Bill could mean jail for Internet flamers

The ACLU will be on this like a fat kind on cake

Why don't they just upgrade the current harrassment laws on the books to include any type of electronic communication, as those laws have already passed through the courts enought to be ironned out. They just need to modernize the ways they can be applied!

My personal conviction is that bullying of any sort or type is unacceptable. Many things can contribute to a better world for future generations, and bullying certainly is not one of them!

Anti cyber bulling is a good idea. However there has to be concern for 1st admentment right of free speach.
However communication specficialy taylored to harm a specfic indivdual should not be tolerated.

Just add this bill to the same list of uninformed and ill-considered technology-relevant laws to come out of COngress:

Digital Millenium Copyright Act
Patriot Act
Computer Decency Act (I probably have the name wrong for this one. At least it was mostly struck down by courts.

Our congressional representatives have shown themselves unqualified to pass laws regulating Information Technology. They should stop immediately.

"Intent" is hard to prove. I didn't intend to intimidate anyone. I was just teasing a little or maybe offering constructive criticism.

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, "coerce" can mean to "compel to an act" which is the same as the definition of "persuade." So, under this proposed legislation, any persuasive email would be illegal. My suggestion? Log off your computer if you don't like your email content. It isn't a necessity to continue life, just a convenience. Seriously, people.

History has shown that the courts not only rely on the written word, they specifically reject even formal "Intent of Congress" resolutions where the lawmakers state clearly what they had in mind. Check out all the "creative" uses of the RICO laws by the courts, ignoring Congress's definitions for what they're about.

If it ain't on the page, it doesn't exist.

'Before I call you a moron....."

Here lies the problem. I can politely disagree with you without actually verbally attacking you.

I support this bill because of the lives it may save. I am happy to have an online debate and don't have any need to use names or foul language.
If I disagree with you, I can spell it out in plain English.

But I don't really see Cyberbulling as an adult issue, but more of a teenager issue, or perhaps a very immature adult.

Having said all that, this law can be used incorrectly.

Similar to the anti child pornography law where the 14 year old girl emailed her boyfriend a picture of herself naked. Now she is busted for child pornography. To me, this is stupid and the law is being used incorrectly.

I think it would be only a matter of time before the cyberbulling law is used incorrectly.

Moron

Just kidding

Freedom of speech is one thing, and virtual lynching is another.

Bullying, in general, should be prevented. (and in no way, encouraged).

I am personally sick of the "it's only a phase" attitude concerning bullying in general, and obviously, I'm not the only one. There is really no excuse for bullying – either online or in person.

Ironically, adults have more protection from bullying than kids... in the adult world, it's called harrassment. Seriously, if schools who watch our children for most of the day cannot prevent bullying, they can at least inform the parents that the bullying exist.

Also, parents should try to provide strength to their kids and a listening ear during these times. How many child suicides most there be to protect "freedom of speech"?

Frankly, I think there's enough protection.

This bill could send anyone behind bars for a stupid reason, the people should decide on this, not congress.

Defenders of overbroad language in laws always say, "oh, it will never be used *that* way". History shows otherwise. The point is not how the law is intended to be used, but how it *can* be used. Because it *will* be used any and every way that it can be, sooner or later. The only way to avoid abuse is to cut it off in the express language of the law.

The brouhaha about speech eclipses a real and present danger posed by Reprobates, criminals, Predators, Thieves etc. who commit cyber assaults and other heinous crimes online.
For now, the Internet is akin to the wild wild west where people can and do anything under the guise of "freedom".

There MUST be some regulation of Internet criminality which targets Internet criminality.
I find it distasteful in its most absolute sense when crimes are distingushed as "virtual" and non virtual even though the damage is just as vicious, measurable and the targets are REAL PEOPLE.

The Internet has outgrown the myopic definition of VIRTUAL because it is inextricably linked with REAL time occurences.
Criminality online therefore has to be vigorously legislated and online Fiends and criminals who commit crimes should be tried and jailed like their "real time" scum counterparts.

Breaking into a persons phone and listening to their lives and then writing about it, or stalking children and bullying others is the reason we have LAW. The law is applicable regardless of where it is broken. On or Off line.
You do not need to have a Masters Degree in JURISPRUDENCE to figure out that the Internet needs some order and FAST too.

It's ABOUT TIME!!!!!

What does this law do for bullying outside of the internet lines. Will bully's in school, or public for that matter be prosecuted? What if a depressed person is swain to suicide just by a simple comment somebody makes to them. This law if it goes through, in a manner is a violation ones free speech toward others.

Like the sex offender registry was supposed to be used for hardened predators and is now tracking teenagers who (gasp!) had sex with other teenagers, teenagers who took naughty pictures of themselves, and guy whp peed against a wall in sight of a cop?

Or the Kiddie porn laws that were supposed to be used to bust pedophile networks being used against the aforementioned teenagers?

The time for Congress to say "It's going to be used THIS way. Trust Us" when trying to pass poorly worded bills is long since over.

The problem with bills like this is that, however well intentioned they might be, there is little control over how an over-enthusiastic prosecutor might use it. It's not as though we need to expand our prison population by adding rude people to the group.

Trying to legislate away bad behavior is a fruitless task. People will be ugly to each other in whatever way they can find. As what point intime do we want real censorship? By that I meam being arrested for a public expression that someone else thinks is threatening or insulting? We really, really, really have to stop this knee-jerk reaction of passing a law to prevent every unpleasant situation that might arise.

That girl's suicide did not require the writing of a law to take away more civil liberties. This is ridiculous. Today it has 17 cosponsors. Write your representative and let's make sure it doesn't get anymore.

The problem with this bill is that it attempts to criminalize intent instead of actions. If you call me repeatedly on the phone, the action itself is considered harassment, so I can demand that you stop calling me, and it's pretty easy to prove whether or not you continued calling me after that request. That's pretty clear cut. However, the way this bill defines things, speech can be found in violation if it meets some undefined standard of harassment or emotional distress. Who gets to define what this is? And how do you differentiate between thick-skinned and thin-skinned people? After all, what deeply offends one person might not upset someone else. The problem is that different people are going to have different opinions on what falls on the wrong side of this law, if it were to pass. And how much protection do those who put up pages on social networking sites, post blogs, or contribute to online forums get versus those who don't? After all, if you do these things, you are speaking in a public space, so isn't it reasonable to expect people to respond to your speech, and isn't it also reasonable to expect that some of those responses will be quite critical?

And possibly the most dangerous thing about this legislation is how it can be misused. What happens if someone who is suffering from extreme depression commits suicide after a heated discussion online? You can believe that there will be family members who will demand justice because they think their loved one was bullied to death, never mind that he or she may have already been contemplating suicide. In a case like this, will the people who participated in the online discussion be prosecuted under this law? If you have a crusading prosecutor, it's certainly possible. And, at that point, you have to determine the intent of the speech and the reason the person committed suicide, things that are nearly impossible to do.

Finally, such a law could itself be used to harass someone. As online discussions are used more and more in local political discussions, you could see a situation where someone, perhaps a prominent small-town politician, threatens to use such a law to stifle dissent. Would you want to be hauled into court by someone like that, especially when they likely have connections with the local prosecutor and judge? Would the fear of such action, even it doesn't actually occur, have a chilling effect on free speech?

The fact is, people aren't always nice, and you can't force them to be. Couple that with people who are easily offended, and you are bound to have encounters where someone is put in emotional distress. While it is regrettable that this has to happen, you simply can't legislate it away. If you try, you'll end up with a law that can be twisted to be used against a broad swath of the population.
Finally, I wish politicians had the good sense to listen to the feedback they receive and, instead of simply defending their pet legislation, consider the possibility that there are those who know more about these issues than they do. Rep. Sanchez, if you are reading this, pay attention to what thousands of Internet users are saying. I appreciate your intent, but, with all due respect, you got this one very, very wrong. Now have the humility to admit it and withdraw this bill.

"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."

Yeah, just like the Patriot act is only being used against terrorists and not US citizens...

Just like teen sexters are not getting put sex offender lists for e-mailing pics of themselves by overzealous D.A.'s

Haven't we learned yet that we cannot hand broad, sweeping powers over to the government without someone abusing them? What good is the above promise? Will Sanchez accept the responsibility of enforcing that promise?

Don't count on it.

Goodbye First Amendment, it was fun while it lasted. WAKE UP AMERICA, IT'S TIME FOR REVOLUTION!!!

Awesome. Now if you have a problem with someone you will have to take it up with them in person instead of hiding behind your computer.

On the downside, I smell a billion and one frivilous lawsuits on the horizon. If this bill passes our courts will be filled with floods of hormonal, angry teenagers who are brining suit cause they had their feelings hurt.

Overall its a well intentioned bill but a felony for hurt feelings is probably a bit much

It does not go too far, not even if it is followed to the full extent of it's vagueness. Freedom of speech is not impaired by making it criminal to harass someone.

Harassment, physically or verbally, is still harassment. A sentence can easily be written, stating an opinion with out such harassing words such as "Retard", "Idiot", "moron", "Short Bus", "Reject", "Libtard", "Rethuglican", "dimwit". As soon as you add those words, you are indicating your level of intelligence as well as a malicious intent to harass and abuse a person, regardless of whether you are in their physical presence or not.

So I say go ahead and pass the law and let those who can not refrain from using civil ways to express themselves run the risk of being labeled the felons they really are.

This is the wrong approach for one isolated incident that ended in suicide. A more appropriate action would be a bill to enforce more restriction of communication for minor children on the internet and hold internet entities like Myspace and Youtube as well as the Parents of the minor children responsible. 13 year old girls do not need to be on myspace exchanging emails with people on the internet.

What I want to know, is where the heck where the parents with the positive support? Where were the parents in these teens develomental stages to teach their kids that while sticks and stones may break some bones, words will never harm me? The problem is not with the bullies; the problem lies with parents not taking active roles in their childrens lives. Does no one else see the trend between lack of a parent at home and problems with kids? We didn't have these problems in the 50's, the 80's or even the 90's and why you may ask. The answer should be clear, PARENTS WERE HOME MORE OFTEN. Parents watched what their kids were watching and TV was not the nanny, the babysitter, Mom or Dad. I say we impose a bill on parenting, one that brings back spanking. And in case anyone is wondering, I am 25 years old.

Whatever happened to free speech? Or did the 1st Amendment suddenly become obsolete?

I see nothing wrong with requiring people to take responsibility for what they say. Perhaps people will think twice before posting something with the intent to harm another individual. If its true its protected speech, and you have nothing to worry about.

They are going to dig themselves a big big hole if they don't word this properly. Word it one way and the ACLU will have a field day, word it another and actual bullying victims will complain. They should limit it as unprovoked slander, threats, etc and not a broad statement. People argue, its a fact. People argue more when they know the other person can't do anything about it.

Megan Meir's story was so sad and shocking, and could possibly have been prevented. Any measure than could prevent the same from happening to someone else, especially a child, is a good one. Seemingly ordinary people can turn into monsters online, when they think they are anonymous. I'm sure there will be many comments here showing exactly that type of person- just read through any of the comments on Cnn's stories and you will see hateful and cruel people bullying total strangers for stating their opinions.

If this were already in place, then Perez Hilton should now be a felon. I would be fine with that, but this bill is just ridicules!

You would think that with all the suicides in schools nowadays that congress would worry about bullying in schools

Good Lord, like it or not, they are going to have some freedom of speech issues with this one. Also, it is obvious that these people do not have Internet chat experience.

I used to belong to an Internet News Chat group. We would discuss news, politics, etc. in an adult environment. I don't know how many times we chased out kids, "snerts," who came into the room just to bug us. By these standards, we could be arrested. Ridiculous.

This Bill is moronic. Should the Feds step in and raise your children for you? It's tragic what happened to the 13-year-old, but really..? Parents supervise your kids' activities, be a part of their lives. Help them confront their problems and find proactive solutions.

Good news. Send a copy of the bill to eBay and LiveWorld.

The Internet cannot be policed. End of discussion. Trolls would have been taken care of a long time ago if they didn't remain Anonymous.

Well there goes the internet. even if the bill is pasted its like copyright law u cant get everybody and there is no point of try to stop it.

This will be going yo the Supreme Court and could be unconstituional
since it borders on stomping free speech.

What are we, China?

Is it me or did everyone completely overreact to this whole situation? If it had been a note passed at school that caused this there would have been an investigation into everyone that had ever come in contact with this girl to find out who missed the signs that she was suicidal, but because the Internet is involved it's a big deal?

Seriously, it's sad for the girl's family but this bill is ludicrous.

wow this congress person has obviously hasnt been in school since the stone ages because if she knew half the stuff that went on in schools shed probably go crazy if this flips her out and also thats a giant violation of freedom of speech if she hasnt looked at the bill of rights ever i mean thats one that kinda just sticks in ur head

This is just another step by our Socialist government for total control of our lives. We are slowly losing all of our freedoms.

thanks for this bill...just another giant leap forward to communism. If what is being said on the internet is going to start being censored or if I were to say something that someone that is more sensitive towards comments would mean jail time or a fine..then you might as well shut the internet down. I feel sorry for the little girl that committed suicide but there will always be bullying no matter where you go and there are millions of people out there that have dealt with bullying and did not commit suicide over it. Some people are just more sensitive than others thats all.

Behave online. Don't do anything evil or mean. Simple as that.

As time goes by we get more and more laws similar to this one. A knee jerk reaction with broad sweeping consequences. Eventually, perhaps even now, we get so many of these laws that it would be possible to take any random person on the street and dig up some kind of felony.

“the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.” DOES NOT equal "being mean" to people on the internet. what I've read even included "severe and repeatative" to the verbiage...telling someone to "F off" or saying "your picture is horrible" DOES NOT equal purposely and intentionally driving someone to harm themselves (ie: suicide).

Common sense shows that there is a difference between a blogger like Perez Hilton or some such, name calling and making fun of celebrities, and someone harassing a kid on Myspace telling them that the world would be better off if they were dead. Maybe a bill like this would help bring some respect and civility back, and cause people to think about consequences of their actions before ranting.

While I get that this could lead to a run of lawsuits, I don't understand why people think that just because there are so many trolls and flamers on the internet, that they have a right to be there. The internet should follow the same rules as any kind of public discourse: there is a difference between expressing an opinion, even with vitriol, and attacking a private citizen.

The writer of this article is exactly right. They could of wrote it differently but chose to word it in such away that anybody can and will be affected by this law. Much in the way that a 17 yr. old boy could face 10 yrs. in prison for having sex with his 15 yr. old girlfriend. No doubt the democrats will pass this into law. I mean after all we can't have people hurting somebody's feelings. Woe to those who upset someone and to the courts who will be bombarded by an overwhelming case load brought on by those who want to get somebody they are angry at. People call people names and say things to upset them when they are angry putting no thought into what they say only to the reaction they hope to elicit. Words are just words instead. I think this law only supports a young person's feelings of suicide telling them that they are experiencing something so bad they have to die to avoid being hurt. Instead wouldn't it be better to do as I did while raising your children on the other hand from teaching them not to call others names and how hurtful it is to others, to also teach them that words are words. When my children came to me upset that someone called them a name I would tell them unless it's true it's only words if it's true and it bothers you than fix what needs fixed if not than let it go. Those who say things to hurt us only do so out of their own insecurities and should be pittied. It's so sad that so many people feel so bad that they have to make others feel the same. People should change what they need about themselves to feel good about who they are and not worry about what others think. My children are all strong and happy with who they are and know that if someone affects that then they should remove that person from their lives and move on. I know people aren't like me and alot of adults are small sad little people but do we really need the government having so much power in everday things such as this. They have too much control already.

This legislation is idiotic. Period.

What's Next???

People have taken this thing way to far, our government has more realistic "issues" to take care of then pass this so called “bill”

It's interesting to note that the government says that freedom of speech isn't protected, and now it is saying that freedom of speech is protected on the internet. The internet is the internet, and the whole world has access to it. It is going to be very difficult to prosecute anyone under this. It's pointless, and a waste of time. Parents should be in control of what their kids are doing on the internet, not the government.

Puts a whole new meaning to 'Net Neutrality' huh?

This whole thing is ridiculous. Even the case that brought it about is ridiculous. I've been around the internet since its inception, and there is a tremendously easy solution. Don't read it. Honestly people, it all goes back to the old saying "don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see". No one forces you to sit down and read blogs, or comments. If you go there, expect to see trash, because it's easy to be rude anonymously. This is why my home computer sits in the kitchen where I can see everything and my children are not allowed Facebook accounts.

Moron.

Hey... it had to be done!

You moron. I hope I go to jail now.

As one of Linda Sanchez' constituents and someone who works in content management & moderation, I can assure you that Linda Sanchez has no idea what she's talking about. She's never properly represented her area – moving here shortly before running for office in the first place – and she certainly doesn't represent the values of the American people and the rights that our Constitution guarantees us. How dare she introduce a law that would punish us for exercising our First Amendment rights?

As if a judge and jurors can't tell what is right or wrong for themselves? If you read the language of HR-1966, the bill does not give them any more insight as to what would be considered cyberbullying. It only makes it a crime for EVERYONE – not just kids, who are the victims of most cyberbullying and would be better served by more attentive parents and lessons in good self-esteem and basic netiquette – who has a potentially negative opinion about someone or chooses to defend themselves against someone else who has a negative opinion about them.

Tabloid magazines frequently call people fat or hang their dirty laundry up for all to see and they are rarely punished for such things. Why should the internet – which is internationally reaching and cannot be fairly legislated by American law – be any different?

I'm wondering how it can be illegal to type something online that isnt illegal if I say it to your face? I'm all for stopping threats and intimidation online because those actions are illegal offline. However, what causes emotional distress for one person is different for another person and saying something just to piss you off has never been a crime and shouldnt be now.

On the other hand, if you can stretch this law to cover politics too...

What happened to Megan Meier was unfortunate, but the the Bill seems to be a direct contradiction to our right to free speech. People are allowed to say whatever they want and you have the right ignore what they are saying. It is much simpler to ignore someone on the internet then it is in real life, simply turn off the computer.

This bill like others congress has passed regarding technology leaves too many holes for innocent people to be persecuted. The real solution here is better parenting.

As someone who has been "cyberbullied" fairly frequently for the past few years for simply liking a couple on a television show, and have friends who have had whole forums devoted to insulting them... it's about time those people be held accountable for their actions.

There have always been "anon" users on the net who troll around looking to ruffle feathers, but at some point we crossed a line where more and more people are entering the internet merely to spread their hate. Maybe finding ways to get them 'banned' from the internet for a while to grow up will help the internet be what it was meant to be - a worldwide community - instead of what it is... a craphole.

If only we could 'ban' some folks from real life as easily, or teach people to have a little respect.

This law sucks. Why not hold parents accountable for what their children are doing on the internet? All these laws prohibiting free speech are b.s. – they are gonna make criminals out of lawabiding citizens. This is lame – sorry for that poor girl but maybe her parents should have been more involved in her life... The government should have no right to "govern" internet expression.

The whole thing fits the definition of a moot point. There's nothing in the Constitution that protects anyone from having their feelings hurt. The right to call someone an idiot and flame them into a marshmallow-like substance suitable for s'mores is called Freedom of Speech. The Congressmen (and women) pushing to pass it are nothing more (or less) than morons. An opinion is a protected form of speech, so long as it doesn't promote unlawful activity – like rebellion, assault, or murder. Let's say this thing passed by some miracle of fate and incompetence. In an Orwellian sense, wouldn't this sort of thing be just what a government would want? Your speech won't be censored, but should a congressman be unhappy with your electronic flaming of his position, your speech could be used against you in court? Isn't that de facto censorship? It's called a slap suit; that's when you're sued to make you shut up. And it won't be abused, because we have the Linda Sanchez's word on it. Right. If this passes, does it mean you can no longer electronically petition the government for a redress of grievances? If stupidity isn't cause for a grievance, then what is? What an unhappy world it would be if you could not flame our well-deserving representatives, corporate miscreants, steroid-using baseball players, and Dick Cheney's gun supplier.

What is wrong with this. I think it is high time that civility returned to interpersonal communication, whatever the medium.

/facepalm

Parents just need to get off their backsides and PARENT.

Good job on blowing our taxpayers dollars on such ludacris BS!

Thanks for writing this article. Thsi is a growing concern amoung the internet. It's a shameless powergrab by politicians under the guise of trying to protect THE CHILDREN. Frankly I'm sick of subversive bills being passed using kids as an excuse. It's a shame that Megan Meier killed herself, but there's absolutely no reason to burn down the internet or lock up every troll/flamer out there. Kids get bullied every day for every conceivable reason, but there's no reason to pass a new law every time one of them does something drastic over it.

Communism is so 60's.

Internet access, just as Myspace and Facebook access, are luxuries. If they see that they're being bullied on their MySpace/Facebook/Whatever, they can simply delete their account and create a new one. Hotmail accounts are free, Yahoo accounts are free, create one and get a new MySpace/Facebook to avoid any online bullies. Same thing with AOL IM. If you're getting harassed on a certain Screen Name, CREATE A NEW ONE. I have like 6 that I can switch between if someone is messaging me that I don't know or like.

Now, Real Life bullying is much harder to avoid, and thus I understand the creation and enforcement of some of these laws to address real life issues. Sometimes just "walking away" or "not saying anything" can be just as bad as fighting back or confronting them. It is up to the parents to correctly teach their kids, NOT the schools, on how to deal with bullies and what to do. If a kid is being harassed on a cell phone with text messages/calls, that actually can fall under a harassment suit, so there's already laws in place dealing with that. It's this online harassment where lawmakers/law enforcers are having issues.

Personally, I know many parents that have told their kids, of any age, that if they're being bullied to just punch them in the face. However, I won't argue whether or not that's the right decision in general. I will say that I find it to be a direct approach and in some cases it does solve the issue quite quickly.

"I support this law because of the lives it can save". Hmm don't we have a law like that already it's called abortion. A law which in fact has cost the lives of millions unborn babies. And irreversably caused the decline in our future population. If anybody even a teenager commits suicide it is for more than just hurt feelings. The girl who killed herself didn't do so because she was called a moron. She lost someone that she had true feelings for and found out that person didn't really exist. How do you deal with that. We do not need a law telling us how to behave like it or not words do not cause harm to the extent that we need big brother to protect us. For those of you who think this is a good thing the more you give the more they take. It won't be long before a law is passed that affects you. The government has been slowly taking away the rights of the people to govern themselves. True alot of parents are not raising their children to respect others. So you need to go a step further and teach your children not to be affected by others. Parenting goes both ways you can't continue to take the easy way out and blame somebody else's parenting skills or lack there of.

what next when i tell someone im going to "kill them" when playing a video game they can file a complant about it and ill end up in jail

What does the bill say about what realm in which the offenders will be prosecuted, state or federal court? What about intercontinental "felons"? What if a man from Australia makes a harsh comment to some dude in the States and that guy kills himself, who is at fault? The internet is not a place controlled by any one country. Thus can not be policed by any one country.

Sure there should be laws against bullying, but whatever happened to the old school yard sayings, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" or "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you." This translates to, "Ignore the stupid people in the world/internet, and get on with your life."

I think that with the passage of this law, we will be cementing the long developing "wusification" of our society. Seriously people, it's the internet, 99.9% of the people on here are full of s*** (myself included)

What next, are they going to say we cannot use profanity on the internet because underage people are out there? Get real.

Kids don't just create a screen name, they create an online IDENTITY. They may have accounts on AOL, Yahoo, Hotmail, Myspace and Facebook, IMVU, and a lot of others that are all the same username. It makes it very hard to just start another account when someone harrasses you. It's something they put a lot of work into, and something they identify with.

I have always been a big fan of offending people. It makes them think. Thinking leads to getting involved. We need more people to be involved in pretty much everything right now. Perhaps that is the real problem, we've been so politically correct and afraid to *gasp* offend someone that the first our children even hear about it is when it happens to them, and they don't know how to react. So go ahead, offend someone and make them think, start a debate and argue the other side for a change. Grow your brain.

I can understand and feel for the person this happened to. However, that law appears to vauge. For example if you tell a person there an idiot online and they say they have substantial emontial distress, are you a criminal for telling them there an idiot. The law the way I read it appears to vauge and to open for interpertation. vs. the person who knew they were talking to a minor and apeared to have bad intent with horriable circumstances as an outcome. These laws are to vauge and could make alot of people criminals who are not.

Although I do not condone bullying of any nature, this proposed legislation will infringe upon our 1st amendment rights. The ramifications of such a bill are frightening. I can see why so many states are considering legislation to cede from the union. This is just another addition to a long list of government controls.

We all know that bullying is wrong. And it is a shame that Megan Meier killed herself over bullying. But should bullying seriously be criminalized? And if we criminalize bullying on the internet, do we not then have to criminalize it in all other forms of communication?

Think about it before you support a bill like this. Think about how laws get twisted & reinterpreted all the time, whether by unscrupulous lawyers or judges with agendas.

If this bill passes and lawyers get a hold of it, they will expand its interpreted meaning to the furthest extent possible. First, people will be prosecuted for making what they think is constructive criticism online. Eventually, you'll be afraid to have any sort of debate with anyone online. This is a stifling of free speech, pure and simple.

The problem is, Congress should not attempt to regulate speech or expression except in the absolute most extreme cases, and with the most narrowly defined & amazingly specific legal language possible. But they are either too lazy or too stupid to write bills that narrowly focused. They prefer to use broad strokes & let the legal system fill in the details.

We simply cannot legislate away every ill that affects our society. It's up to us as a people to put our collective foot down & put a stop to behavior like this.

None of this would be an issue if people actually parented their children. If you pay attention to your kids, you'll be able to tell if they are being harassed or bullied. And you'll also be able to tell if your kid is the bully.

But parents today would rather let their kids zone out with television & the internet than actually get involved and get to know their own children.

And I believe that letting a child have private, unfettered access to the internet it basically like allowing them to roam around New York City, unattended, at 3:00 a.m. They may not be in immediate physical danger, but they will be exposed to all sorts of dangerous influences- and that is a guarantee.

How about we make it illegal for parents to let kids under 18 use the internet without supervision? That won't ever happen. Why? Because we're far too lazy as a nation to actually put our time & energy into parenting.

We'd rather blame everyone else for everything that hurts our kids and never look in the mirror to accept responsibility ourselves. Then, after we decide who to blame, we assuage our guilt over being bad parents by going on crusades to punish those to whom we have assigned blame.

The Nanny State keeps getting bigger, more bloated, more hungry, more powerful, and we keep feeding it. It's time to get back to our roots as Americans and reviatlize our independent spirit and personal responsibility; stop looking to Big Brother to solve our problems for us, and stop assigning blame for our problems to everyone but ourselves.

This is the same mentality that has us awarding thousands of dollars in damages to someone who spills hot coffee on themselves. The same mentality has us medicating millions of our kids because we don't want to deal with and correct their hyperactive behavior through good parenting. The same mentality has placed warning labels on hair dryers so we don't use them in the bathtub.

Common sense is no longer required. The "victim mentality" has all but completely recused everyone of being responsible for their own actions or lack thereof. And laws like this only serve to reinforce our lack of personal responsibility and reliance on the Nanny State, which leaves us with fewer and fewer personal freedoms every day. By the time we wake up and realize that we have abdicated all of our rights & freedoms to the government, we'll be living in a Soviet style oligarchy and it will take a violent revolution to reverse it.

To paraphrase a certain pop culture icon: "This country needs an enema!"

Make sure that the law does not have back door provisions to stop us emailing enmasse to goventment officials it would be easy to turn this around on us while protecting the ones the law is to serve.

Wow, people need to toughen the heck up! "Oh you hurt my feelings on the internet!" waaaah waaah!! Do yourself a favor and log off – problem solved. I'm sorry, but goofy laws like this only contribute to the further wussification of our nation. You are a seriously weak-minded person if you are "coerced" into hurting or killling yourself by someone on the internet (and probably someone whom you've never met to boot). TOUGHEN UP!

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've read about in some time... Really.

“Oh you hurt my feelings on the internet!” waaaah waaah!! ...
"You are a seriously weak-minded person if you are “coerced” into hurting or killling yourself by someone on the internet" ...

Thanks for proving my earlier point about people's behavior when they think they are anonymous- I knew there would be at least one.

I was a kid who got bullied in grade school. I can't tell you how painful it is psychologically. I can just imagine the hurt and pain to a teenager. Kids can be really, really mean and have no quilt about it. Like someone else said, adults are protected from harassment, slander, etc. Why not kids like that. All you have to do is add electronic to the present laws.

No matter what the means it is still harassment, slander, etc.

Millions of people in chat rooms, IMs, and text messages spend a lot of time trying to "coerce" a member of the opposite sex, or a member of the same sex for that matter, into meeting up for sexual relations. This is quite simply NOT a form of cyberbullying, but falls on the wrong side of this bill.

I think part of what should be applied, which they will never do, is where the offense took place. Freedom of Speech is all great in public forum, but if you come to MY page and badmouth ME? That's tresspassing and that IS an attack. Your Freedom of Speech cannot impede on MY Freedom of Speech.

Turn off the computer

Here's Congresswoman Sanchez contact info: Use your Freedom of Speech to contact or write her offline!

Linda Sanchez
1222 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515

17906 Crusader Ave. Suite 100
Cerritos, CA 90703

By Telephone:
District Office 562-860-5050

This bill is redonkulous, why dont we just get rid of the first amendment why were at it? Even if what you say isnt nice you still have the right to say it.

I think most adults who have been flamed on-line, can brush it off as no real consequence to their real life. However, for most kids, their on-line identities are often tied in with their real life identities. They aren't just making anonymous friendships with people they will never meet, most likely their friends lists are classmates, neighborhood friends and relatives. When they are bullied online on comments to their pages, their entire network of friends can see this. Bullying is bullying. In real life it has real consequences. Online it has consequences as well. I believe in freedom of speech, but that also comes at the risk of people not using common sense when it comes to degrading someone you don't agree with. A lot of the issue with bullying comes from the bully's homelife. Parents of under-age bullies should be held just as accountable for their childrens' actions whether it's online or real life.

If you look at harrassment laws, when a person being harrassed tells a harrasser to stop and they don't...then they have a case in rl. Same can be applied online. If someone is harrassing me in comments or email and I email or comment back that they stop and they don't... my written request would show I made a reasonable attempt to have what I perceived as bullying or harrassment stopped, and their written continuation would show that they are a mentally unbalanced cyber bully for whom a cyberbullying law should apply.

As I recall myspace is one of the sites that requires if the child is 13 and under there need to be parental surpervision.

So the parents need to step up and monitor their kids and teach them the laws.

And this act needs to be abolished!

I understand Computer Bullying and physically being bulled, I was teased for wearing glasses and being called four eyes, but look where that got me, I am smarter, I know the laws, why doesn't someone just ask the average person?

ACLU should be left alone, haven't they suffered enough. I shocked, that this has gone on long enough. I have suffered the most. If you say anymore about this, this has got to stop NOW!

I get pulled over just for my color of my skin. I resent that. Well let me have you step into my shoes metaphorically speaking and see it from their perspective. Computer bullying is a very bad idea, so the law should start as soon as Nov. 22, 2009

If a kid cannot handle it then dont be online its that simple. Kids today are way too soft and that is a fact. They run to mommy and daddy to fix the problem and dont want to face it head on.

@DingoBoy
*stands up and applauds*

If one of my kids quit school, it is my fault.
If one of my kids commit suicide, it is my fault.
If one of my kids grow up to be a welfare leeching bum, it is my fault.
If one of my kids grow up to be a serial killer, it is my fault.

I think you get the idea. If the kid fails, it is the parents fault. It's not the media, or movies, or video games, etc. It is a parent, or parents, that needs to pay attention to there kid. If they are mentally or physically ill, it is up to the parent to see this and make sure they get the help needed to recover.

Objectionable, even anti social speech and behavior is protected by law and part of the price of freedom. If you are offended by something someone else says about you or someone you know, and its true, get over it.

I subscribe to Ron White's Homeland security levels as a guide to life.
1. Get a helmet.
2. Put the helmet on.

I was bullied in highschool too. To some extent everyone gets picked on as a kid, i highly doubt there is an "aplha dog" class of children that do what they please towards all others without consequence.

I think that we are paying so much attention to this because its a form of bullying that adults actually can control. You can't follow your kids to school but you certainly can monitor what they do online. So by that logic it makes sense to make these laws to get bullying to stop.

But remember that these are still kids. When they bully YOUR children they become evil monsters that should be put away forever and never see the light of day again. When its your child DOING the bullying, they were just trying to have fun and didn't mean any harm. Bullying is an emotional issue, and when you tie up emotions with law you always get problem.

Remember under this law cyber bulling will be a FELONY...for children. To me that sounds absolutley perverse, we don't need more kids in jail. Bullying is unfortunate and painful, but there are better ways to stop it than by making laws. This law won' stop bullying, it will just make alot more prisoners.

There are tons of programs aimed at reducing and preventing bullying in schools. Put more money into that then throwing more kids in jail.

God forbid people should treat others with respect and civility; you have the right to be as nasty as you want in person; people are trying to take action to protect kids and those who can't protect themselves, from a fate similar to Megan's. If people now have to do all of their harassment and bullying in person, maybe it will cut it down a bit.

Bullying is a necessary step in regards to finding out information about ourselves, if we are not pushed, poked or proded we'd never get motivated to do, grow or learn. Brad Pit put it best when he said, How much can we really know about ourselves if we've never been in a fight:)

People will make mountains out of molehills with this, but I think it's a great idea. There are so many hateful idiots on the net, I have no problem with making them think twice about harassment. Trust me, no one's going to go to jail for debates, disagreements and even name-calling. To hold up in court, it would have to be pretty consistent and aggressive.

I'm sick of protecting scum and always finding "slippery slope" arguments as a reason to protect them. The vast majority should not fear such legislation, only loser, blowhard scum.

The internets are serious bizness.

Seriously, if you cannot handle people hating you for the most moronic of reasons, you do not need to be online.

Why not nip this in the bud and make it a felony for parents to allow a child to have their own email account, MySpace, Facebook, etc page. Force parents to get involved in their child's life. The fact that some 13 y/o "fell in love" with a fictional person says a lot about her absentee parents.

Why not just start with the basics and add disclaimers to these websites to warn and keep people that are sensitive (depression, etc) away. Parents also need to be doing their part in keeping children away, from what I've gathered more than half of these cases sprout from a bully who takes things too far with a child that has some type of emotional disorder. I live with someone who battles with this type of disorder on a daily basis. Parents just need to spend more time with their children and keep an eye out on what they're doing until children are old enough to make sensible decisions on their own.

I'm sorry, but where were Megan Meier's parents during this whole ordeal? If parents took an active role in their child's life and monitored their internet activity like a responsible parent, this situation never would have happened. These types of laws are another way for parents to ignore one of their responsibilities and allow Big Brother to do it for them. Sad world we live in...

It's always fun unless it happens to you. True, I don't really care if someone harasses me online- after all, if it's so unimportant you can't say it or do it to my face it's not important enough for me to pay attention- I've never been driven away from e-mail, networks, social sites, etc. because some f*head got bored one day and decided my life was less important than their amusement. Some things just aren't solved with a mere apology, some damage done is too great. "Sorry, I didn't think you would be so fragile that you couldn't handle being dragged through the mud in front of potentially millions of people, and despite what I said earlier I truly am sorry you had that abortion and you turned to alcohol to ease the pain of constant bullying. But c'mon, they're just words, so quit whining."

I dunno... Maybe people have an issue with it because they want to keep the option of bullying others. You never know... maybe there's an opportunity that's just too darn good to pass up. As for letting the parents regulate, yeah some will take responsibility... as for most? Look at kids today... I find it hard to believe enough parents would be willing to admit their darling, sweet, innocent child could be a bastard to others. Maybe, just maybe, if we had proven ourselves responsible in the first place, this law would never have been conceived. But when have we ever put responsibility before our right to be irresponsible?

Anyone who supports this bill clearly knows nothing about the internet. The internet is responsible for some of the greatest things of all time. Actually, the internet is responsible for anything worthwhile ever. Whoever would dare regulate this cesspool (irl) has no heart, I assure you.

Hey..."Fat kid on cake"......are you bullying me? I am calling Linda Sanchez. Her husband's name is D btw.

LOL!!!

This is hilarious, I wonder what's gonna happen to Celebrity gossips to say the least, you wanna go crazy bust out the Conservatives! LOL!!! Hey, wait a minute...my evidence could date back as far as 4+ years so yeah, I should shut up, LOL!!!

Come on guys, this is the same government when the FBI was first established, gangsters were more prepared than they were, LOL!!! Come on guys, I know you heard those crazy stories...

Did you guys know based on our law, not our right, but FUNDAMENTAL right is worth more than our lives?? Ohh yeah, that's according to our analysis, we love this country, LOL!!! Hello!!! Whack people??? LOL!!!

"Hey Bill, this is what I think of you..."F...U!"

I'm looking forward to anonymous getting ahold of this one. Hacking and hijinks will follow in short order, I'm sure. It always does.

As for my thoughts, though... Yes, this may be abused. But to respond to someone (who I can't even tell whether they're in support of this or not...):

[“the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.” DOES NOT equal “being mean” to people on the internet. what I’ve read even included “severe and repeatative” to the verbiage…telling someone to “F off” or saying “your picture is horrible” DOES NOT equal purposely and intentionally driving someone to harm themselves (ie: suicide).]

This is true. However, a lot of "Internet harrassment," needless to say, DOES go beyond just "being mean to people on the Internet." There's a difference between telling someone to F off or even getting in one heated debate - that's not coercion, intimidation, harassment, OR likely to cause "substantial" emotional distress in any reasonable person (unless, of course, things devolve too far). But that's the point - I've seen cases, not too many thankfully, where things have turned into extremely hateful speech and threats. There's also a worrying amount of "cyber bullying" that pretty much boils down to trolls/flamers/what have you deciding they hate a particular Internet stranger and need to get them OFF THE WEB ENTIRELY, sometime to the point of trying to make all of their online friends hate them under any means possible.

Seriously - just go to places like Encyclopedia Dramatica. While that site's not MEANT to be taken seriously, a lot of people unfortunately do, and this has caused a lot of extremely creepy actions from Internet users. Some artist refusing to change her drawing style and take criticisms doesn't really necessitate an online petition to have her banned from the Internet. True story... and THAT is, without question, actual harrassment.

I don't quite get the problem. Virtually all communications applications have the ability to block or ignore or otherwise ban anyone who is obnoxious/threatening/frightening. If one is intelligent enough in the first place to not give them any other method of contact, it should be no problem.

The text of this bill is frightening.

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.

Isn't that all pretty subjective? How is intent defined? People have strong opinions which are occasionally rendered in strong terms. Is it that persons fault if someone else is offended by this to a point of extreme emotional distress?

I find it laughably insulting that Linda Sanchez would suggest that, "Congress has no interest in censoring speech " because isn't precisely what this law is proposing? Punishing people for speaking freely. Why don't we just outlaw hurting people's feelings?

kids will be kids, you will not stop bullying of any type, whether its between adults, kids w/e. This law is ridiculous, its sad the megan girl died, but thousands of people die every day, big deal, we do not need another pointless law, parents need to get off their lazy buts and control what their kids do. Apparently the lady who played the boy that megan liked was a complete moron, and should be thrown into the pin and have her civil liberties yanked, as its completely apparent she set out to torment this child. This law should be re-written to the extent where an adult harrases a child online they get locked-up, that simple... then again the united states is going to hell in a handbag, with the government and stupidity of our congress...

This is ridiculous.

I'm going to be a felon for calling someone a moron.

Hooray!

Since the telephone is "electronic communication" all my bill collectors will be felons for their coercive, intimidating, harassing calls which cause me substantial emotional distress.

Now you see the true intent of the law - well, that and ending all the nuisance calls and emails from voters to their elected representatives.

Sounds dangerously subjective to me. I was always under the impression the internet was an oasis of free speech, something we have seen less and less of over the last eight years. Nobody should be bullying or intimidating anybody else, either online or off, but making it a crime, and a felony no less, is ridiculous and, I think, unconstitutional. It should be the responsibility of the website to kick out troublemakers, not the duty of law enforcement to imprison cyber-bullies.

All this will take is for someone to get charged with calling another a moron and for it to go to court, and this bill will be squashed.

The problem with these things is that words like moron are totally subjective.

Compared to Stephen Hawking, almost everyone on the planet is a moron. Compared to George Bush, almost everyone is a genius...

There are many many bills that pass, that fade into obscurity almost immediately because of a lack of reality in governments decisions. This will be one of those.

This is GREAT news!!!

I have been the victim of a cyber bully and let me tell you, someone attacking you with graphic sexual references (and having a million people read it), and doing so as who-knows-who,

isn’t a lot of fun, but neither is it right!

and so I applaud the authors of this bill, its about time!!

I have a better idea that saves everybody a lot of trouble:

People just keep their stupid kids off the internet. Problem solved. Sign them up for baseball or karate lessons instead of cluttering up a computer network, and needing over 9000 laws passed to "protect" them there. Nothing of value would be lost.

This bill is so lame. its unconstitutional. It limits freedom of speech, and so violates the Constitution.

great i posted a great response and probably because I had symbolized vulgarity, it didn't get posted... CNN obviously doesn't believe in FREE SPEECH

I like the idea, but this one, like so many other laws, will be used incorrectly. What about those who get offended by a polite disagreement? Or vengeful exes who claim harassment on innocent people? Again, good in theory, but they're going to get floods of complaints and such, about half not worthy of legal action.

Log off the computer if it hurts your feelings. I apologize for my insensitivity, but this is like continuing to watch a movie that offends you and then sueing the producer! The people being "cyber-bullied" can turn the thing off, or choose to move to another social network. Kids...Everyone will not like you. It's a fact of life as social creatures.

The time will come when Christians defending their faith will be charged with this.

"I want a bill requiring any new internets applicant to prove mental fitness."

'riverboat gambler' wrote
"Oh you hurt my feelings on the internet!” waaaah waaah!! …
“You are a seriously weak-minded person if you are “coerced” into hurting or killling yourself by someone on the internet” …

'AS' wrote
"Thanks for proving my earlier point about people’s behavior when they think they are anonymous- I knew there would be at least one."

Thank you, AS, for proving riverboat's earlier point about the wussification of the nation-I knew there would be at least one...
: )

You people saying this is a good idea realize that people from other countries go on the internet sometimes, right? All this law would do is encourage folks from other countries to 'cyber-bully' you as hard as as much as they want, knowing it's illegal for you to stick up for yourself or say anything back.

@ Chris (may 15 6:32)

Why is it wrong for Christians to defend their faith? I can agree it's wrong for them to sit outside and force people to listen to them go on and on about the Bible (Especially since many of them get it wrong), but being a Christian, I think that if you're going to tell me I cannot defend my faith, then it would only be fair to tell everyone else they can't attack it either. Don't get Christianity confused with what you see portrayed in the media.

Onto the original topic...Freedom of speech is one thing, but it really has gone too far. Between the overly liberal people who will say/do whatever they feel makes them happy despite how offensive it is and the overly conservative people that go out and beat the Bible into people's heads, I've about had it with the people of this country and their lack of intelligence and civil conduct.

"Congress has no interest in censoring speech." Excuse me, isn't that what political correctness is all about. Then there's this chilling little finish: "your words are still protected under the same American values." I'm sorry, but that isn't good enough. I much prefer the First Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights as they are, to be kept inviolate. This bill, and especially the philosophy behind it, are frightening. I dislike nasty people more than most, but I also believe that people need to thicken their skins and consider that just because some jerk says something, it doesn't mean that it is true.

this means anyone that finds someone cheating in say world of warcarft "video games" can sew there internet provider then the provider can take the "cheater to court"

"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."

Let's see here, if I break up with my girlfriend and she intimidates or harasses me 2 times (repeated). Then I'll get her sent to prison!! This is great! Then I will sue her for tens of thousands of dollars because I suffered substantial emotional distress

Wow this is gunna suck for the MMO players of the world. could you imagine getting arrested after you flame a person after killing them in an online virtual fight. lol.. just wow .. i remember back in the day geting admin passes to a rival groups VoIP room and banning everyone, guess thats would be a felony now..

Stupid is stupid what is american law going to do to people in other countrys so lets say a person from england bullys an american who then intern bullies this said person back on another blog or myspace page and then they are reported for doing cyber bullying and go to jail

please america this law fails

This is a silly abuse of power and a potentially self-destructive one. What happens when you can't log into any site on the internet to vent some steam? There are sites specifically designed for that, and this will only make people more on edge when they're not legally allowed to flame some random celebrity or jackass local politician who could just turn around and say they are 'bullying' them. To all the people saying "stop being mean", grow up. If you're going to arrest me for speaking my mind, you may as well give me and a couple hundred million other Americans a life sentence right now. Thin-skinned people should report their problems to the webmasters/hosts, not get the government involved. Then they can do what most people would do and get over it.

Chronic cyber-bullies are emotionally immature. They are emotionally mature adults. I've been stalked and personally attacked on nola.com neighborhood forums and online Time-Picayune article comments almost constantly since I signed up with nola.com on October 5, 2005, and I've been followed by one abuser onto Yahoo Answer and have been personally attacked there as well. I've also been personally attacked on the Gulf Coast Weather web-site by another internet stalker. I've lost count of how many of my user names have been permanently banned.killed by cyber-bullies on the nola.com forums, but it was over 6 dozen when I stopped keeping track, and now it's probably over 9 dozen. I've also had a rape threat on the Lakeshore nola.com forum, as well as thinly veiled death threats from four or five user names over the last 43 months. I've had Trojan and Backdoor Trojan files placed on my hard drive by an internet stalker, and I know he was reading my keystrokes on Word files documenting the abuse on the nola. com forums, because my user name was permanently banned within minutes of my saving those Word files, and this has happened at least four times.

What about the hosting company of a forum that is complicit with the abuse of even one of it's members by one or more obsessed members with personal vendetta agendas to discredit some one in any way they possibly can because of their own paranoia about what I MIGHT post? Can't the hosting company be sued for complicity with abuse, defamation and libel when they are notified that a particular post violates the terms of the user agreement and community rules, but they refuse to remove a post that has been alerted on?

a.k.a oklatonola, oklatonola##, oklanola####, okie########

This is outrageously stupid. I feel it is tragic that someone lost their life to harassment. However, even in that circumstance she had every opportunity to ....report the abuse to her parents...or...not use MySpace... or...change her e-mail account... or....not commit suicide. The words "Delete," "Remove," and "Ignore" offer every individual user freedoms to choose who and what we want to deal with on the internet. In this case, Megan Meier insisted on continuing a relationship with her harasser.

This does not need separate legislation. However, it needs to be addressed carefully so that individuals have the right to tell someone to "p*ss off" without causing "severe emotional distress." Theoretically, telling someone to stop posting on a forum or else you'll notify the admins is coercion. This is something that can be taken too far, too fast, by too many.

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.

Get a backbone. Walk away. Seriously. It's the interbutts, and this bill is a serious disturbance of free speech. That anyone thinks this could ever be a good idea is atrocious. It will be taken way too far, way too fast, and will be a terrible addition to other bills that are trying to take away our rights.

The best part is that people from different countries won't be affected by this, so it's pretty much useless.

If someone on myspace makes a sexual threat online to you , do they go to jail if it's reported to police? Even if this person is out of state can they be arrested and put in jail? How much time can they serve for this crime? And if the victim is disabled do they have to appear in court to testify or can they make a written statement to police to be read in court? I am very upset over this and myspace hasn't banned him from web site as of yet, but they are working on it. They are telling me to make a report to police and send them a copy of it. Please answer my questions and get back to me on this. Thank you. Tina Audet.