Slashdot Log In
Proposed Legislation Would Outlaw "Cyberbullying" in US
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Jun 08, 2008 07:29 PM
from the keep-hands-and-arms-inside-the-handbasket dept.
from the keep-hands-and-arms-inside-the-handbasket dept.
physman_wiu writes "We all remember the recent incident of 13-year-old Megan Meier. Now legislation is set to be passed at least in Missouri (and possibly through Congress) that would make cyberbullying illegal. The new legislation (PDF) reads: 'Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' Now, this seems like a great piece of legislation — until I get put in jail for some kid on WOW calling the Feds on me." Eugene Volokh is not impressed.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Also we should outlaw the breaking of hearts. (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Interesting)
This law just proves that our political leaders are complete idiots, at least the people deciding writing the wording on the laws.
Why the hell should we be worried about virtual bullying when we have real bullying to outlaw?
Parent
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing more than feelings?
Parent
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Funny)
Then I'd get sued for belittling your intelligence and spelling ability and vanish for 2 years.
Parent
So delete them, they aren't real. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the goddamn internet. If someone is annoying you can delete them or even unplug your machine.
It's not the same as getting punched in the face or jumped by real bullies. Haven't you been bullied in school? You should know the difference.
Parent
I've thought about this a lot... (Score:5, Interesting)
Cyberbullying, I believe, is a real issue. I've never been subjected to it, thankfully, but I can imagine that, to a teenager, it can be especially damaging, and even more so than real life bullying given how important the internet has grown to be for teenage social interaction.
Parent
Re:I've thought about this a lot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I've thought about this a lot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Where have you been when all the other internet laws were passed?
Parent
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's no great stretch of the imagination to see forums, Facebook, Second (for fuck's sake get a first) Life and all the other online chat / blog comments / whatever defined as public expression, so whatever isn't acceptable in real life should be no less vilified online.
Bullying is bullying - full stop, and the significant difference with online bullying is that the victim can't turn round and kick seven shades of shit out of the bully.
I was bullied as a child, but only ever once by each bully - they soon learned the lesson once I broke noses and fingers.
If I had been subject to online bullying, many lessons would not have been taught, and I might have been affected by the verbals - as it is, there are quite a few people in their late 40s who stopped bullying as a result of a good kicking from me.
Parent
WOW - get a load of that obscurity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WOW - get a load of that obscurity (Score:5, Funny)
Why the fuck does which is which matter?
I swear to god you stupid motherfucker, if you your bullshit drivel even one more motherfucking time I am going to climb through this tube and smack the shit out of you. I'll kick your dog while I'm there, and piss on your flowers.
No one wants to read what you write. It is lame. You are lame by extension. Your whole family is very likely equally lame. Lick my sack.
In short, fuck you and the packets you rode in one.
You are a waste of carbon and water.
Yuo == fuckface
Parent
Re:come on (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:come on (Score:5, Insightful)
So we can't really take it seriously. It's not even worthy of honest debate or devil's-advocacy. Hell, debating it just gives the reactionary, melodramatic legislators the attention they're craving.
So, screw it. We're just gonna ridicule it - that's a better use of our time (and a more appropriate response.)
- David Stein
Parent
Re:WOW - get a load of that obscurity (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:WOW - get a load of that obscurity (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case, it's far more likely that this will be used to extend RL rules to the net. Meaning that cyberstalkers, those that mix through multiple types of communication or sites are far more likely to end up being tried than just somebody that's trolling just one site.
But, really this isn't that much different than laws that ban the sending of threatening letters through the mail or calling people at home repeatedly without permission.
It's really hard for me to see this as a free speech issue, without having more information. Just because a person can say something doesn't mean that it's constitutionally protected, and I suspect that this legislation will be used in that manner. Abusing the courts can and does get attorneys disbarred, just ask Jack Thompson what the courts feel about it.
At this point, the legislation hasn't even passed, and could very likely end up being amended, changed or fail to pass at the last minute.
Parent
Responsibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Responsibility? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Responsibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno... seems to me this could all be handled under existing law. I mean, they DID bring charges against the parent.
Parent
Re:Responsibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was *A* parent, but NOT THE PARENT OF THE CHILD WHO COMMITTED SUICIDE.
Obviously this lady is fucked in the head to torment a kid like that.
But obviously too the girl who killed herself had more problems than just being manipulated by someone on the net.
It may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but anyone who commits suicide because someone played an elaborate and humiliating practical joke on them over the internet is already in severe need of help. Help that apparently her own parents failed to provide.
Sticks and stones...
Parent
Re:Responsibility? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it was the employee of a parent of the friend of the child who committed suicide.
But that is frankly beside the point anyways. After reviewing as much of what happened in this case as is available to the general public, while what this woman did was sick, I no longer think it was the proximate cause of the girl committing suicide. It is very evident when you dig a little deeper into the story, that it was her own mother's reaction when Meghan tried to talk about what had happened that pushed her over the edge. She didn't get a nasty message and decide to hang herself. She got some nasty messages, tried to talk to her mom about it, her mom blew her off because she didn't like the language Meghan had used in her chatting, she cried out to her mom that she was supposed to be on her side, THEN went up to her room and immediately killed herself.
I still think the woman who perpetrated the hoax was a horrible horrible person. However, I feel Meghan's mother has to be held somewhat accountable. She knew her daughter suffered from depression, she saw her daughter was very upset. But rather than comfort her, she grew angry because Meghan had been talking naughty online. A decision I think she will regret to her dying day.
Parent
Re:Responsibility? (Score:5, Informative)
A good book to read on the topic is The Drama of the Gifted child by Alice Miller [wikipedia.org].
Parent
Re:Responsibility? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I had kids, they'd hate me. Keyloggers FTW, accounts w/ passwords I know. As they got older I'd get less restrictive, but I would understand it is not the worlds job to watch my kids.
Parent
No need for a cyber law here (Score:5, Insightful)
Making special cyber law reenforces the notion that the internet is different and has different rules.
Parent
Re:Bully the bully. (Score:5, Interesting)
The result was that I got dragged in front of the principal and got to hear a rather unpleasant lecture how I should not do that. Complaining that I reported repeatedly that he kept punching and kicking me without any result didn't faze him. Instead I was sent home for a few weeks, only to get more heat from my dad (who tried the "grow a pair" approach first).
This experience taught me a few valuable lessons:
1. Don't rely on due process, it doesn't work. If you get wronged, you're on your own.
2. Don't rely on your family, for when you apply their advice, you are wrong.
3. Find people who have the same problem you do. After that incident, I had quite a few good friends.
Parent
oh great... (Score:5, Funny)
Tagged: goodluckwiththat (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I get the feeling this law is impractical.
Why does the internet change anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why does the internet change anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why does the internet change anything? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why does the internet change anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't RTFA (well, I skimmed it), and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it occurred to me that maybe the purpose of creating a new law that simply adds "on the internet" to an existing law is to allow for harsher sentencing.
Theoretically, technology allows bullies to escalate their bullying to new levels, harassing their victims unrelentingly, at any hour of the day, and from anywhere. Perhaps updating the law to factor in the heightened level of harassment that is now possible allows judges to increase the sentence accordingly.
I did notice, however, that the article claims that "(l)awmakers are seeking to address cyberbullying with new legislation because there's currently no specific law on the books that deals with it".
Parent
Pesky First Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
We could limit advertisers.
We could limit hate groups.
We could stop bullies.
We could stop lobbyists.
But, alas, we are stuck with the damn thing. Ooh, have an idea. We can pass laws to limit the 1st Amendment protections in clear violation of the Constitution. And no one will have the balls to take it to the Supreme Court. And if they do, the Supreme Court *may* overturn the law but we'll have stopped literally *tens* of cyber-bullies.
After all, USians have been shitting on the 2nd Amendment for the last hundred years. It's about time the 1st gets some love too.
Re:Pesky First Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Pesky First Amendment (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Pesky First Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Pesky First Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like it, work to change it. There's a mechanism in the constitution to do just that. But unless and until you change it, it remains the supreme law of the land. When you attempt to define it out of existence, you just weaken all other constitutional protections. Here's a hint: the constitution says that the federal government has NO POWER other than what is specifically granted to it by the constitution. Nowhere in there will you find the authority to propagate laws restricting the ownership of firearms.
I think you misundersand what "it was meant to do." The 2nd amendment was meant to leave ultimate power in the hands of the people--by enabling them to take up arms against a tyrannical government if required. Recall that the men who wrote the constitution has just done this very thing themselves--in fact, Lexington and Concord, the first battles of the Revolutionary War, were fought because the government was attempting to disarm the citizenry.
As far as "gun deaths" go, the sad truth is that Americans just seem to like killing each other... take away guns, and those intending to murder will use knives. Take away knives and they'll use baseball bats. Take away bats, and they'll use hands and feet. I'm not saying that I LIKE that this is the way things are, but this is the way things are. I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore, but I thought he made some really good points in Bowling for Columbine... it's a pity that instead of following them to their logical conclusion, he just settled on blaming an old man with Alzheimers instead.
Parent
Re:Pesky First Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Because "The People" in the 2nd amendment are obviously not the same "The People" from the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Those are clearly some other people. Or maybe the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments are also some kind of nebulous collective right that can be defined out of existence on a whim?
If one were intellectually honest, they might even question themselves on why the 2nd amendment would be about state militias when the congress has the power to federalize them... if it were about balance between the federal government and the states, why would the federal government have the power to take those militias away for federal service?
By the way, neither states nor the federal government have rights--they have powers.
Parent
Legislation is not the solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nor should you have to.
Coming soon .... (Score:5, Interesting)
And the government steps in for mommy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it was more like some whiny kid who learned how to manipulate their parents to get the retribution they wanted against someone. Did some kid fairly take the last cookie? Go tell on him for stealing your cookie right out of your hands. Heh, as if there's not enough of that going around in Grown-Up Land with the legal system already.
This concept has to die.
Fook! (Score:5, Funny)
The end of cable news? (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean they'll ban Bill O'Reilly?
the legislation would have been superior (Score:5, Insightful)
as was the case with meier
or
if it was harassment by an ADULT on a person known to them to be emotionally or mentally compromised
as was ALSO the case with meier
with those caveats, all trolling on the internet would not count in the legislation, mostly because it is anonmyous, and between (nominally) mentally fit adults
Leave the law alone. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a law clerk in the state court system, and have been for a little over two years. When I first started, I never saw much of anything that dealt with online content. Now, I'd say that maybe 5-10% of the protective orders ("Harassment Restraining Orders" in my state) deal with students (mostly high school and college) interacting via My Space or Facebook. So I do believe that "cyber bullying" is happening, at least to some extent. Some of it is BS, like parents not approving of their underage daughter's racy pictures of herself and the much-too-old boyfriend, or an angry match.com breakup, or whatever.
Additionally, I don't believe we need any new laws to deal with this. At least I haven't personally seen a need yet. Generally, the existing harassment laws do just fine. They are already written broadly enough to cover "communications" via a number of methods. If someone communicates with you after you've told them you find their contact harassing, the law covers it, whether it's by phone, mail, in-person, or email. Special laws to cover the internet will only make it more difficult to do my job, and more importantly the job of the judges who ultimately make the decisions. And believe me, they are not well equipped to understand online material. Boiling it all down to "communications" is just easier. Court personal and prosecutors are already overworked in many areas, and complicating matters further will basically just mean that either other cases involving more traditional speech will have to be given a lower priority, or that none of it gets the attention it needs.
The one situation that's hard to handle is postings to other people's blogs that are unconnected to the recipient. Trying to analogize a blog posting is a bit difficult -- it's not like we've ever had much of a problem of people speaking bad of each other via physical billboards. But really, that's protected free speech, until it rises to the level of a treat. So essentially, the one situation a politician could conceivably attempt to control is basically impossible control due to that pesky constitution of ours (I know, politicians hate it).
Bottom line, leave the law alone. Stop grandstanding. And throw enough money at the judicial system to be able to spend enough time of each case, and give prosecutors the money to have enough people to pursue the cases that need the most attention. But I suppose it's a lot easier to "JUST THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!" by coming up with crazy laws, rather than simply funding courts.
This is just pointless. (Score:5, Funny)