Trolling? New bill could slap you with fines or jail time. I'm so screwed.

Blind_Io

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
24,229
Location
Utah
Car(s)
See signature
From: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...online-bill-would-slap-you-with-jail-time.ars

A recently introduced cyberbullying bill could land us all in jail?that is, if you have ever used an electronic medium to troll someone. HR 1966, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, is named after the high-profile "MySpace suicide" victim Megan Meier. It's meant to prevent people from using the Internet to "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." However, as with many bills of this nature, the murky language and vague standards leave much open to interpretation, which has caused critics to call it the Censorship Act instead.

HR 1966 was introduced in April by US Representative Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and it's supported by 14 other members of Congress. According to the text, individuals who bully others via any electronic means could face fines, two years in prison, or both. This, of course, could include those nasty text messages you sent to your ex on Saturday night, the questionable e-mail you sent to your brother, or those forum posts you made in which you called for someone who liked the new Star Trek movie to jump off a building.

The bill largely flew under the radar until fairly recently (thanks to NetworkWorld for the heads-up) but criticism has been building. The language in the bill is so vague, it could be interpreted to apply to practically any situation, including blog posts critical of public officials.
UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh went into detail on his blog, suggesting that numerous everyday situations could render regular citizens felons if their behavior is considered "severe" enough. "I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite/campaign promise breaker/fool/etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) 'to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior'? unless, of course, my statements aren't seen as 'severe,' a term that is entirely undefined and unclear," Volokh wrote.

Still, Sanchez insists that the bill isn't meant to dampen free speech online. "Congress has no interest in censoring speech and it will not do so if it passes this bill," Sanchez wrote on the Huffington Post. "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."

Although Sanchez seems to think there's no possibility for abuse with this bill, we all know what the road to hell is paved with. Despite her reassurance that it won't be used to censor Internet communications, there's no way to predict how judges would interpret such a law. One thing we do know is that cyberbullying cases have picked up since Missouri passed its own law following Megan Meier's death?if HR 1966 makes it past the House Committee on the Judiciary and into the books, we could see a serious uptick in those types of cases.
Click to expand...

Hey, I liked the new Star Trek film!
 
Goddammit. Fucking Megan Meier. She's just one more reason I hate everything about St. Charles, MO.

Some fantastically drugged up 13 year old MySpace-addicted girl kills herself over some guy who she has never met in her life, and somehow she's seen as some kind of saint? And now some Congressgoon says that I'M the reason she killed herself, because people post inflammatory things on the internet? That's the most inane thing I'll hear this week.

"Congress has no interest in censoring speech and it will not do so if it passes this bill"
Click to expand...
And we're just going to... what, take their word for it? Kinda like how they said the USA PATRIOT act was for fighting terrorism?
 
Last edited:
Your right to say anything is guaranteed. Your privilege of freedom after the fact isn't. :p
 
efoolution said:
I?m curious ... can you be charged for defamation (via net or real life) in the states? Over here, I can be sued for defamation or charged for defamation via net (and real life of course). Shouldn?t defamtion-laws be enough to hold cyberbullies responsable?
Click to expand...

There are some cases in lower courts regarding defamation on things like Yelp and I think ratemyproffessor, I'm yet to hear of any decisions.

And fuck these congresspeoples. They should go plaly in traffic/jump off a bridge/sit and spin on a box opener/etc./etc.
 
This is part of the problem with society, we take everything at face value. It's the internet, it's nothing but a conjured up bunch of pixels that someone wrote to try and be a tough guy. What happened to that old saying, Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt? Yeah that one, so what someone called you a name on the internet or is harassing you? At the end of the day you should be able to just wipe it away as idiocy. However, this doesn't fully apply to if you know this person and they are threatening you. It applies to the little snot who is halfway across the country who doesn't know you, and will never be able to back up what they are spitting out. If you are in real threat of being physically injured don't pussyfoot around it and alert those who can help, but please don't blame the internet because it is not patrolled.
 
I can't even be bothered to think of something witty or intelligent to respond to such monumental idiocy.
 
If this makes it into law the Supreme Court will shoot it down first chance they get. The internet is more or less backed by the first amendment (here in the US), so it cannot be preemptively censored (or censored at all for that matter, and never mind the logistics of actually doing that).
 
As a preemptive measure and to comply with future law we here at Finalgear.com will start banning accounts immediately. We feel that if there's trolling on Finalgear this section is the most likely starting point. Which is why we'll start with banning users who participated in this section at first. :p
 
So...who is going to enforce this?

Are people going to start calling 911 and say "Mommy, this guy called me an arsehole on the Internet..." ?

Cut the crap. 13-year-olds are not supposed to have online profiles. I actually know a girl who created a facebook account for her 9-month daughter!

How about this - The Internet should be age 14+ only! How about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top