what is fundmental to the US and underpins it. And you'll soon find that there is no real consensus about what should be on the list.

Easy example:
"The good of the many outweighs the good of one."

Believing this apparently means you should leave the US. OK, how about the armed forces? They are the embodiment of this principle - that individual soldiers lay down their lives for their comrades and for their country.
So you put an (except for the armed forces) qualification on your list. Is that it? Well, no, there are an unlimited number of cases to be put for qualifications and exceptions to any 'fundmental principles' you might list.

Basically, your arguement is just an elaborate way of saying 'If you don't agree with *me* on the points *I* consider fundamental (and which *I* believe 'most' people also consider fundamental), you should leave the country'. OK, that's your opinion. Maybe my opinion is that your opinion is in opposition to the freedom of belief that is supposed to make the US worthwhile, and therefore *you* should leave.

Seriously?

[AnalogyShark]

Someone is really trying to make trolling illegal?

Don't they realize that acknowledging trolls just makes them worse?

Re:Seriously?

[clone53421]

If they didn't, simply reading the posts on this thread should remove all doubt.

So what part of "Congress shall make NO LAW"

[Anonymous Coward]

do you not understand?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

There ought to be a law...

[minsk]

If I were going to propose one rule to be enshrined in a constitution, it would be banning any emotional appeal in justifying a law. This will, hopefully, get shot down. But we all know that anyone opposing it will be attacked with "they don't care about cyber-bullying".

Maybe there is actually a case to be made for restricting speech to prevent online bullying. We'll never know, because these nitwits took one unfortunate example and ran off in a fit of paranoia. Even a more reasonable compromise would still be tainted by this idiocy.

Between "save the children", "stop the terrorists", and "save the whales" (natural and financial), it is amazing that any freedoms remain.

Re:There ought to be a law...

[cptnapalm]

And don't forget the "if you don't vote for this, you are a racist!" nonsense.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[TheFlyingBuddha]

If you are a troll, good job, you've managed to raise my blood pressure. If you are sincerely bringing up socialism as anything other than a straw man, can you explain it's relevancy to the concept of the police state? And can someone with mod points for the love of god make this something other than "Informative?" Funny, maybe. Hell I'd even take insightful. But INFORMATIVE, it is not.

Language in bill

[Jabbrwokk]

As well, it appears to refer to "real-world" bullying is the real problem:

using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior

To me, it sounds like the bill is defining cyberbullying as something that happens in addition to "real-world" bullying. I think it would be pretty rare for bullying to occur only online, and I'm not counting anonymous forum drama.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[RingDev]

So where were your outcries over the last 8 years as we were being driven into a fascist police state?

Do you even understand the concepts that you are touting? Or are you just spewing Savage drivel?

-Rick

That's worrying.

[John Pfeiffer]

If this goes through, I just might have to take my blog down lest I face prosecution for, I don't know...WAR CRIMES. While most of my posts are benign, god help you if you piss me off that day. Insert sarcasm tags where you see fit, because I couldn't give a rat's ass. :P

If you are sincerely bringing up socialism...

[Anonymous Coward]

The socialism ref is a strawman.

But the American left is no less mad for federal power and full of as many good intentions to crawl up my ass, into my bedroom and into my brain as the American right.

I find the Ds and Rs equally scary.

Man before his time...

[cagrin]

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

Re:Man before his time...

[Locke2005]

Freedom is also the right not to listen to what you don't want to hear. "La, la, la... I can't hear you!" The law must strike a balance between these two rights, but clearly no one is forcing anyone to read a blog, so it should be considered pure free speech. (Unless it advocates and/or encourages the use of violence or other criminal activities by third parties. I.e. saying "Linda Sanchez should eat shit and die!" is acceptable speech, whereas saying "Somebody should just shoot that stupid bitch Linda Sanchez" should be considered a criminal act. Please note that any quotes I have made regarding Linda Sanchez should be considered merely as hypothetical examples; I don't really think that she is a bad person or advocate harassing her in any way. If you do choose to contact her, please focus your criticism entirely on the bill and do not stoop to personal attacks, even if you feel the authors of the bill may be somewhat unenlightened.

Re:Man before his time...

[fataugie]

"Somebody should just shoot that stupid bitch Linda Sanchez" should be considered a criminal act.

Actually, I would argue until someone acts on that statement, and it can be proven in court that someone's utterance of that statement was the direct cause of the act....I think you should be able to say that as well without fear of prosecution.

Unless that was a direct order to someone else, then why fear simple words no matter how fucking stupid they may or may not be?

Re:Man before his time...

[cagrin]

"Democracy passes into despotism." - Plato

The fact that you're encouraging a fascist police state (ie "thought police") is an example of this, as well as the individuals who would rate your diatribe as "insightful"

Re:Man before his time...

[Anonymous Coward]

So by your own logic, the very post you just made should be considered a criminal act? After all, you just made a statement and stated that said statement should be considered a criminal act.

Re:Man before his time...

[Locke2005]

Unless it is an obvious hypothetical example, satire, or act of fiction, yes. I agree that there is a huge gray area there. It is difficult to draw a definitive line between "threatening" and "non-threatening" speech, and there is certainly room for intelligent and well-meaning people to disagree on the definition of what constitutes "threatening". You can't define it as "whatever the victim considers threatening", since the victim may very well be an irrational paranoid. So you have to use the criteria "would a reasonable person with similar experience consider this speech threatening," which opens you up to the same kind of community standard silliness that we see for porn. Unfortunately, it is ultimately impossible to prove intent in court (unless the defendants themselves admit to it.)

Re:Man before his time...

[DerekLyons]

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.
Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Re:Man before his time...

[jmorris42]

> ... then why fear simple words no matter how fucking stupid they may or may not be?

I dunno, urging the killing of a US Congresswoman, even one as stupid as this one, is just a bad thing. We can debate whether it should be illegal or just very heavily sanctioned against socially, but it should not be encouraged. Personally I'd prefer if we could just shun the clowns enough they learn better, generally preferring to solve problems without running to the government all the time.

If you will review my posting history you will find it pretty obvious that I am no fan of the current administration. But you won't see me calling for whacking the fool. The system is broken right now, but if we start shooting we had better be launching a full 2nd American Revolution because as a general rule shooting people to solve political disagreements is a one way ride to 3rd world country status.

Besides, shooting Obama would get us Idiot Joe for POTUS. And if somebody managed a twofer it gets even worse with President Pelosi. So if you see some moron aiming at Obama, do the country a favor and STOP THEM if you are close enough, yell DUCK or just throw yourself in front of the bullet if that is the last option!

Re:Man before his time...

[cagrin]

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Hence the invention of the knuckle sandwhich ;) Personally i miss the days of the samurai...it's much more difficult to be an ignorant asshole when you might get your head cut off for it :) but asking a government to intervene more and more into the lives of it's people is just asking for trouble.

Re:Man before his time...

[fataugie]

Urging? Urging would be something like "Please! Someone Kill for me? I beg of you...!
I would say that is more of an off-handed comment.

No one is encouraging, urging or begging with the original, particular phrase.

I may disagree in principle that even if someone was begging someone to kill someone else is wrong...but if someone did that, then actually that would lay ground work for my original disclaimer that someone could reasonably say you did inspire someone to commit the act and would be culpable.

No, I'm not a lawyer or even close.

Re:Man before his time...

[fataugie]

Ah crap.
I meant the original comment in the OP is an offhanded comment, not the "Please!" comment.

Re:Man before his time...

[Locke2005]

Charles Manson considered the Beatles' song "Helter-Skelter" a direct inspiration for his groups murders, and definitely acted on that inspiration. Yet no sane person would hold the Beatles responsible for the Manson Family murders. Manson himself committed no murders, but he either directly or indirectly inspired others to do so, and Manson was held responsible. It is a gray area that does not lend itself to hard and fast rules. Just like obscenity, I cannot strictly define it, but I know it when I see it. Likewise for the "Somebody should just shoot that stupid bitch..." statement; interpretation depends on context. If I'm at a meeting of Mafia hitmen and say it, I would probably be held accountable. If I'm sitting at the bar drunk off my ass and bitching about the government when I say it, I would probably not be held accountable, even if someone does decide to off the ignorant slut the next day.

everyone is talking past each other

[circletimessquare]

this is what happened to meier: she was mentally and emotionally unstable. she was a minor. an adult, over an extended period of time, purposefully targetted her and assassinated her confidence with false friends and false romantic interests and outright suggesting she kill herself. then she committed suicide

obviously, no one here supports that. at the same time, those rightfully outraged about what happened to meier are proposing limitations on free speech which are too broad. what you need to do is take what motivates them and REDIRECT their free speech limiting efforts to not be so broad. just laughing and riciculing their efforts doesn't satisfy their motivations. and their motivations are real and vlaid, so you have to address them:

you can say anything you want online. unless you: 1. target one individual, 2. over an extended period of time, 3. who is a minor (nad you are an adult), 4. who is mentally unstable

those who want to fight bullying would agree with this. you, defenders of free speech, would agree to this. so stop just shouting down and ridiculing those who are fighting cyberbullying. just redirect their passions. what motivates them is real and valid: a teenage girl was hounded to commit suicide. there is a valid reason to protect her. there is a valid legal space in which new speech laws can exist that, again:

1. stand against targetting one individual
2. over an extended period of time
3. who is a minor (and the bully is an adult)
4. who is mentally unstable

the most hardcore free speech zealot understands why you cant shout fire in a crowded theatre. therefore, everyone recognizes that yes, there actually ARE limits to free speech. so take what motivates those who are angry at the meier case, and HELP them channel their anger into a SPECIFIC limit on online speech of the form of the 4 limitations above

you have to respect the legitimacy of what motivates those who are upset about what happened to meier. just laughing at or ridiculing their overarching efforts doesn't stop them from trying to right the injustive that happened to meier. you can HELP them, and HELP to retain your free speech principles by tailoring and redirecting their passions to a specifically worded area of what is obviously heinous cyberbullying and does not infringe on your free speech rights

imagine that, compromise, rather than a bunch of kneejerk zealotry like you find in other comments here, without any recognition that waht motivates those who are righfully outraged about wehat happened to meier

for those of you who care about your free speech rights: how do you protect the meiers of the world? you need to address that. if you don't, there will be continued attacks on free speech forever, because what motivates those who want to protect the meiers of the world is just as valid an impulse as those who want to protect free speech

sure, some of you could say the meiers of the world need to just toughen up. fuck them, people are cruel, get used to it

by the same token, i could say to you that some assholes want to limit your free speech so tough luck, just shut up about some of what you want to say... this statement is bullshit, i'm just demonstrating that if you don't show any sensitivity to valid concerns about cruelty to others, why do expect anyone to have sympathy for your concerns about free speech?

because, in the end, the principles and passions that support free speech are the same principles and passions that seek to protect the meiers of this world. you protect the rights and liberties of the weak in this world, or you merely help create a world of cruelty, in which limits of free speech are inevitable. limits on free speech are really just a form of cruelty that this cyberbully demonstrated when manipulating meier

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[sdkmvx]

the most hardcore free speech zealot understands why you cant shout fire in a crowded theatre. therefore, everyone recognizes that yes, there actually ARE limits to free speech.

There is no law that says you cannot shout "fire" wherever you want to. Any limits on that are the property owner's. They can say that you shouting "fire" is dangerous to their business and ask you to leave if you want to do so. The converse applies too, get the owner's permission and you can go around shouting "fire" all you want.

So no, that does not limit free speech, because it's long established that property owner's have control over what goes on at their property.

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[KiltedKnight]

OK, so if we want to target one individual in a non-harassing, factual manner... and say this individual is an elected official who's making some really bad decisions, etc... you are then declaring what we have to say to be illegal, because the elected official would simply say, "You're harassing me on-line," and then this law would kick in.

Sorry, I don't buy that argument, just as I don't buy the whole thing about not using a candidate's past voting record within 90 days of an election. That's the kind of thing that you're SUPPOSED to be talking about.

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[DutchUncle]

the most hardcore free speech zealot understands why you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre. therefore, everyone recognizes that yes, there actually ARE limits to free speech.

Yes, there are. And they are already codified and have precedents. We don't need a sweepingly general restatement that could expand those limits to just about anything negative.

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[Locke2005]

false friends and false romantic interests That is the gist of it right there -- the harasser committed fraud to achieve her nefarious purposes. That rightly should be illegal. Protecting people from fraud and pretense is a legitimate and necessary function of government. Protecting them from people insulting them should not be. There are two morals to the story: 1) Don't believe anything you read online, unless it is corroborated by real life experience. Somebody that says they love you online but won't meet in person is obviously yanking your chain, and probably not who they say they are. 2) The internet lacks a "trust" mechanism, that is a mechanism for definitively establishing the fact that the person posting or sending messages really IS a Nigerian prince. No amount of legislation will change this; this is a technical problem, not a legal one. Note that a mechanism that would definitively establish the identity of an email sender would also wipe out spam as soon as everybody adopted use of the mechanism. The phone system has Caller ID; the internet has "I am whoever I say I am!" I would favor the creation of a subset of the internet where anonymous speech is impossible.

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point until you get to the "mentally unstable" part. A persons psychological health is not matter of public knowledge. If you left that wording in, no one would ever be convicted; because, unless your psychiatrist is the verbal assailant, not having prior knowledge of mental instability would be a easy out for the defendant.

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[Maximum Prophet]

his is what happened to meier: she was mentally and emotionally unstable

Instead of stopping anyone's free speech, perhaps the courts should appoint a protector for mentally unstable minors. That protector could be call something like a "Guardian", or "Parent".

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[Stiletto]

1. stand against targetting one individual

What if it's against two people? A-OK, or close enough?

2. over an extended period of time

Define "extended".

3. who is a minor (and the bully is an adult)

If a minor does it to a minor, can he/she be charged "as an adult"?
If an adult does it to an adult, can the prosecution claim that the victim has a "child-like" mentality?

4. who is mentally unstable

Define.

There are so many loopholes in those criteria. I'd prefer that we just stick to the 1st Amendment, thank you very much.

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[Anonymous Coward]

The text of the bill is posted above, and it does not contain any of the four tests you list.

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[Anonymous Coward]

are you really that freaking stupid?
We do not need more laws that restrict peoples freedoms even if they are for a good reason. We need to enforce the laws we already have on the books.
I can't yell fire in a theater not because of a restriction on my freedom of speech but because it causes panic. The same is true for the harassment that you described. Do you really think new laws are going to stop that?
A blog is like a book. If I find it offensive, then I DON'T READ IT. If a blog is spreading lies about a person, no mater who they are, it is defamation and is already against the law. The blogger can be prosecuted. We do not need more laws crowding out books and giving politicians and law enforcement more ways of screwing over people.
So get off your high horse of trying to protect 1 person at the expense of everyone else. And you are wrong about the same principles and passions protecting freedom of speech protecting the weak. Verse the government, we are all week.

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[AceofSpades19]

See, the problem is with limiting freedom of speech is that sure, in this case it _might_ be a decent idea, but as soon as you are able to limit speech then they can just redefine "cyber bullying" to whatever they want and we go down the slippery slope to fascism

There is actually no such thing as cyber bullying, there is just bullying, its no different if I used a phone to make fun of someone instead of a computer, what would we call it then? Tele-bullying? There is no difference between regular bullying and cyber-bullying besides the medium used to convery thoughts, that is why I object to the term "cyber-bullying".

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the fucking problem with all of this, and any other rationalization. It's already fucking illegal to do this, on the web or not.

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod +10 , if I could. This is very insighful.

Re:everyone is talking past each other

[tsstahl]

I would suggest that the "meiers of the world" are already protected by existing laws.

Why do we need a federal duplication/escalation of existing state laws?

All rights have legal limits

[geoffrobinson]

Can't shout "fire" and cause a panic. You can't order someone murdered. You can't incite a riot or violence. Slander and libel have civil penalties.

The right to bear arms can be limited when someone is insane.

Rights are limited all the time.

tea parties

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are all these 'tea party' people on election days? I keep seeing Republicrats getting voted in. It's like, every other November, these "tea party" people stop and say, "Well, we were just kidding and would actually prefer to keep the status quo."

If you don't vote, you deserve to lose.

Re:tea parties

[amicusNYCL]

Where are all these 'tea party' people on election days?

At a tea party?

Re:tea parties

[Chardish]

Let's not forget that the primary objective of members of the government, moreso than any individual item on their agendas, is the preservation of their own jobs. This means keeping around the two-party system that gets them elected.

Between the fear of the GOP that the Democrats spread and the fear of the Democrats that the GOP spreads, there's enough fear going around to keep the majority of the country locked into the two-party system.

In the last three elections, all of which have been very close, the majority of people who voted for the loser said they did so not because they liked their candidate, but in order to prevent the other guy from winning. Those strike me as "wasted votes," far moreso than votes for third party candidates.

If you want to break the cycle and change the system, it's simple: have the courage to vote for the candidate you like the most, regardless of his popularity.

Re:tea parties

[jmorris42]

> If you want to break the cycle and change the system, it's simple: have the courage to
> vote for the candidate you like the most, regardless of his popularity.

Easier said than done. Take this past cycle. My preferred candidate dropped out the day before our Caucus. So I went anyway and spun again and went for the best pick of the remaining bunch. He dropped just a little later leaving a guy I had swore I would never support as the nominee apparent. So I kept to that oath as best I could. I didn't send any money to him or the national party but did send cash to down ticket candidates. But come the fall I voted for him because there was no way in hell I'd vote for the other party's guy and the 3rd party picks were nothing but novelty candidates. Staying home is a cop out.

So who was I supposed to vote FOR? There were no candidates I didn't loathe but voting is still a civic duty.

Re:tea parties

[Chardish]

the 3rd party picks were nothing but novelty candidates.

By which you mean they aren't going to win? Yes, everyone knows that, and they never will win if people don't vote for them in spite of the odds.

Re:tea parties

[jmorris42]

> By which you mean they aren't going to win?

No, by 'novelty candidate' I mean just that. Jokes. In less serious times perhaps worthy of a protest (none of the above) vote but none I a) know enough about to even know if they are sane or b) people I KNOW to be as much a menace to the Republic as any of the major candidates.

Several assorted Socialists and Communists, I didn't vote for Obama largely because I think it likely he is a Communist, those guys are out of the closet. Then ya get the real cranks and kooks nobody has ever heard of, all of which make Obama's six months in the Senate before heading to Iowa look like vast experience.

And then there is the LP. Impractical and obsessed with legalizing dope in the best of times but went severely idiotarian after 9/11. Mostly nice folks who would like to do right, totally clueless politically and would certainly qualify as a menace (the idiotarian part) to the Republic if one somehow got elected. Because the country ISN'T Libertarian and they can't figure that out, they seem to assume that if they could just get equal time at the debates the reasonableness of their arguments would somehow trigger up this huge reawakening. Nope, most folks like suckling the government teat and getting them off is probably going to take close to the same century it took to reduce a once independent people to servitude.

Re:tea parties

[Jedi Alec]

Several assorted Socialists and Communists, I didn't vote for Obama largely because I think it likely he is a Communist, those guys are out of the closet. Then ya get the real cranks and kooks nobody has ever heard of, all of which make Obama's six months in the Senate before heading to Iowa look like vast experience.

Congratulations. It's sentences like this that make all us non-USians smile in amusement, right up to the point where we realize that folks like you get to vote as well.

Do you even know what communism is? What are all these retards doing on a site for nerds ffs? And with a 4-digit ID no less. What is it with Americans, do you all have some sort of genetic deficiency that makes you unable to see any colors between completely black and white(or red and blue, not that there's a difference in your case)?

Your once great country is seriously fucking itself up. Your political system is corrupt to the bone. And all the time the voters are being distracted by a constant barrage of "it's them!, no, it's them!, no, they did it, we're the good guys!". Your politicians, your news anchors, your teachers, your parents and everyone else are treating you as though you're in kindergarten. And you know what? Based on posts like yours I can see why, because damn, you gotta be seriously ignorant to write crap like that.

Re:My Blog Is a Weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that how big yours is?

Federal overreaching their powers

[Hadlock]

I blew off the republican's stand against the federal government as a way to shore up support for the Republican party, and as a registered democrat, I do see some validity in their point. Am I trolling? No. My point is, this is a FEDERAL crime they're speaking of. This is definitely something that can be handled and prosecuted at the state level. This has zero effect on national security or interstate commerce. The fact that this is being handled at the Federal level indicates it's just a Bush-era grab for additional surveillance. Put on your tin foil hat everyone, this isn't just fantasy, this sort of bill passing is a weekly occurrence in England. Stop this crap from coming to our borders. The new fight isn't against communist Russia, it's Orwellian England.

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[Veggiesama]

My point is, this is a FEDERAL crime they're speaking of. This is definitely something that can be handled and prosecuted at the state level.

State, federal, it's the same thing. We could pass 50 versions of the same law, or just one version that can be enforced properly across state boundaries.

Agree or disagree with the law, but more tangled webs of state-by-state bureaucracy is the last thing we need for the Internet, which acts pretty much the same whichever state you're in.

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[jdgreen7]

My point is, this is a FEDERAL crime they're speaking of. This is definitely something that can be handled and prosecuted at the state level. This has zero effect on national security or interstate commerce...

I'll have to disagree here. This does affect interstate commerce. Let's say that I live in Maryland, and I log into myspace.com, which is a server that's hosted by a commercial entity in Los Angeles. If I then proceed to use their commercial service to harass a person who lives in Texas, that certainly qualifies as "interstate commerce".

Not that I agree with the premise of this bill, but I would have to say that this is within the scope of the federal government's designated powers.

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[CrimsonAvenger]

The fact that this is being handled at the Federal level indicates it's just a Bush-era grab for additional surveillance.

Odd that this Bill has been proposed by a Democratic Congresscritter then....

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[DerekLyons]

The fact that this is being handled at the Federal level indicates it's just a Bush-era grab for additional surveillance.

Yeah, with Bush out of office and the bill being proposed by a Democrat - it's clearly Bush's fault.

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[Hadlock]

So they'd be able to try you in Texas, Maryland or Los Angeles, depending on which state is most likely to award them the most money. States that don't need their court system tied up with worthless cases however are free to exempt themselves from these kinds of laws.

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[Hadlock]

The Federal Government exists to protect the borders and deliver the mail, not make enforcing laws easier by making blanket declarations. Money we're diverting from state court systems to Federal ones could just as easily be funneled back to the state. We pay lawyers to navigate bureaucracy already, it's not terribly difficult to find a state law specialist last time I checked.

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[Hadlock]

Echoing Bush era paranoia helps win conservative votes during mid-term elections. I didn't blame it on Bush but thanks for putting words in my mouth and not contributing anything to the overall discussion.

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that this is being handled at the Federal level indicates it's just a Bush-era grab for additional surveillance.

Err... the "Bush era" has been over for quite some time.

Of the bill's sponsors and cosponsors:

Linda Sanchez is a Democrat.

Timothy Bishop is a Democrat.

Lois Capps is a Democrat.

William Lacy Clay is a Democrat.

Joe Courtney is a Democrat.

Danny K. Davis is a Democrat.

Raúl M. Grijalva is a Democrat.

Phil Hare is a Democrat.

Brian Higgins is a Democrat.

Marcy Kaptur is a Democrat.

Mark Kirk is a Republican.

Blaine Luetkemeyer is a Republican.

Lucille Roybal-Allard is a Democrat.

John Sarbanes is a Democrat.

Zachary Space is a Democrat.

Dina Titus is a Democrat.

John Yarmuth is a Democrat.

2 Republicans out of 18.

But I'm sure you're right that "Bush" is behind this.

Hah! The captcha is wiretap!

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[Hadlock]

I don't think it was specifically bush who pushed for all these limitations, but when I say bush era I mean it reads as if it came from the bush era. I like how everyone is jumping all over me for mentioning bush (I mean really, would this piece of legislation have suprised you in 2005?). The point is, we voted in a new congress, new president and our government is still pushing for tighter survalience laws. So yes, I feel justified when using the taboo term "bush era" during the Obama administration, esepcially when these sorts of things are what I was voting against. What party brought this to the table isn't terribly important; democrats authorized the iraq war just as well as the republicans did. I'm not trying to push a partisain agenda here, I'm just outraged (and out-raging).

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[DerekLyons]

Hello - she's a Democratic senator. She's not winning any conservative vote. So blaming it on Bush like you do is horseshit.

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[caldodge]

I knew a lot of Bush-bashers were idiotic, but this takes the cake!

This is the OBAMA era, where a fascist president threatens hedge fund managers if they don't agree to his planned theft of billion of dollars to benefit his political supporters.

This bill (which was introduced on April 2nd, NOT in the "Bush-era") is sponsored by Democrats. If it passes, it will be passed by Democrats and signed by a Democrat president.

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[Hadlock]

Next time I'll be sure and clarify by saying "Bush-era-like". If this actually makes it's way to the floor for a vote then all our votes to oust the republicans will have been for naught. Slashdot: where you can check your reading comprehension at the door.

Re:Federal overreaching their powers

[Hadlock]

Secondly, if there are 50 versions of this bill, all the better. At the state level, it can be tailored to suit the population it's governing. Let me tell you, people in Kansas have a much different view on many things than people in California. It might come as a shock to you but state governments are good for a whole lot more than passing funding bills for more state highways. At the state level, depending on where you live, your elected representative might only be representing 5,000 people. At the federal level in most cases, your representative is representing closer to 100,000, and in the case of NY, CA and TX federal senators, representing literally tens of millions of people. With the exception of literally a handful of cases, such as health care, interstate travel (and commerce), and the military, state governments are going to be more effective at governing closest to the citizen's will (unless you're a major corporation or part of an industry lobby).

Democrats hate TIMECUBE

[Culture20]

What are you looking for, content? It's in the subject.

Re:Democrats hate TIMECUBE

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were referring to whatever is at timecube.com - OMG whoever wrote that is obviously clinically insane, in addition to being unable to grasp either the concept of complete sentences or paragraphs.

Somewhere in there he offers a reward for disproving the 'harmonic cube' - how can you disprove something thats complete gibberish?

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Maclir]

The United States - and the people living here - could do with a reasonable push to the left. Far from being "socialistic", the country would move towards the political center.

Can't Be All Bad

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

If it would get Ann Coulter to STFU, it might have some merit. On the other hand, it is such an obvious castration of the First Amendment that even Scalia would have to shoot it down.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Anonymous Coward]

And where are you now that we are being driven into a socialist police state?

This Bill Will Never Pass

[Anonymous Coward]

Reason?

Acronym TMMCP (or TMMCP Act) doesn't spell a word or mean anything.

Stupid politicians......

[ewenix]

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

This is like saying children who go to the aquatic center are more likely to be pushed into the pool.

Hey, here's a thought! Don't let these "children ages 2 to 17" roam the internet unsupervised!

This is the kind of stupidity you get when "everybody is a winner" and you go miles out of your way to make sure all the kids "feel good."

Wait, this might be a good thing!

[Nidi62]

If blogs are going to be considered weapons, make there be a waiting period to get one, along with a background check, and, most importantly, no minors!. This way, everyone and their mom won't have one. The amount of pages on the internet will get cut in half, and we will be rid of all those blogs that talk about how "OMG AWESOME!!!!!!!" Britney's last concert was or whatever.

hell no to giving up freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I rather change the law so these kids start blogging later. at least have them take a course on dont give a dam on what others say.

Here in Canada...

[GerardAtJob]

...we'll need a license to have one... like all our weapons... (which is really dumb...)

Keep an eye on it

[vix86]

Keep an eye on the bill. If it makes it past the committee, be sure to inform your representatives about your opinion on this bill.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[brian0918]

I've been screaming for the last 8 years, and I'm screaming twice as loud now. The fascism (yes, the word has a meaning, and I understand it) of administrations is getting more and more blatant.

So sick of this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so sick and tired of this story...
I feel sadness for the family but where were they ?
Their child had issues, PERIOD.
Using this story to pass a bill to lock down blogs, well, bye bye Freedom.

Sounds like an ACLU fund-raiser

[malx]

Will this achieve anything more than raise funds for the ACLU?

Of course certain extreme kinds of speech are not protected by law. But there are criminal standards for incitement, harassment etc and this appears to go well beyond them. It's so overbroad not only doesn't it stand a hope of surviving constitutional scrutiny, it won't even persuade a unduly deferential junior court to ignore/deny that there is a constitutional bar.

Lame Excuse to Pimp My Blog

[W. Justice Black]

...or at least one of them.

Highlights include the fact that Jack Lord could smell into the future, that Poutine is grown from seeds, that you can kill French people by carefully mispronouncing the French language in their presence, and that Lee Majors can travel through time.

Clearly I'm batshit insane, so thank God for bills like the one proposed, since I cause so much anguish to so many. I really need to be stopped.

Right to hate

[nurb432]

I have a right to hate anyone i want, and tell you about it. ( you don't have to listen of course )

Is this 'change'?

Re:Right to hate

[cptnapalm]

It is a change of who you are allowed to hate, I guess.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[brian0918]

The United States - and the people living here - could do with a reasonable push to the left.

Hilarious. You call it a "push", but that push would be at the point of a gun, no doubt. Your good intentions and your desire for reformation cannot justify the violation of individual rights that would come with the enactment of the projects you're implicitly proposing.

simple truth...

[800DeadCCs]

All free speech, is hate speech.

Re:simple truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate your use of a comma in that sentence.

*looks around*

I'M FREE!!!

WHAT DO YOU F'ING EXPECT

[Anonymous Coward]

You /tards supported El Presidente Tool and his Clown Circus of Libtards...and now your reaping what you have sown. Oh and its not "Bush" so this time around not only are you wrong as you were the majority of the time you cited "Bush" but you look like the chumps you actually are.

      Thats what happens when San Fran values comes to power, everyone gets it in the ass. If your lucky you'll get a reach around dumbasses.

Now make nice to your H1B replacements at half the cost

Re:WHAT DO YOU F'ING EXPECT

[stewbacca]

"Sown" eh? Thanks for participating.

Re:WHAT DO YOU F'ING EXPECT

[planetoid]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sown

Re:WHAT DO YOU F'ING EXPECT

[clone53421]

You call Anonymous Coward on "sown", which is spelled correctly, and fail to say anything about "your", "its", "thats", "values comes", and "your" (again), not to mention the abhorrent comma misuse?

I'm still trying to figure out what "make nice" means.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like in the last 8 years your freedoms were stolen?

If taking tax _cuts_ away from the rich, is socialism, call me Stalin.

Yeah, go get your face ball-sacked. But if I remember over 60% percent of Americans voted for Obama not so long ago, so I don't get this "resistance of the people" diatribe.

Fuck all you _hypocrite_ "teabaggers".

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eight years ago, I was ten.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[flitty]

Hell I'd even take insightful.

I think you meant inciteful. (yes, it's not a word. No, I don't care.)

Grow up!

[techhead79]

People need to grow up! With this bill signed into law no one could not post anything online negative at all about anyone. All a plaintiff would have to do to make someone's life a living hell is to be a complainer and ball their eyes out in court.

Due to a personal experience on this note, it's bad enough blogs get taken down just for speaking out of acceptable tune. We have raised a bunch of gutless hopeless children that have no concept of standing up for yourself or letting words lay where they belong. There used to be this concept that only actions can cause distress...but now? Today? We are a nation of complainers. I find this pathetic! - and I just nominated myself as the first one to be punished by this law...for anyone that is in support of it would see that statement as me calling them pathetic and thus causing them mental pains...GROW UP!

Re:Grow up!

[Anonymous Coward]

and ball their eyes out in court.

That'd be pretty convincing (and gross)- I assume you mean 'with a melon baller'?

Actually I think the word you wanted may have been 'bawl'.

am i suppose to laugh at you?

[circletimessquare]

the rights and authority of property owners are, shall we say, not so sacrosanct as you think. nor should they be

say a moviehouse owner gives a guy 100% permission to yell fire in his theatre. so what? say someone dies in the stampede due to this guy yelling fire. at what point in your mind do you believe whatever permission the moviehouse owner gave or did not give has any validity whatsoever in the outcome of this situation? its wrong to shout fire in a crowded theatre. period. end of story. no matter what any property owner thinks or whatever permission he gives, this line of reasoning has no bearing whatsoever, because it doesn't trump anyone's right not to die in a stampede

say my neighbor runs a crack house. and he is 100% ok by this. except i'm not too happy about the effects on my property values because no one wants to live next to a crack house (nevermind the obvious increase in crime that would result). me, and the other neighhbors, and the city at large, and society at large, have greater rights here. we can forfeit this guy's right to own this property, because he removing more rights and freedoms than any property ownership entitles him to. in other words, the rights and freedoms of the property owning individual ends when his policies and actions begins to infringe on other peoples rights and liberties. shouting fire in a theatre, or running a crackhouse, most certainly are examples of limits on such property rights

property rights are extremely limited rights. there are tons of rights that trump property rights. i don't know why you and this weird small cadre of folks thinks so much springs from property rights, when in reality property rights are a small and minor space of rights, and in fact, SHOULD be a small and minor space of rights. that there are other rigths, such as free speech, that easily outweigh property rights, and should outweigh property rights, acocrding to any sound understanding of the principles of liberty and freedom, morality and reason

Re:am i suppose to laugh at you?

[adolf]

I, for one, want to live next to a crack house, or at least a house where I can buy crack. Or powder. Or smack. Or meth. Or mescaline.

I'd also like a strip club next door.

And I think that I, personally, would love to have an oriental massage parlor right across the street. Preferably, right next to a casino.

I also would rather like it if an all-night liquor store would open up within stumbling distance of my stoop.

While I'm at it, I guess I'd not even mind so much if there were a prison (or maybe just a nuclear reactor) just beyond the back yard.

Who are you to infringe on my right have these things?

ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!1!!! Damn Republicans!

[wowbagger]

<sarcasm>
ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!1!!! Damn Republicans! Them and their middle-of-the-country Bible Belt politics always trying to take away our rights! It really.....

Just a moment.....

I was just handed this note that Rep. Linda T. Sanchez is actually a Democrat from California.

Nevermind...
</sarcasm>

Seriously, had a Republican from Oklahoma proposed this, what do you think the odds that the <cough>editors </cough> would have taken the time to add the "(R-OK)" to that story.

Come on Slashdot - how about just being consistent - ALWAYS add the party and state affiliation to any US politicians name, and ideally do the same for politicians from other lands as well.

Re:ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!1!!! Damn Republicans!

[pentalive]

No, they would have just used (R) because no Republican is (OK) with them.

Re:ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!1!!! Damn Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on Slashdot - how about just being consistent - ALWAYS add the party and state affiliation to any US politicians name, and ideally do the same for politicians from other lands as well.

They went one better. They linked her name to her house.gov page, which makes it quite clear not only what political party she's in, but also things like platform, voting record, and pictures of her. Which, by the way, will have to be removed when this bill passes, because I find them offensive.

Re:ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!1!!! Damn Republicans!

[reidiq]

Amen. Media bias is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Re:ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!1!!! Damn Republicans!

[Jaysyn]

I had a hell of a time finding out which party she was with *on her webpage*

Re:ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!1!!! Damn Republicans!

[GodfatherofSoul]

I assumed Democrat, not because of the issue or because I knew who she was, but because I assumed Latino name=Democrat. I wonder how much stereotyping had to do with the omission? I'll admit that I did.

Re:ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!1!!! Damn Republicans!

[Gogo0]

i just assume that if no political party is given that theyre one of the "protected" parties.

Re:ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!1!!! Damn Republicans!

[wowbagger]

"I wonder how much stereotyping had to do with the omission?"

In fairness, I doubt the submitter thought about the idea of adding the party and state information.

That's why I think the <cough>editors</cough> ought to do that.

Re:ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!1!!! Damn Republicans!

[Ironsides]

Interestingly, several newspapers have labeled Democrats as R- because they are in the House of Representatives. Misleading? Naw...

Re:ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!1!!! Damn Republicans!

[Max Littlemore]

ALWAYS add the party and state affiliation to any US politicians name, and ideally do the same for politicians from other lands as well.

I'm sure you would find this information meaningless, as do I, and I am from another land. In fact, if stories did include political affiliations, you would get confused because in Australia the liberal party is not "liberal" in your sense of the world. They are more of a fascist party, much like your republicans.

Just why do people from the United States assume that the whole world is either democrat or republican? Is it anything to do with the way you have a "world series" in which only americans compete?

Already Harassment.....

[IHC Navistar]

"Cyberbullying" should be decided on a case-by-case basis in the courts. It's clearly harassment, and that is already illegal. If speech is directed at a specific individual adn intended to cause emotional distress and harm, it clearly falls under harassment. However, they should allow far harsher penalties for the kind of 'cyberbullying' that happened in the Megan Meier case.

WMD?

[BGrif]

If someone blogs about how to increase traffic to a blog, are they giving the plans on how to build a WMD?

Depends on your perspective

[fataugie]

Have you ever noticed....hate speech is what someone who disagrees with you labels it? What about the people that agree with you? Or Hell, even if NO ONE agrees with you, why are you not allowed to have a view and speak it if someone else doesn't like to hear it?

Is this not just a form of Mob Rule? Something the Constitution is supposed to protect us from?

Way too broad

[Nkwe]

From the bill: "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."

Any equipment dependent on electrical power? Getting into a car (spark plugs use electrical power) and driving to a protest rally (an information service) would meet this definition.

Seems pretty broad to me.

Re:My Blog Is a Weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Verily, your mother is a whore. Good day sir.

Where is Dogbert when we need him????

[raengler]

Out, Out, you demons of stupidity!!!

One of the cosigners is that paragon of intelligence, Mr. Sarbanes of Sarbanes-Oxley...

Where do we get such dedicated servants of the public good?

Linda Sanchez (D - CA)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how party affiliation is left out when the bad congress critter is a Democrat. It is traditional to append party and state when mentioning a congressperson in print. You should amend the summary to read Linda Sanchez (D - CA). You would of course need no such reminder if she were a Republican.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Rolgar]

In Western society, the economic socialists and the cultural liberals vote Democratic, so until we have a new election system that allows citizens to support a more diverse political policy set, we will continue to exist on a political continuum with the Republicans pulling us away from Communism and the Democrats pulling us towards it (more state control of the economy and less diverse political opinions available in the media).

The Republicans don't try to legislate what can be broadcast, or debated. And for the most part, they don't need to, because they've chosen the winning side when it comes to the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the Democratic party struggles with this, and they've had to largely rely on controlling the mainstream media and the teacher's unions for indoctrination for the 28 years, but now that they've got solid control of the government back and their opponents on the ropes due to Bush's mismanagement, they're going to use the big bully club of slowly replacing as many justices in the court system to allow them to enforce their illegal laws, on the way to making opposition to their agenda a fringe movement.

Baked beans are off.

[HTH NE1]

or any other Web media 'to cause substantial emotional distress through "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech.'

Ooh, the Vikings aren't going to like that.

Whoever transmits ... any communication ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Doesn't congress do this all the time?

The way this is worded, continually interrupting a televised presidential speach would be covered by this bill.
Excellent! We can finally get rid of the House Speaker!

no, absolutely 100% wrong

[circletimessquare]

you are supposed to talk about the issues

you aren't supposed to make things personal

in fact, when you make things personal, you lose whatever argument you think you are advocating for, because you've changed the subject yourself: from one of the issues, to one of personal bickering

if you make things personal with an elected official, you SHOULD be fined/ arrested for harassment

if an elected official is doing something wrong, he should be thrown out of office on the grounds of the moral and legal ISSUES he is defiling. and if you wish to go after him, merely make charges on the ISSUES involved. if you need to harass someone in order to make a point, you've already lost the fight anyways

its the difference between me, in this thread, disagreeing with you, and saying so in terms of the subject matter

versus me, in this thread, calling you petty names, putting up a website devoted to comparing you to hitler, sending you obnoxious abusive emails for months, and calling you up and hanging up after threatening to kill you

#1: if i'm doing that, i'm way past losing this argument

#2: you have every right to have me fined/ arrested for harassment

why do you think elected officials somehow deserve any of this treatment? they don't. they deserve to be voted/ kicked out of office on the ISSUES, and no more

so you are completely 100% wrong

Re:no, absolutely 100% wrong

[KiltedKnight]

You obviously haven't been paying attention to some of the laws that have been passed or proposed recently... like the one some people have called, "The Incumbent Protection Act"... better known as McCain-Feingold. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6074 (item 6). Or the "Clean Elections" stuff going on in South Carolina... http://www.gtowntimes.com/story/Jill-Kelso_-Clean-Elections-Act- (second-to-last paragraph). Everything else you speak of is already covered by various laws about harassment, libel, slander, and such.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking stupid? Plenty of people protested the dissolution of our rights during the bush administration.

Founding Fathers: bloggers

[macraig]

If the Founding Fathers had access to the 'Net and the same technology we do today, is there any doubt that they would have been blogging their dissenting opinions and activities? They would have been using the 'Net to organize "flash mobs" like the Boston Tea Party. Is there any doubt that TPTB of the day would have declared their blogs "hostile"?

The only thing new here is the medium. Only control-freak idiots would dare try to treat the activity different because of the medium.

Who gets to decide what is "severe, repeated, and hostile"? I don't think I want to trust that sort of nonobjective ambiguous judgement to either Congressmen or juries.

Blogs ARE a weapon of sorts, in any case: the best ones are used to attack groupthink and dogma and make people think and reconsider their cherished pork.

Here's how to nip this right in the bud..

[Anonymous Coward]

This would mean the Bush family would be able to have Daily Cos and Huffington Post up for charges?

Congress shall make no law respecting...

[Anonymous Coward]

...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

I may disagree with what you blog. But I will defend to the death your right to blog it.

It takes more then blogging to harass someone with your words. If you can't use your brain to go elsewhere, then you seriously need professional help and should not be using the internet. And don't tell me there is no way for someone to escape the harasser.. if it's done over the internet you can: a) go elsewhere on the internet, it's a big place. b) if it's an im or chat.. all of them I know of provide blocking/ignore messages.
Time to write a congresscritter or 3.

list of stupid politicians?

[bugi]

Does anyone keep track of politicians and their support for bills like this that are clearly intended to circumvent basic rights?

Such a list would help make sure I don't vote for any such incompetent and/or corrupt individuals.

Re:list of stupid politicians?

[PPH]

Im sure there's a blog about it somewhere. But if you mention Sanchez on it, she'll get upset.

Re:list of stupid politicians?

[clone53421]

A list of stupid politicians? Sure.

List is non-exhaustive, of course.

Re:list of stupid politicians?

[bugi]

There is that :), but I was hoping for a list organized to make their specific stupidities obvious. It's so easy to forget what exactly they've done while in office pretending to represent us.

Forget Bill!

[WinPimp2K]

But Mike should be very afraid right now

and if passed into law (and if it survives constitutional challenge) it looks almost certain to be misused."

Sorry Mike, but "certain to be misused" is a prime example of Cyberbullying. You are saying hurtful things about our dedicated and saintly government officials.

Re:Forget Bill!

[Jane Q. Public]

Ah, but you see, it wasn't "repeated"... until now.

Maddox

[hippie-joel]

Does this mean that Maddox is screwed?

two edged sword

[pentalive]

Remember, that which shuts Ann Coulter also shuts Al Frankin.

Re:two edged sword

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying we might knock out both partisans and start towards breaking political polarization? Wow. Are you trying to help STOP this bill or ACCELERATE it?

Re:two edged sword

[Gogo0]

except that Al is almost an elected politician now. no one can shut them up.

Re:two edged sword

[Calithulu]

So I win either way?

Re:two edged sword

[Ironsides]

Remember, that which shuts Ann Coulter also shuts Al Frankin.

I'm trying to find a downside to that, but I can't.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Itninja]

So many things wrong here:

"It's time to stand up for what we believe in." Who is this nebulous 'we'? Do you mean 'you'? Because not everyone (not even close) thinks how you do.

"We can't be passive citizens anymore." Then pick up a weapon and overthrow this hellscape government you apparent live in. Don't just blog and complain. If it's /so/ awful, then make it stop. You can't be a part of an evil system while railing against it like an outsider.

"As each week passes we loose [sic] more and more of our rights as American Citizens." You mean Canadians? Mexicans? Because they are all 'American Citizens'. There is no country called America. It's the United States /of/ America. America is short for North America, the continent shared by several nations.

agreed 100%

[circletimessquare]

why do you think i am in any way adovcating for sweepingly general restatement? i am advocating, in multiply stated terminology, for an allowance for a specificly worded limitation on free speech, which anyone with any common sense would agree to. i'll say it yet one more time for your sake:

1. if you target a specific individual
2. for an extended period of time
3. and they are a minor (and you are an adult)
4. or if they are mentally unstable

then you should be fined/ arrested

i defy you to illustrate to me a scenario in which those 4 circumstances above are done in the spirit of free speech, or in any way necessary for you or anyone else to exercise their right to free speech. cyberbullying is a real crime, and it should be stopped, and doing so is not a limitation on free speech in any way when correctly worded in the specific circumstances in which it exists

cyberbullying is obviously NOT free speech. limiting cyberbullying in specific terminology is not limiting free speech

Re:agreed 100%

[DutchUncle]

Sorry, I was being brief and thereby unclear. I agree with your stated conditions for defining "bad speech", and agree with you and another poster that the INTENT of this bill is certainly good and the bill sponsors are full of good intentions. The reality as currently written, however, is "sweepingly general", and we know which road those intentions can unwittingly pave.

Consider even your conditions, which I specifically agree have only the best of intentions, with the freely-available example of Jon Stewart and The Daily Show: target a specific individual (Bush, Cheney) for an extended period (4 years at least) if they are mentally unstable (Stewart was openly accusing Cheney of being paranoid, megalomaniac, and generally a nut case). This free speech (1) clearly intended as entertainment as either satire or shock-humor, and (2) possibly also a serious political commentary, would seem to be actionable under your conditions. OF COURSE that's not what you meant, but if someone wanted to stop such speech that's a tool they could use, just like the RICO laws have been used against people who have nothing to do with the original "crime organizations" that were targeted. If the case were brought, Stewart might not lose and get thrown in jail, but he'd spend a lot of money and time in court defending himself, and the prospect alone would seriously chill such open speech.

People *should* be punished for harming other people, and I agree with you that cyberbullying causes real harm. I'm just not ready to submit to constant surveillance of myself and everybody else to prevent a potential problem, because I think it sets up an assumption that everybody is guilty until proven innocent.

Who is this Bill person?

[baKanale]

Who is this Bill person, and what the hell is is problem?

Re:Who is this Bill person?

[hippie-joel]

Billy Gates.

Re:Benjamin Franklin would tend to agree with you

[cawpin]

...and screwing every woman in sight.

Extend your Bill & say, "Ahhhhh!."

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose the /. community sponsor a Bill that would extend this type of criminalization of speech to television & radio!

Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, et al, have caused me severe emotional distress, for the simple fact they exist, let alone that they successfully attract sponsors. What they say is blather, but people repeat it ad nauseum. (Even such "TV Celebrities" as Hannity! Go figure...)

  -- We'd all be better off mute. --

Tired of sitting around

[Daenks]

Lets get into politics! We'll End up DEAD.

Right not to listen

[Roger W Moore]

my right to free speech overrides your right not to be offended by what I say

Better still my right not to have to listen to you means that I don't have to care what you say because if I find it offensive I can ignore it. I wish politicians would take this approach as the sensible alternative to passing ever more restrictive laws.

well said

[circletimessquare]

"I would favor the creation of a subset of the internet where anonymous speech is impossible"

in everyone's life, there are things you want to do anonymously, that you don't want your identity attached to, that you don't want traced back to you. not all of these things are nefarious, hell, some are even virtuous, like voting. but by the same token, there are somethings you have to do in life that you need your identity attached to. getting a paycheck for example

but, as you note, the internet holds us all at ransom because it is easy to be anonymous, but hard, ehll, impossible, to have a real identity

so not a subset, but a separate network, with clearly delineated authority and verification (rather than nameless peering), for these cases in your life where identity is everything

Slashdot is finished

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft can use this law to claim Slashdot is a cyberbully.

This is not directed at little timmy

[alta]

The purpose of this is to keep you from trash talking your beloved government. Who really cares if you hurt some kids feelings online. You can just as easily do it in person, over the phone, or take out a damn newspaper ad.

No, this is to stop disparaging remarks about your beloved government. Now, what happens when you say something negative about your president? What if they have 'emotional distress' because you criticize the spending of 11T?

This marks the end of the end of your ability to disagree publicly with anything the government says are does. Tea Parties, this makes them illegal. You could stretch something like this so far any time you speak out it's illegal.

Obama? Epic Fail.

Why is there not a little (-D) next to her name?

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly, were this little exercise in destroying your Constitutional Rights hatched from the right, you'd see a prominent (-R).

They both do it - maybe for different reasons - but only one gets called out on it.

Silly!

[dbarron]

How would this differ than writing a note on paper ? In theory, it would seem that it's just more widely available than leaving the note at the dinner table (or your office coffee pot).
Absurd!

You're all on notice

[PPH]

Modding me down is a form of hate speech!

until the pertinent terms get re-defined

[Anonymous Coward]

1. stand against targetting one individual

(even if the individual is a group or a corporation, a la Santa Clara Co. vs. Southern Pacific Railroad)

2. over an extended period of time

(which will become shorter and shorter until all bloggers are brought to heel)

3. who is a minor (and the bully is an adult)

(the distinction is pointless, we already try minor murderers and rapists as adults)

4. who is mentally unstable

(hey, aren't we all?)

what ever happened to....

[Ryogo]

Excellent, more rights protected by the constitution are being taken away. but at the same time the freedom of press and right to bear arms would protect blogging. 1st and 2nd amendment protection!

Why..

[Jaysyn]

...do you hate America, Rep. Sanchez?

Trash talk on MMORPG

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you're trash tasking your buddies on your favourite MMORPG, you could be committing a felony if someone logs it all and complains? Com'on. While even if it were truly hostile, it's not nice, but it's not a felony.

5 years ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Western society, the economic fascists and the cultural regressives vote Republican, so until we have a new election system that allows citizens to support a more diverse political policy set, we will continue to exist on a political continuum with the Democrats pulling us away from Fascism and the Republicans pulling us towards it (more state control of the economy and less diverse political opinions available in the media).

The Democrats don't try to legislate what can be broadcast, or debated. And for the most part, they don't need to, because they've chosen the winning side when it comes to the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the Republican party struggles with this, and they've had to largely rely on controlling the mainstream media and the teaching of creationism for indoctrination for the 28 years, but now that they've got solid control of the government back and their opponents on the ropes due to Clinton's blowjob, they're going to use the big bully club of slowly replacing as many justices in the court system to allow them to enforce their illegal laws, on the way to making opposition to their agenda a fringe movement.

NeoCons should hate this...

[Tumbleweed]

The end of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc. Will they finally come to value free speech? I've heard (though not confirmed) that parts of The 700 Club are blacked out in Canada due to hate speech laws. True?

Re:NeoCons should hate this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberals should hate this, no longer being able to single out Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc, targeting them with hate speech for holding non-liberal views...

Double edged sword... remove my right to free speech and you remove your own. Or do you only believe in free speech if it agrees with you?

Bill who?

[Evro]

Bill Gates?

Better be careful

[Roger W Moore]

So you think being an asshole should become a criminal offense?

Pretty much, yes.

You'd better be careful - I find sentiments like that extremely offensive and they cause me substantial emotion upset. If you say that again it will be repeated and so you could go to gaol. Still think that sounds like a good idea?

yes

[circletimessquare]

you can defeat any argument on any topic with mindless negativity

some day you'll figure out that this silly anti-intellectual game is only for high school teenagers, and you'll see the only worthy pursuit for your cognitive efforts is to try to make your own positive arguments yourself, about a subject matter you yourself find passionate cause for

only to be torn down in turn by some other snarky teenager. cynicism and sarcasm may be retarded, but irony is forever

How about...

[Scubafish]

...outlawing actual bullying first, then worrying about the scary tubes?

I dont get why telling someone to drop dead on the internet should be any more traumatic than telling it to their face and in front of the entire classroom.

Federal government, please stay away from my internet!

Cyberbullying

[The Redster!]

Causing psychological harm, impacting academic performance and safety... with a computer.

Why prevent it in a bill? It clearly satisfies the necessary innovation for a PATENT!

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Urza9814]

I think we should seriously design an underground internet, just in case we need it.

You mean like freenet? Or maybe I2P? Although under this law I can see such programs being found illegal...

Isn't this what you asked for?

[mwasham]

All of you lefties want MORE government and MORE statism to regulate everything.. Why are you complaining? Do you think YOU are above being regulated but everyone else isn't? You can't have more government AND more freedom. It just doesn't work that way.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[zifferent]

The Republicans don't try to legislate what can be broadcast, or debated.

What freaking Republican party are you referring to? Not the evangelist, social conservative and restrictive one I know. Look into what happened to the FCC during GWB's terms in office and attempt to say that again with a straight face.

And BTW if the hard Left in America is pushing towards communism (besides a handful of kooks, it isn't) then the Republican party is pushing towards corporate/religious based fascism (not most of them.)

One example would be

[Anonymous Coward]

"Kill that faggot! He raped my son!" in the deep south.

Or scream "kill all humans" while holding a knife.

Shout out "The Star Spangled Banner" (Whitney Houston SuperBowl version) at 3am outside your house.

Say to your daughter when I pass her at night "Nice tits. Do you want to suck my willy?" Especially if she's 6.

I'm sure you can think of some others.

Bullying vs. E-Bullying...One in the same.

[geekmux]

It KILLS me when I read stuff like this. I hate it when someone tries to prepend a word that has been in use both in and out of our legal system for decades now with an "e-" and suddenly it justifies a whole new legal approach to dealing with it. Bullshit.

Lawmakers, listen very carefully. E-bullying is not really any different than bullying. Freedom of Speech is very important and powerful, but it does not excuse one from being responsible or accepting the consequences of their actions from using said Right. Period.

Should I treat the laws you pass any differently if you're "virtually" never physically at work? Perhaps we should, to make a few points loud and clear...

Re:Bullying vs. E-Bullying...One in the same.

[russotto]

Lawmakers, listen very carefully. E-bullying is not really any different than bullying. Freedom of Speech is very important and powerful, but it does not excuse one from being responsible or accepting the consequences of their actions from using said Right. Period.

Then you should be happy with this bill; it simply makes two years in prison the consequences of using said right.

your amendment makes the crime more heinous

[circletimessquare]

the woman and daughter team manipulating and persecuting meier

1. knew she was a minor

2. knew she was mentally unstable

proof of mental instability after the fact is unnecessary

proof of the bully's familiarity with the altered mental state of the bullied is the issue

WARNING: Slashdot will be affected by this bill.

[reporter]

Everyone who supports free speech at places like Slashdot should be alarmed. The bill covers all online media -- including Slashdot.

Take a peek at one particular thread of discussion on Slashdot. Such discussions could lead to criminal prosecution because a few bigots who tend to tag articles as "trolls" (or make false cries of "racism" on reflex) can now file charges against the writers of articles that they dislike. In the event that this bill becomes an actual law, if a bigot does not like what you say in a Slashdot article, that bigot could do far more than (1) falsely call you a racist or (2) tag your article as a troll. The bigot could report you to the police for criminal prosecution. The bigot can claim that he was "hurt" or "injured" by your mere words in the Slashdot article.

Everyone who cares about free speech should immediately contact Senator Joseph Lieberman (and other decent politicians) and tell him to oppose this bill.

Sometimes, the "Democratic Party" and the "Republican Party" seem like 2 different names for the same censorship-prone party.

finally we can put

[nimbius]

an end to that menacing corey doctorow and his inflammatory boinging.

While I can still post this...

[Hellpop]

Fuck No! Don't fuck with my free speech, Mr. Fucking Speaker! You too, Mr. Fucking President!

All the way!

[mangu]

How far does free speech go?

All the way.

The bill restricts itself to situations:

  "with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person"

Hmmm, right, to "cause substantial emotional distress to a person", eh?

The simple fact that someone could propose such a bullshit law causes substantial emotional distress to a person, namely me. I feel coerced, intimidated, harassed.

This cannot go on. Please, arrest Rep. Linda T. Sanchez at once!

Works well against a suicide bomber

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do it, we will jail you afterwards.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[DerekLyons]

No, he doesn't. Like 'police state', they're just words he's heard around the blogosphere and parrots without any understanding whatsoever.

Democratic Criticism / Lawyers may be the problem

[weston]

The idea that the Democratic party doesn't receive criticism on civil liberties issues is pretty ridiculous. The party gets a lot of criticism from within its own ranks: see the heat generated on Obama's FISA positions as a recent example. And that's before you start in on the *partisan* criticism.

If you're asking why their general reputation isn't as bad, it probably has a lot to do with (a) Democrats tend to at least give lip service to the idea that security issues should be balanced with concerns about civil liberties, whereas Republicans tend to accuse you of being weak, soft, and/or traiterous in response to such suggestions and (b) Republicans led the recent and concrete charge to scale back civil liberties post 9/11, whereas Democrats only more or less went along. These aren't absolute statements; there's variation, but as party-wide generalizations, they function more or less.

Anyway, this is all beside the point I'd really like to make, which is that I don't see this kind of legislation as a partisan problem. Personally, I think that the larger problem is that congress is largely made of lawyers. Cyber-bullying (and bullying in general) is certainly a problem, but it sounds like this is a solution only a lawyer could love. Not surprisingly, Rep Sanchez's background is.... law. Probably in no small part because this is the instrument she's familiar with for addressing social problems.

Of course, this is going to be a problem for anybody who ends up spending appreciable time as a legislator, given that's how legislators solve problems too. However, I sometimes wonder what would happen if more legislators had backgrounds and real domain knowledge outside of law. Would someone with a serious background in social psychology really support an idea like this? How someone with a more practical bent, like a plumber or even a teacher who gets to see these problems play out in our schools? They might face the same temptation all legislators and office holders face -- to do "something" -- but their background/perspective might inspire either restraint or policy that doesn't involve criminalization.

For that reason, I've considered changing my voting habits away from political alignment and policy positions and towards domain knowledge. The problem, however, is that it's very difficult to even find *candidates* who don't come from a legal background (and the majority of the rest who do often seem to be suits of some other kind who don't seem to present much domain knowledge outside of business management...)

This bill does not go far enough.

[Doug52392]

I, for one, am quite happy to see the the brilliant people we elect into the United States Congress are finally stepping up and protecting our children from the Internet. However, this bill does -not- go far enough.

I'm all for destroying the very principals this great country was founded on in the name of "PROTECTING THE CHILDREN", but if we're going to start out slow and weak like this, it'll take decades to make sure our government takes over the role of a parent to America's youth and keeps their minds protected.

Which is why I am writing to my Congressman and proposing that we create a new bill that goes something like this (Changes are marked by bold words):

`Sec. 881. Bullying

            `(a) Whoever transmits in local, interstate, or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using any 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 any transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content or audible words of the information as sent and received; and

                        `(2) the term `any means' means anything dependent on any form of energy to communicate, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, text messages, talking, speaking, yelling, writing, publishing, or signaling'.

            (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. Bullying.'.

There, now the children can finally be safe in a perfect world - something parents fail to do, apparently.

Oops, it seems that I have just caused "severe emotional distress" to parents due to my last statement.

hilarious

[circletimessquare]

loopholes, extenuating circumstances, are the substance of every legal and moral code in the world

1. don't murder (unless someone is about to murder you)

2. you have free speech (you can't shout fire in a crowded theater)

etc.

for every single moral or legal stricture you could ever demonstrate to me, there exists extenuating circumstances which limits the validity of that law or code. the same would apply to any law on cyberbullying, obviously. anyone intellectually honest knows this. they know this about every law that has ever existed

but you wish to say, because defining cyberbullying has gray areas, that there can be no definition of it at all. well, i say to you, free speech itself has gray areas... so no one should have free speech. this line of reasoning, of course, is bullshit. you deserve and should have free speech. i'm just demonstrating to you the rationale you put forth for oppositing the definiing of cyberbullying is likewise pure bullshit

the existence of gray areas in any law or moral code is no argument against making the law or moral code in the first place. because every single law or moral code has a gray area. most of morality and law, in fact, is nothing more than the further accretion of words defining and partitioning smaller and smaller slices of gray areas which were previously undefined and unaddressed. like cyberbullying, for example

Re:hilarious

[Dhalka226]

I think he was right about the problems with your four point proposal, but he used relatively lame examples of why they're a problem. For disclosure's sake, I think the situation with Megan was absolutely horrible, but I'm not the kind out calling for laws to address it. I think it could be well handled with a wrongful death lawsuit that she would almost certainly win. So that said:

Point #1 is fine. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. Even point #2 is fine; it's ambiguous, but certainly something that can be left to a jury's discretion--or hell, just go ahead and define it.

It breaks down at point #3 for me though. If we're saying that this type of harassment is wrong, to the point it should be illegal, than I don't care at all if it's an adult harassing an adult, a child harassing an adult, or most likely and worst yet, a child harassing a child. I recall reading a story on CNN just a few days ago where some very young kid--about 10 or so I think--was constantly getting calling gay at school. The administration didn't do anything about it specifically, and it was at a school that was considered to have a great anti-bullying program. He got tired of it and he hung himself. If you don't think a child can hurt a child as much as an adult can, you're wrong. If you're claiming they shouldn't be held accountable for that... well, it's a valid position, but I'm going to disagree. And going out on a limb, I'd suggest that most people who would support some sort of anti-harassment law like this or like what you're proposing would disagree with you as well. If the goal is to redirect them to something more well-defined so they don't go crazy over free speech rights, I think it's already broken down.

Point #4 completely makes your proposal useless. In addition to a lack of definition, the more important thing is a nearly impossible situation of somebody having to know that a person is mentally unstable, or it essentially being gross negligence on their part that they didn't know. It's crazy; I would pretty much never vote to convict anybody under a law like this. Knowing somebody was mentally ill is fairly easy, I suppose, once they've killed themselves. It's much harder to know or even suspect before that, particularly if you're just some other kid's parent who doesn't even really know the person you're harassing personally. Or if you're doing it over the Internet to somebody who doesn't even live anywhere near you. I also think it's a rather superficial distinction. Harassment is wrong or it's not; it's illegal or it's not. It shouldn't be illegal based on who you're mean to.

If you're trying to hand-waive to distract people calling for these laws from running roughshod over your rights, you might succeed. If you're legitimately trying to address their concerns I think you've painted them entirely too narrowly.

Correction to the Classic Ploy - Singular.

[geekmux]

I love how the bill starts with the classic, "for the children" clauses to rationalize the trampling of the bill of rights.

Yes, the bill does seem to start that way, but this all seems to stem from a singular act by whom the Bill is named after, which basically is equal to destroying the 2nd Amendment because ONE person was accidentally shot.

I'm not trying to take away from the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the issue that this Bill was based on, but quite frankly, our Bill of Rights should make way for NO one man or woman, regardless of the situation.

I also found it rather ironic that the "findings" related to this Bill could just about be dismissed 100% with some GOOD parenting instead of relying upon draconian laws to "help" police our children. There's danger everywhere in this world, not just on the damn Internet. Lawmakers, quit using this cybershit as your e-scapegoat.

Re:Correction to the Classic Ploy - Singular.

[clone53421]

the "findings" related to this Bill could just about be dismissed 100% with some GOOD parenting instead of relying upon draconian laws to "help" police our children

QUIET, YOU! We'll have no parental responsibility here! That's the government's job.

Higher standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually yes, the Republicans do have a slightly higher standard. When a Congresscritter (R) is indicted they are expected to resign committee chairs etc. and possibly even resign their office. When a Congresscritter(D) is indicted, they go on the attack and claim they were framed by partisian interests.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[dwiget001]

Well, others should have been screaming this for the past (roughly) 80 years!

Disorderly Conduct on the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

iF I WASnt paranoid enough, now by P.O. can bust me on my facebook

Big Red Flag

[cyberchondriac]

To me, the most obvious and glaring evil in this bill is that, on the face of it, it talks of cyberbullying children, yet the actual text of the bill states nothing of age restrictions, but simply says "Whoever". There are no restrictions of any kind, no context given. It is so overly broad it's downright scary.
As written, this is nothing less than criminal in it's own right, a very transparent grab for more governmental power and control over the people.
Even then, I don't understand how "cyberbullying" is any worse than the old fashioned bullying I sometimes endured in school when I was a kid.
How is cyberbullying so much worse? You can't hit someone over the Internet. Rumors and lies can still be spread about you by word of mouth as well as electronic media, and that's already covered by slander laws. For that matter, we already have existing libel laws too. There is absolutely no need for new, invasive and sweeping legislation like this.
People are wondering why anyone would even attempt such a bill, knowing it should fall flat on it's face, ultimtately. Perhaps party politics is at work. One party can often point the finger at the other for failing to support a bill which, devoid of all detail, overall sounds to constituents like a "good" thing, and then this is used to smear the opposition. Since the Bill is graced with the name of a real child in order to evoke sympathy and a more powerful emotional response, I tend to think this is likely. Pass or not, for "Dirty Sanchez", it's win-win.

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.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[averner]

The Republicans don't try to legislate what can be broadcast, or debated.

What freaking Republican party are you referring to?

Ron Paul maybe?

obviously

[circletimessquare]

the bill is obviously wrong

you completely miss my argument. i am not supporting the bill. i am supporting the rightful creation of an anti-cyberbullying statute, IF, and only IF it meets the tests i list

its not like this bill will fail (and it should fail) and no one will ever be cyberbullied again, or that no one will ever try to pass a cyberbullying bill again. the question is, can we pass the bill in such a way that it addresses everyone's concerns? and then this issue can be put to bed, and no further bullshit overly broad challenges from the realm of concern over cyberbullying should appear again

its not like you defeat this bill, and people suddenly stop caring about cyberbullying. you see that, right? so how can we get people who care about cyberbullying (rightfully) satisfied without hurting free speech?

The Tyranny of the Easily Offended

[Nom du Keyboard]

This is a really stupid idea to cement the power of Tyranny of the Easily Offended, in the same way Feminism was in good part a way to move less-attractive women into the mainstream. Everybody is offended by something so anything you write will fall afoul of this really stupid idea.

The world does not come with bumpers, training wheels, automatic sensitivity, and no sharp objects. You will be offended, hurt, angry, and in tears, about things you encounter along the way. That's the way the world is. Rather than trying to change the Universe, why not just learn to deal with it?

Of course this puts all the sensitivity trainers and those who benefit from itout of business -- but this would be a Good Thing!

So..

[moniker127]

In the great, mighty US&A, you can say anything you want to anyone at anytime- except:

-if its in a church
-if it is opposed to the government
-if it contains one of an undefined list of "naughty words"
-if it is not true, and is about a company
-if it is not true and it is about a person
-if it makes someone sad.

Freedom is great aint it?

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[dwiget001]

Bzzzzzt! Wrong!

U.S. Presidential Election Results, 2008:

Barak Obama, 69,456,897 votes, 52.92%
John McCain, 59,934,814 votes, 45.66%

Barak barely got a majority of the votes, and, as you can see, there was only a 7.26 percent difference.

And, I might point out, that almost half those voting **did not** vote for Obama. Funny, huh?

Next time you go off, might wanna get your facts straight first. I'm just sayin'.

What if we did the opposite

[quickpick]

Rather than try to police bullies lets develop counters for them. Comebacks 101 - How to think fast and make the bully look like a total idiot. For example a few lines from that movie about those two dudes who were out for some tiny burgers:
Harold: Back off cock boy, what I said him goes double for you.
J.D.: Cock boy? You just call me cock boy?
Harold: Yeah, you know I did. You're just stalling 'cause you're not quick enough to think of a comeback.
J.D.: You think I'm not quick enough. Guy thinks I'm not quick enough. Well I got news for you. I am quick enough... Cock boy!

Wouldn't this make all political ads illegal?

[WeezulDK]

I think this could be also applied to those "paid for" political ads that attack politicians based on any reason. Maybe this would be a potential weapon for any member of a political party to use against their competition? I mean, look at the possibilities, they are designed to be repeatedly broadcast to spread their messages that offend or intentionally cause "harm" to the politician described within, right? "Don't vote for Bob Everyman, he's a right wing Republican" might offend Bob because he felt he was a middle of the road Republican? How about bloggers that were saying stupid things about Bush, like "he hates black people." This law is so overly broad you could orbit the sun through the loopholes.

Congress has abdicated its responsibilties

[scorp1us]

There has been a disturbing shift in congress that has happened over the past oh, century or so. Though, I am not naive enough to think its only recent. Its just that now, it is rampant.

There was a time when congress acted responsibly, and I mean by that that they cared about the laws they passed. They worried about things like constitutionality, and if they had the authority to even pass such laws. But circa WWII, I've noticed a change that in mentality that says "let the courts sort it out". While it is is in the jurisdiction of the courts to sort it out, the courts are meant to be our last line of defense from oppressive laws. Not the first. The legislative branches have turned into bill factories pushing out bills as fast as they can be voted on them. The measure of government isn't how many bills it can pass.

I cannot believe that a member of congress, who believes in the constitution, would ever introduce legislation so patently contradictory to any right in the Bill of Rights. This should be grounds for impeachment as far as I am concerned...

This is an outrage!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an outrage! I'm soooo blogging about this and about the ineptitude, corrupt, infantile and unconstitutional tactics of these 14 congresspersons everyday repeatedly until this bill is dead!

sorry, had to do it :p

On a serious note.... what a bunch of wussies! What? Did someone blog about their bad hair do and they didn't like t?

And MS have the money and lawyers

[bdwoolman]

to prove it. IANAL but it seems to me to be very unwise to criminalize any form of speech (with the obvious exception of dangerous hoaxing ). Kids are cruel to each other. We do not need to criminalize; we need to humanize. However, cyber bullies and their parents can be sued into penury if it goes too far. There is plenty of existing case law to protect people from calumny and defamation and liable. A cyber bully attack leaves so much text evidence as opposed to old fashioned playground bullying. This kind of behavior is already a tort in the extreme. Who needs another law. It is a stupid impulse and counter productive to criminalize anti social or maladaptive behavior. Look how much good it has done us with drugs..

Kids kill themselves for LOTS of reasons

[erroneus]

Such reasons include being dumped or turned down by someone, being publicly humiliated, being gay, desperately seeking attention of their parents, didn't make the team, didn't pass the test, lost the big game, lost virginity to a liar, can't seem to lose enough weight, don't have the right hair, eyes, ears, nose, chin, teeth, skin...

There are lots of reasons that children find themselves in situations so dire they believe that death is the best way out. We aren't outlawing current marketing and media even though that is a HUGE contributor to the problem. In the end, it would be nice if kids had parents that loved them, cared for them and knew them well enough to know when something was wrong, but those are the children of children who had problems, so you can't expect that much from them I am afraid.

I find it amazing that people today don't think far enough in advance to even predict the outcome of a tic-tac-toe game.

Re:Kids kill themselves for LOTS of reasons

[speedtux]

The Evangelical Christians have the "being gay" thing all figured out already--they'll just make it illegal, then kids can't be gay anymore and won't kill themselves anymore. But we still need laws against bad hair days.

why do you think this solves the problem?

[circletimessquare]

allegory:

someone hits my kid with a car. the existence of me, the parent/ guardian, was supposed to protect my kid from being hit by a car?

are you suggesting that just because someone has a parent/ guardian they are protected from cyberbullying? the wisest parenting, in fact, suggests that teenage children need their own private social space in which to develop their own identity. that, as a rule of good parenting, a good parent should butt out of micromanaging a child's online social life

i really don't understand what you are trying to say, or why you think a parent/ guardian somehow protects form cyberbullying

Re:why do you think this solves the problem?

[Maximum Prophet]

You're supposed to raise your kids to minimize the chance of getting hit by a car.

the wisest parenting, in fact, suggests that teenage children need their own private social space in which to develop their own identity.

That for normal, well adjusted kids. If your kid has a mental illness, yes, take away the computer, take away TV, take away any reading material that might send her over the edge. Worst case scenario, commit your child *before* she offs herself. Suicidal people are a special case, and the rest of society shouldn't have to adjust, just because some people are unstable.

Re:why do you think this solves the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your kid has a mental illness, yes, take away the computer, take away TV, take away any reading material that might send her over the edge.

Yeah, that's right, take away any entertainment, outside contact, distraction etc. Sounds ideal, if you actually want to make sure they kill themselves immediately.

Re:why do you think this solves the problem?

[clone53421]

allegory:

someone hits my kid with a car. the existence of me, the parent/ guardian, was supposed to protect my kid from being hit by a car?

If your kid got hit because he was playing in the street, then yeah, your existence was supposed to prevent that.

So teach your kid to be sensible online and to ignore morons who harass them. It's easy enough to block them. Furthermore, "GET HELP" should come long before "kill yourself".

I disagree with that

[jonaskoelker]

Words are words, by themselves incapable of causing harm

Five words: "driven to suicide by bullying".

For instance, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2133486.stm

The utterance of words didn't kill him directly, but they did cause his death.

See also false advertisement, breach of orally formed contract and one of {libel, slander}.

True, words by themselves don't do any harm. But we live in a world where things that aren't words exist too. Guns by themselves don't kill people, but please don't point any in my direction, thank you.

"because frankly, the headline sucks"

[Anonymous Coward]

The headline was written by kdawson. He has an obvious agenda to push. What do you expect?

Oh noes!!!

[twoshoes]

Oh Noes!! A young cute white Girl died for some reason - MAKE A NEW LAW!!!

"suddenly you committed a felony"

[Animaether]

"Severe is a subjective word with no definition, which is exactly the problem with this. Severe is akin to "I don't like you, thus I find your content objectionable" and suddenly you committed a felony"

yes.. except for that pesky indictment thing, court proceedings if the judge doesn't throw it out before it even gets that far, etc.

Re:"suddenly you committed a felony"

[Headcase88]

So you have no idea what you're allowed to write and what will or will not get accepted or thrown out by any of thousands of judges that may or may not be presiding your case. Much better.

Overly snarky, yes. But you see what I mean. Some old judge might read over this post five years from now and say "too much snark. Severe. you're going away for life, son."

(Except the maximum charge is less than life, and I live in Canada)

terrible idea

[DragonTHC]

first, Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech [...].

Severe, repeated, and/or hostile speech is free.

Sorry congress, You shall make NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

WOOSH

[Sir_Lewk]

It's called sarcasm and hyperbole son.

mod parent insightful

[Reziac]

...cuz that's as true a statement as I've read all day.

This garbage kills me

[DesertWolf0132]

The author of the bill has what she believes to be a noble cause. On its surface, stopping cyber-bullying is truly a noble and lofty goal. The problem that emerges from doing it in function is in making a law broad enough to stop it, you also stifle legitimate speech.

Imagine M$ lawyers construing our legitimate criticisms as abuse under this law. As the law treats corporations legally as non-human persons they are granted equal protection. While the suit would never stand, free speech would be stifled at the mere threat of a suit.

In the end, kids will always be bullies or bullied. Whether online or in person, bullies are only given power when we pay attention to them. Rep. Sanchez, as much as I am for protecting children, it would be a bigger injustice to not protect the most sacred right in a free state.

knee jerk reaction

[speedtux]

Based on what I could find out about the case, Megan Meier was a disturbed girl, on several drugs, from a disturbed family. That other woman was mean to her, but I think what happened was her mother's responsibility.

(mod parent up)

[SlowMovingTarget]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

The primary conservative argument against formally recognized "gay marriage" is that the kind of government conservatives desire has no place defining marriage.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from South America, you insensitive clod!

if what i say is already covered

[circletimessquare]

then thank you for furthering my argument against the previous poster

as for the rest of your thread jack into subject matter i was not talking about, well, enjoy your threadjack. you're changing the subject into different territory, not refuting what i say

Re:if what i say is already covered

[KiltedKnight]

And yet you're missing out entirely on the whole thing. This law, if crafted correctly, could outlaw blogs that try to refute arguments given by politicians, etc, on the grounds that they are "harassment." Step back and look at the whole forest, not just the trees in front of you.

"OF COURSE that's not what you meant"

[circletimessquare]

then you have no real argument

you are divorcing the law from what the intent of the law is supposed to be. if you do that, no law, proposed or already in effect, has much meaning, and can be reinterpretted in all sorts of retarded ways

that a law can be twisted into some other meaning that has nothing to do with its obvious intention is not a good argument against passing a law. all laws are subject to this fear. all you have is fear of laws being twisted. well, if the apparatus for enforcing laws is that screwed up, you have problems way way worse than well-intentioned but boradly phrased laws. i woudl suggest to you however than the apparatus for enforcing laws is not malicious as you seem to think it is. so stop being fearful: if a law is well stated and well limited, then support it. baseless fears of bad misinterpration are not good enough to oppose a law

Re:"OF COURSE that's not what you meant"

[DutchUncle]

you are divorcing the law from what the intent of the law is supposed to be. ...

that a law can be twisted into some other meaning that has nothing to do with its obvious intention is not a good argument against passing a law.

A knife can be used for good or ill. The surgeon's scalpel has a small precise blade and a secure handle; the chef's knife may be larger and more dangerous but still has a secure handle. What I see of this bill is so broadly worded as to be all blade and no handle, likely to do as much damage on the wrong side as the right.

Legal wordings are twisted all the time. It's part of what lawyers do for a living. Look at the laws about "privacy" that actually define how UN-private your information can be. Look at the debates about misleading wording of ballot initiatives so that one has to vote "no" to mean "yes". Look at the US Supreme Court cases that debate the meaning of words, or the Canadian case that turned on the precise location of a comma. Consider how many legends and fables in multiple cultures depend on the EXACT wording of a pledge, or spell, or command.

Good intent must be followed with clear and precise wording, and I don't see that here. Not yet, at least.

Re:"OF COURSE that's not what you meant"

[DutchUncle]

On twisting words into "nothing to do with its obvious intention": apparently intentions are not so obvious. See http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/2117205&art_pos=17 for a brand new example of two opposite opinions on the wording of a single contract.

"... non-competes hamper a person's ability to traverse the marketplace freely for work, ... [or] the agreements actually afford freedom to develop technology without the fear of IP theft." (Unless maybe the intent is to protect the company at the expense of the individual, in which case they're in complete agreement...)

what is "this law" that you refer to

[circletimessquare]

certainly its not the limited law i outlined in my initial post

some sort of other law you are talking about, having nothing whatsoever to do with what i am talking about, limiting blogs for political content, is of course as bad as it gets. we're talking egypt, china, iran, etc. therefore, i am confident this law would be defeated, since it goes against the obvious spirit of obvious tenets of the principle foundations of this country

so stop proceeding on fear. the other people around you understand the idea of free speech and why its important. you meanwhile act as if you are the only person who understands the concept, and everything is in grave danger. its not. your style of thinking on the issue is called hysteria. relax. one tiny idiotic law is not going to change the entire character of the country

Re:what is "this law" that you refer to

[KiltedKnight]

I proceed from fear because I rightfully fear what the government can and will do in order to protect the incumbents and from the shiftiness of lawyers. You proceed from a lack of fear and a trust that people will just do what's right. Guess who's going to be right in the long run. It most certainly won't be you. Wasn't it Franklin Roosevelt who once said, "Everyone's rights can be taken away if you do it slowly enough"?

i stopped reading here:

[circletimessquare]

"For disclosure's sake, I think the situation with Megan was absolutely horrible, but I'm not the kind out calling for laws to address it"

the only thing that motivates any law in this world is a sense of justice. surely meier's case is a grace injustice and novel legal territory. it is the very definition of a case which cries out for new law

you need to understand that, and someone needs to begin crafting the specific, limiting terminology that defines the meier case. because if someone with concern for free speech doesn't do that, someone else will propose a law that is flawed and too broad

but simply stating "no new law need apply" goes against the spirit of what moves any society to ever make laws in the first place: the desire to right an outrageous injustice. only in the movies can you go "these are not the droids you are looking for" and people's minds go blank and the subject changes. that doesn't work in the real world

you can't simply wave your hand and people will suddenly stop caring about the meier case or stop trying to make laws to counter such heinous cyberbullying. and meier's case will most certainly not be the last such case of such an injustice, thereby renewing the wellspring of concern and passion to fashion new law

so make peace with the fact new law must be created, and get to work crafting the specific and limiting terminology, so free speech is not trampled

or don't, and live in denial, and bad overly broad law will come forth instead. your choice. "bad new law" or "good new law" are your choices. "no new law" is not a choice that's going to happen if you understand anything of what motivates people to write law in the first place

Re:i stopped reading here:

[Stiletto]

or don't, and live in denial, and bad overly broad law will come forth instead. your choice. "bad new law" or "good new law" are your choices. "no new law" is not a choice that's going to happen if you understand anything of what motivates people to write law in the first place

I'm not satisfied with having to choose between a strong poison and a weak poison.

Fortunately, we have the Constitution to limit the mentality that always responds to a perceived injustice with "OMG WRITE A LAW!"

"No new law" is always a choice, and it what will eventually happen if both other choices are found to be in violation of the Constitution.

First tired response

[BloodyIron]

I'm tired from work, my first response was... "Mr gates thinks my blog is a weapon?"

I need more sleep...

Obama would veto the crap out of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it would pass with a majority of anything to begin with.

you ask if i am freaking stupid

[circletimessquare]

i would in fact be incredibly freaking stupid if i was saying what you seem to think i am saying. but you are really reacting to a position which only exists in your mind, and certainly doesn't exist in anything i wrote

so it would help if in discussing subject matter you could stay on topic, and react to what someone is actually saying, rather than fear-addled hysterical notions that only exist in your mind about what someone is saying

you are confusing multiple issues on multiple levels. work clearly through the frustrated ball of issues you are presenting, focus clearly on what i am saying and what i am not saying, then rephrase accordingly. good luck kid

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Anonymous Coward]

On Apr 16 Obama said he didn't even know that there were tea parties going on. Tea party's don't do jack.

Censorship ???

[Defectuous]

If I read this right(could be wrong), I beleive this could be a tool used to censor those who do not feel/beleive the same as those in power.

No.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - U.S. Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis [emphasis mine]

Re:No.

[Reziac]

So what would you do instead? Since it seems our great lack at the moment is some check on the making of new *unconstitutional* law by our own Congress.

Re:No.

[Jane Q. Public]

Just what GP suggested: making the proposal and support of bills (for Congress and Executive) that are deemed unconstitutional a criminal offense.

Of course, many laws would not be ruled unconstitutional until much later... but that is part of the beauty of it. You can be very sure that the number of bills that MIGHT be considered unconstitutional would drop to near zero. Just as it should be.

Re:No.

[Reziac]

That's so, but zero tolerance has not been a good policy elsewhere, since people DO make mistakes, and congresscritters weren't any more perfect than the rest of us, last I checked.

Re:No.

[Jane Q. Public]

It isn't "zero tolerance". Like all crimes, they would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is nothing unfair about it, as there often is with "zero tolerance policies". What it is, instead, is a "result of zero". There is a very big difference.

And they would be VERY strongly motivated to not make such "mistakes". For a change.

4chan?

[Philip K Dickhead]

It's now a weapon!

http://www.4chan.org/

How do we weaponise Slashdot? More Goatse.cx? How about 2girls1cup? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43W_hZReU4I

Re:4chan?

[Anonymous Coward]

/b/ has been DDoSed out of existence since about last Saturday (in fact, the entire 4chan site was down for a while). I personally suspect this partially explains the unusual amount of trolling going on here. Well, that, and this absurd law which is just begging to be trolled in an offensive and repetitive fashion.

In California

[SlashDev]

From what I understand (lawyer please confirm this), if you are in your house or yard, you can yell, scream and call anyone by any name. Once you step into public property (street or park), you can get prosecuted. Now all we have to do is determine if one's blog is their own property (or realm) or is considered a public realm.

I'm cool, this doesn't effect me.

[Aphoxema]

This doesn't bother me at all. I'm always really polite and I never try to hurt anyone and I never, ever hold grudges or harass people anonymously.

YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF FUCKING ASSHOLES FOR MODDING ME DOWN SO MANY TIMES.

I also like puppy dogs and rainbows, and cute things and stuff.

I HOPE YOU ALL FEEL TERRIBLE FOR BEING A BUNCH OF MEANIES.

Simple Solution

[Aaul]

There's a simple solution to all these nonsense bills that keep coming up... in 2010 we vote every last incumbent out of office, and start demanding term limits be implemented for all public offices (the Senate and House especially). When the allure of a life long career as a politician is taken away, these positions might actually start attracting people who are interested in protecting the Constitution rather than those who are interested in doing whatever they can to stay in power, including trampling over our rights.

Name That Party!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Republicans were the enemies of freedom of speech etc.... but this Little dictator is a Democrat.

democrats democrats democrats!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

that's right fuckers. the democrats are just as much a bunch of nazis as the republicans. let's see it in the blurb! put the truth out there! stop using blind pride in your little party as a reason to hide the truth!

Look on the bright side...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Bill passes, we can test its constitutionality by prosecuting Rep. Sanchez and colleagues under the Bill itself.

I know I personally find it "'severe, repeated, and hostile' speech.", and judging from _most_ of the other comments here, we are not alone.

Reverse it, please...

[Anonymous Coward]

I declare my gun to be my social commentary to the world on the sad state of affairs to which our society has sunk, where I must defend myself from both personal harm by thugs and from political tyranny by governments.

So let it be written...

Attention friendly American nerds!

[noz]

You should be paying more attention to the frequency of articles tagged `!freedom' and `!liberty'.

It's really not complicated

[fnj]

To answer your question, the line is drawn where the Constitution draws it. The Constitution is the authority for the law of the land. The second amendment is there. If you don't like it, try to amend the amendment. As long as it is there, it means what it says.

The second amendment probably requires clarification and limitation, most particularly in an era of WMD. You can't do this in a law because you can't negate the Constitution by mere law.

Re:It's really not complicated

[paazin]

That's not really an answer - the amendment has been interpreted through the years as from what the initial intent was, not whatever one could imagine from the wording itself.

Certainly Madison when he penned them didn't intend that a private citizen raise several dozen regiments of canon and horse, men-of-war and do with them what he saw fit and damn everyone else.

Re:It's really not complicated

[Shakrai]

Certainly Madison when he penned them didn't intend that a private citizen raise several dozen regiments of canon and horse, men-of-war and do with them what he saw fit and damn everyone else.

Why do you make the leap from 'several dozen regiments of canon and horse, men-of-war' to 'do with them what he saw fit'? The 2nd amendment has never given you the right to do with your arms 'what you see fit'. The fact that you have the right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that you have the right to use them against me when I cut you off in traffic.

We could debate the merits of privately owned men-of-war and the meaning of the 2nd amendment until the cows come home but you are operating under a false assumption if you think those of us who support the 2nd amendment also think that gives us the right to do whatever the hell we want. It gives us the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't give us the right to use them as we see fit. I don't see any way you can read the language of the amendment and draw that conclusion.

Typical reactionary lawmaking

[RogueWarrior65]

Figures a twit like Sanchez would pull something like this after engineering her own election. But I digress.

To blame a blog for Megan Meier's death is no different than blaming a bar owned for a drunk driver's death. Nobody forced her to read it. Nobody forced her to keep reading it. Quite frankly, I blame the parents for being that frackin' clueless about their daughter.

But as with most far-reaching legislation, protecting the poster-child is not the goal. The goal is to increase power and control over people. With gun-control, "protecting the innocent children" is the misdirection when the real goal is all out disarming of the people who will then be easily controlled. The Nazi's first started with registration. Once everyone dutifully followed the law and registered, they knew exactly where they were and who had them so they could confiscate them once private ownership of guns was outlawed. Remember, boys and girls, Adolf Hitler was ELECTED by the people of Germany. There wasn't a coup or similar blunt tactic. Witness Hugo Chavez cleverly guaranteeing that he will be in power for life. "Oh, but they'll just vote him out." Yeah right. In recent memory, there were cases of opposition votes against dictators being thrown in the trash. "Look! He won by a landslide." "What are all these ballots in this warehouse?" *blam* "Unidentified opposition supporters were horribly burned to death in a warehouse fire. The fire is reported to have been due to natural causes."

Here we have a bill that purports to protect the children yet has the power to imprison ANY speech 'they' (that would be the royal 'they') deem dangerous or subversive. The sheep will say "oh, that's good idea...we have to keep another Megan Meier from happening." And then they'll find themselves dragged off in the middle of the night to a gulag because they spoke ill of Obama and years later they will wonder how it all happened. (source: a relative who grew up in Stalinist Russia and witnessed it firsthand).

If nothing else, remember this: The Second Amendment is the last hope for protecting all of the others.

cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

when everybody blames China blames themselves 1st
hahahaha XD

MOD PARENT WHACKJOB!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's ranting and lacks any understanding of what he is saying.

Some states aready have those laws

[parawing742]

Michigan state has already enacted nearly this same law. I know, because I got felony charges for it back in 2007 after petitioning digg users to help recover some expensive stolen property.

The story here:
http://rudygreene.blogspot.com/

Michigan law here:
(Public Act 475 of 2000). (That Act, which will take effect on April 1, 2001, prohibits a person from posting a message through any medium of communication, including the Internet, if the person knows that posting the message could cause two or more "separate noncontinuous acts of unconsented contact with the victim"; if posting the message is intended to cause conduct that would make the victim feel frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested; if conduct arising from the posting would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and to feel frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested; or if conduct arising from the posting causes the victim to suffer emotional distress and to feel frightened, intimidated, etc. Enhanced penalties apply under certain aggravating circumstances, e.g., posting the message is in violation of a condition of probation or parole, or results in the communication of a credible threat to the victim.)

Re:Democratic Criticism / Lawyers may be the probl

[Shakrai]

Democrats tend to at least give lip service to the idea that security issues should be balanced with concerns about civil liberties

Unless the security issue in question relates to gun violence, in which case the civil liberty of gun ownership is obsolete and only referred to a collective right anyway.....

And yes, I know there are Democrats who are opposed to gun control, but the power center of the party is the urban liberal base and they don't even bother to pay lip service to the 2nd amendment. If you doubt this then go find out what it takes to own a firearm in Chicago (fat chance), New York City (fat chance unless you are rich/well connected) or San Francisco (until recently you forfeited your right to own a gun if you lived in public housing).

whereas Republicans tend to accuse you of being weak, soft, and/or traiterous in response to such suggestions

So what? You are talking about politics. Both sides do it. The Democrats accuse anyone who questions the wisdom of gun control of not caring about the victims of crime. They accuse anyone who talks about entitlement reform of wanting to throw the elderly and/or poor out on the street. They accuse anyone who is against the Detroit bailouts of being anti-union. From where I sit they really aren't any better than the Republicans.

Republicans led the recent and concrete charge to scale back civil liberties post 9/11

And Democrats led the charge in the 90s to scale back civil liberties related to gun ownership (Clinton gun ban) and free speech (Communications Decency Act). The Democrats are the ones who allowed the FISA reform to get through Congress. Please tell me why they don't deserve my scorn.

Personally, I think that the larger problem is that congress is largely made of lawyers

Well, at least you said one thing I can agree with :)

Why is a blog different?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this bill truly "would criminalize a wide range of speech protected by the First Amendment" it would be null and void as Congress can't pass a law in violation of the US Constitution, which makes your statement self-contradicting. However you feel about this bill please show some balanced reporting.

Representative Linda Sanchez must feel that the speech her bill would curtail would be the equivalent of screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater and as such is not protected. I agree with you that this is a bad bill as it could be misused; but I don't believe that writing in a blog should be any more protected than words in a newspaper or the spoken word.

time to replace those cowards?

[Anonymous Coward]

those guys just do not have anything real to do? and you wonder why your property tax is so high? just look around... I say fire those fuck instantly

Do they even think of thinking?

[LostMyBeaver]

Seriously, this is the worst bill I have ever seen proposed. I mean, while we're at it, let's make a law that requires us to cane women to death in the streets because we suspect they might have had impure thoughts.

I seriously would say a lot of mean and hateful things about this useless abuser of our collective oxygen resources, but I'm sure that under this bill she would be able to have me put in prison for it.

mudslinging

[initialE]

I think the next election is going to be hilarious, if all that mudslinging was illegal. Won't it be fun to watch your favorite politicians get hauled off to jail?

I wonder when that will be valid in forums...

[master_p]

...because in forums most people frequently have heated discussions. If we are not allowed to say the hard stuff in blogs, pretty soon we would not be allowed to say the hard stuff in forums as well...or any other place online in the end.

So... kind of like banning unnopened letters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have these politicians not noticed that you are never FORCED to read anything on the internet? If somebody is IMing me, I can close the window. If I get a message in my inbox, I don't have to read it, and I can delete it whenever.

This is like censoring books for fear that if anybody CHOSE to read them they may be offended.

Censor this assholes: FUCK YOU!

OR if they are mentally unstable?

[ZmeiGorynych]

Hey, so getting on an adult's nerves should also be a crime if said adult is mentally unstable? That _really_ opens the floodgates, given that 'mentally unstable' is about as imprecise a term as it gets.

If the adult in question is a public official, not hard to think of examples at all, where you keep criticising how they do their job and they take it personally.

Not that I think there should be a law against the original Megan Meier situation either, but I can see how people could disagree there - but this seems a pretty clearcut bad idea.

do we have to

[KingBenny]

wait until al hippies are extinct ? This is getting a serious problem. First i thought it was only the retarded moral majority in America but nowadays in Europe as well more and more voices are heard (apparently they all come from one generation on the brink of extinction) to 'limit' free speech. I will not have it ... you have the right to say whatever you want, if that makes you look like an idiot, then that's your right too ... Does anyone still know George Orwell?

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Mutant321]

What does socialism have to do with authoritarianism? Just because the communists operated under a banner of socialism, doesn't mean their authoritarian practices had anything to do with it.

See Politcal Compass for more.

(That said, I agree totally with your fears of power grabs by governments around the world, and the need for us to do something about it).

Proposed soundbite

[mariox19]

I've been saying something similar for a long while, and would love to see the phrase catch on. An adult shouldn't have to live under a giant, child-proof cap.

Guess which one

[slapout]

Interestingly, she's a Democrat.

Bill...

[dudeeh]

Am I the only one who immediately though of Bill O'Reilly upon reading the title?

Honestly, I'm tired of writing them.

[Anonymous Coward]

I will keep doing it, but it's a huge waste of time for me to write them on every single piece of legislation that is on their desk or might hit their desk. If I'm doing all that work I might as well run for congress myself.

yeh, this will get deleted but.....

[inerlogic]

FUCK MEGAN MEIER,

fuck her in her bloated rotting eye sockets.

there, had to be said.

no sane person kills themselves because of what someone on teh interwebs says.....

was that other woman an asshole for screwing with the kid? absolutely....
who should be in jail?

MEGAN's PARENTS for not paying fucking attention to their attention starved bi-polar nutjob daughter.

now these elected assholes are pissing on her grave to erode more of our freedoms?

i think not.

Re:yeh, this will get deleted but.....

[clone53421]

I think someone forgot to post anonymously.

Oh... and this is slashdot. Nothing gets deleted. You knew that, right?

Re:yeh, this will get deleted but.....

[inerlogic]

never know when the liberal nanny state is going to outlaw incendiary comments....

oh wait, that's what they're trying to do, n/m

Re:yeh, this will get deleted but.....

[inerlogic]

oh, and i don't care to post anonymously, i'm not a coward....

i OWN my free speech....

Re:yeh, this will get deleted but.....

[clone53421]

Well, I agreed with your comments – I think – but I'd have tried to pose them more, shall we say, diplomatically.

Re:The US is quickly devolving into a socialistic.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll fully support this new underground internet, just so long as anyone that misuses loose/lose gets kicked off forever.

misnamed

[cas2000]

i think the Act should be called "The Megan Meier Dead Teenager Political Exploitation Act".

who am i? i am society

[circletimessquare]

we disagree on many things, and there are strange outliers of bizarre opinions, such as yourself

but by and large the majority of us agree on certain things, such as with what you just listed, and so we overrule your stated desires on this subject

don't worry about it though, society changes over time. for example, a number of states are now allowing gays to marry. california is more and more interested in legalizing marijuana. give it enough time, maybe society will come around to your love of crack houses. or not

Rep. Linda T. Sanchez better watch her....ass

[Anonymous Coward]

F*CK Rep. Linda T. Sanchez, F*CK her repeatedly up her ASS with a corncob. If that bill passes she is really going to need to watch her ASS.

Pfft

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, I'm so big and scary saying mean things on the internet. Clearly this is our countries biggest problem and what we should be focusing on right now. What a crock of shit