Internet Flaming May Become Illegal

By Kevin Parrish, published on May 11, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: , , , | Themes: The Internet
Syndication: Add to your Google homepage Add to My Yahoo!

Representative Linda Sanchez re-introduced a bill in Congress that could make internet flaming and harassment a felony.

Flamers beware: Representative Linda Sanchez (D) has re-introduced a bill to Congress that--if approved--could make internet flaming and harassment a felony. Called the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, Sanchez created and named the bill after the teenager who killed herself in 2007 over "bullying" comments made by a Missouri woman on MySpace. Sanchez said that the bill is not out to stifle or censor free speech, but to determine "cyberbullyism" in court.

"Congress has no interest in censoring speech and it will not do so if it passes this bill," she said. "Put simply, this legislation would be used as a tool for a judge and jury to determine whether there is significant evidence to prove that a person 'cyberbullied' another. That is: did they have the required intent, did they use electronic means of communication, and was the communication severe, hostile, and repeated. So--bloggers, emailers, texters, spiteful exes, and those who have blogged against this bill have no fear--your words are still protected under the same American values."

Specifically, the proposed bill--H.R. 1966 filed April 2--will make it a felony if electronic messages found in forums, comment systems (cough), etc have the "intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." Those found guilty will face a possible fine, a jail sentence of up to two years, or both the fine and jail time. Currently Sanches is shopping around with other politicians to get everyone familiar with its intent. So far, she's signed on fourteen other members of Congress while continuing to rally more support.

Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, doesn't think the bill will stand up in court. "The law, if enacted, would clearly be facially overbroad (and probably unconstitutionally vague), and would thus be struck down on its face under the First Amendment." Other critics have made their views known, with one blogger from the National Review Online's Media Blog calling the proposed bill the "Censorship Act of 2009." Justin Patchin, assistant professor of criminal justice, Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, wrote on Cyberbullying.us that he's not convinced that a state or federal law, which criminalizes cyberbullying, is the best approach.

"The vast majority of all cyberbullying can be effectively handled informally--by parents, educators, and other community members," he wrote in his blog. "In the rare event that a cyberbullying incident rises to a level warranting criminal intervention, we already have existing laws which can be utilized (stalking, criminal harassment, felonious assault, etc.)."

Sanchez defends the bill by providing a scenario: if you were walking down the street and saw someone harassing a child, would you just walk by and look the other way? If that person were telling the child the world would be better off if they just killed themselves, would you ignore it? Sanchez says that is exactly what is happening on the Internet, only that the harassment is more painful and more abusive because of the "faceless anonymity" the Internet offers.

Unfortunately, many have pointed out that the bill suffers from many flaws, saying that although Sanchez is out to protect the children, the bill is not limited to speech aimed at a child, nor is it limited to anonymous speech. Volokh even challenges Sanchez in a recent blog, wanting to see a statement made from at least one of the alleged variety of experts and law professors who helped Sanchez shape the bill.

"I would like to see even one statement from one such expert that would explain how this law is constitutional," his blog reads. "But Sanchez’s defense of the law as written troubles me even more. If Sanchez did want to limit the law to speech aimed at children, or focus only on individualized communications and not blog posts or other speech aimed at the public at large, or exclude public figures or matters of public concern, she could easily amend the bill."

While Sanchez's intentions are admirable, it may be that Congress rejects the bill again, requiring more definition as to how cyberbullying will be approached in court. There's no question that flaming needs to be addressed in some fashion, but not to the point where the bill interferes with Freedom of speech.

Comments | Print | Send to a friend
Slideshows related to this news
  Internet Explorer 8 Behavior 
Internet1

10 photos

  Bill Gates unleashes Windows Home Server at CES 
Bill Gates1

5 photos

  Bill Gates unleashes Windows Home Server at CES 
Bill Gates1

5 photos

  Bill Gates unleashes Windows Home Server at CES 
Bill Gates1

5 photos

Sponsored links

Comments

norbs 05/11/2009 10:36 PM
Show
kyeana 05/11/2009 10:38 PM
Hide
-15+

Making flaming illegal would be about as effective as making it illegal for water to be wet

kyeana 05/11/2009 10:39 PM
Hide
-13+

norbs :
Oh no, what will the MS fanboys do when OSX news comes up??!



....what in the world are you talking about...

ChaosGS 05/11/2009 10:41 PM
Hide
-20+

We will continue to do what we always do, call the apple fanbois what they really are....Dumbasses. It says flaming, no where in there does it say its wrong to tell the truth. If you buy apple you simply have more money than brains.

gooshnads 05/11/2009 10:44 PM
Hide
-20+

Linda Sanchez is an idiot =]
flame flame flame! =D

hellwig 05/11/2009 10:46 PM
Hide
--1+

I don't think they're talking about Windows vs. OSX or PS3 vs/ XBox 360 flamewars.

It sounds like they are talking about things like spreading viscious and untrue rumors (libel when written), or threats and anything else like that (harrassment, abuse, etc...).

As a quote from the article already says:

"In the rare event that a cyberbullying incident rises to a level warranting criminal intervention, we already have existing laws which can be utilized (stalking, criminal harassment, felonious assault, etc.)."

Just seems like a pointless law that will only be misused to turn a misdemeanor or civil matter into a felony conviction.

frozenlead 05/11/2009 10:46 PM
Hide
-10+

This is just dumb. In real life, this kind of thing might be a problem, as a person who might be harrassing you could be at school or in the workplace - in other words, unavoidable. However, on the internet (and especially on places like myspace/facebook) you can block communication from people you don't want to hear from. You have the choice to read those comments. You have the choice for that person to even be able to find you. In real life, you can't just make someone stop by saying "I'm blocking you!" (in fact, that might just make them do it more...)
When will the governments tackle real problems, and stop making up legislation for the stupidity of some people?

LATTEH 05/11/2009 10:52 PM
Hide
-6+

shes just an idiot.. its up to the site to get rid of flamers and crap not up for the government

the_one111 05/11/2009 10:56 PM
Hide
-12+

norbs :
Oh no, what will the MS fanboys do when OSX news comes up??!


Stating facts is now considered illegal?

crisisavatar 05/11/2009 10:58 PM
Hide
-1+

Idiotic

formin 05/11/2009 11:00 PM
Show
benjaminwright_35 05/11/2009 11:04 PM
Show
turboflame 05/11/2009 11:14 PM
Hide
-6+

Incredibly pointless, if someone on the internet tells you to kill yourself and you do it you probably had some serious prior mental issues.

Cyberbullying has one easy foolproof prevention strategy: unplugging your computer. Had Megan Meier or her parents came up with this idea then the "Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act" would have never existed.

ravenware 05/11/2009 11:23 PM
Hide
-1+

Quote :Sanchez says that is exactly what is happening on the Internet, only that the harassment is more painful and more abusive because of the "faceless anonymity" the Internet offers


LMAO, is this person high or just ignorant?

It is less painful and obviously so to be flamed on the net. You can simply ignore the person and it is easy because, YOU DON'T KNOW THEM!

Think about it, if someone yelled "Fu** you!" to you from across the street do you cry or throw a fit? No you yell "Fu** you!" back and go about your business.
This pretty much the same on the net.

Now if someone in your own household or school yard repeatedly harassed or defamed you it would be much different.

Anonymous 05/11/2009 11:26 PM
Hide
-3+

She probably just didn't want anyone commenting on her cleanliness level anymore.

bill gates is your daddy 05/11/2009 11:29 PM
Hide
-5+

Linda Sanchez can lick on my left nut. She needs a flame placed straight up her ass then kicked down a flight of stairs.

MDillenbeck 05/11/2009 11:30 PM
Hide
-12+

ACID TEST TIME!

First test:
Is it a felony to say these flames in real life to a person? Also, is it a felony to bully someone? If you answer yes, then this is a reasonable law.

Second test:
Do laws already exist that cover these acts? If no, then this is a needed law.

My understanding is we already have a set of laws that cover making threats against another person, both verbally and written, and so this law is redundant. Additionally, it sounds like they wish to make the law much more stern than existing laws, and thus it is unreasonable.

touchdowntexas13 05/11/2009 11:45 PM
Hide
-4+

This is just one more method for someone to file a lawsuit and collect money for "damages". If this is passed, you can bet there will be some people that get robbed of their money because someone claims a post caused them to consider suicide.

People either need to learn to stand up for themselves or they need to not put themselves in a position where they could receive cyber-criticism/flaming. If you can't handle yourself in either case, you really have no business posting on the world wide web where anyone can take a crack at you.

Finally people need to stop blaming others for their own problems. BTW, I am not one to flame on forums, but i am quick to criticize (constructively most of the time) when i see something i feel is incorrect.

stlunatic 05/11/2009 11:55 PM
Show
stlunatic 05/11/2009 11:58 PM
Show
bourgeoisdude 05/12/2009 12:04 PM
Hide
-4+

Another complete waste of time and taxpayer money.

Does anyone else see the danger here? Who "decides" what is and is not flaming?

Just another way to limit free speech, IMO. The "clear and present danger" argument is the last argument the government should have had regarding the limiting of speech. Not to mention this law would waste our money on unecessary court fees and waste the judicial system's time and money on frivilous lawsuits.

danimal_the_animal 05/12/2009 12:05 PM
Hide
-6+

Since it's still legal to flame.

EVERYBODY FLAME Linda Sanchez NOW!!!!!!!!

touchdowntexas13 05/12/2009 12:11 PM
Hide
-1+

stlunatic :
They will say "OSX sux" and "Windows 2000 pwns" and then "omfg wtf bbq" and then install linux.



I don't think i have heard that before...

I definitely didn't think the majority of people cracking on OSX were still using Windows 2000. I guess you are trying to say that OSX is better than Win2000?

Your posts don't make a lot of sense you know...

stlunatic 05/12/2009 12:18 PM
Show
touchdowntexas13 05/12/2009 12:27 PM
Hide
-4+

I see.

I guess it doesn't make sense to me that you think the people that give negative comments about OSX are still using the ancient Windows 2000. I would venture to say that most are on an XP/Vista/Win7 platform by now. This is the year 2009...

Anonymous 05/12/2009 12:29 PM
Hide
-5+

Let's also outlaw words like sh,it and fu.ck and dam.n and c.oc.k and p,uss.y , that's it, we don't need to accept the cruel realities of the world and the unpleasant parts of life, we just need a government with sufficient authority and power to make life perfect for us. This type of approach has worked so well for so many other countries ...

PS: for the Mac lovers:
http://www.abload.de/img/1-8995d3e [...] 94fn0q.jpg

stlunatic 05/12/2009 12:29 PM
Hide
--2+

Well I was implying that fanboys who flame companies just because they are biased are dumbasses...

Re-read my post now and it will make sense :)

stlunatic 05/12/2009 12:31 PM
Hide
--3+

PS: for the Mac lovers:http://www.abload.de/img/1-8995d3e [...] 94fn0q.jpg[/citation]

I imagine some people (not only women) would choose mac.

touchdowntexas13 05/12/2009 12:42 PM
Hide
-1+

I would agree that a person using Win2000 bashing OSX must be biased, not to mention outdated.

But i would have to strongly disagree in saying this is the majority of "MS fanboys". Given what i have seen on this forum site, the people cracking on OSX are mostly on par with XP/Vista/Win7, meaning that they see benefits in their OS not found in OSX. Yes there can still be plenty of biaseness, but a person would have to be an ignorant fool to think that train doesn't run both ways (Apple and Microsoft).

So all in all, i guess i still don't understand why you chose Win2000 in your example. The point you were trying to make is true, but it is simply non-existent in the year 2009.

stlunatic 05/12/2009 12:52 PM
Hide
--1+

Well I chose win2000 because it wasnt a success and was quickly replaced by XP. Thefore portraying fanboys as people who dont know what they are talking about and just like a company or software for stupid reasons, even though the software can be bad and maybe even outdated...

Hehe, made myself clear now? xD

Ogdin 05/12/2009 12:54 PM
Hide
-2+

They have no space in prisons now and they want to make flaming a felony? Just plain stupid.


Comments are closed on this page.

Sponsored links