Proposed Legislation Would Outlaw "Cyberbullying" in US 532
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.
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?
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing more than feelings?
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
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.
Re:I've thought about this a lot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've thought about this a lot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Where have you been when all the other internet laws were passed?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Eh, what this law really wants to prevent, albeit in an assinine way, is adults making children fall in love with phoney people online, and then breaking their hearts to cause them to commit suicide. Which, is a shitty thing that happened in Missouri (or Mississippi, one of the "useless" states at any rate), and to which this law is a reaction.
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Shouldn't we outlaw bullying in schools first? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who will be our military drill sergeants, will R. Lee Ermey be the last of the drill sergeant instructors and instead we end up with drill sergeant instructors that have to be nice to the new recruits? "That is a sloppy job with reassembling that rifle, private Pyle, now drop and write me an
Police shouldn't be bullies. (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, the best cops are usually the people who have been bullied.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This law just proves that our political leaders are complete idiots, at least the people deciding writing the wording on the laws.
Actually, this mostly proves how much politicians don't care, and how much soccer moms with nothing to do actually care. What was probably going through their mind is "fuck it, we'll just give em' 2 years and if enough people piss and moan about it we'll change it again". Politicians only have the ambition to get voted, so they only have to worry about money and people who actually give a shit enough to do anything. It's our fault for being too lazy. Here's a link if you're interested in getting started: h [greghartnett.com]
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.
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
come on (Score:3)
Re:come on (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of takes the kick out of it.
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But this is exactly the kind of thing that should be taken seriously. Sadly, it will probably not be used much to protect children who may need it, but will instead be used to protect politicians, the well heeled but disliked and so on.
It is a pretty obvious way to choke out free speech - at least free speech about persons. The question would have to be "Will it pass the Supremes?" and I'd not want to bet either way on that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We should mod them insightful instead?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WOW - get a load of that obscurity (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Responsibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Responsibility? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Responsibility? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Responsibility? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wasn't bullied in high school. I got into a few shouting matches, shoved a few times, but overall, it wasn't bad. The kids who had it bad? They were the ones who THOUGHT they were smarter than everyone else, and didn't realize that answering every question the teacher asked was just rubbing everyone else's face in it. I knew the answer too, but there was no reason for me to answer EVERYTHING. That's why I was friends with most of the "bullies", and the other kids were targets.
Bully the bully. (Score:3, Funny)
As soon as the stars stopped I got up and walked around school to my bike and unlocked it. With that U-shaped lock I walked straight up the kid and began smashing it on the back of his head. Some of his scalp came out in chunks and he was knocked out. The coach for the football team wrestled me to the ground and broke one of my fingers and sp
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, only once? I got bullied for several months every day after school! Then one day I finally exploded like a human nuclear device and nearly killed the bully by wrestling him to the ground and pounding him unconscious against the cement sidewalk. After that I had peace and the respect of all those that witnessed that event and those that were told what took place. The administration did not get involved, since it was not on school property.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't about your little guy getting beaten up by bullies at school (that's still pretty much legal, at least this law doesn't address it at all). It's about being called names on the internet.
No, I believe this is about a bit more than just "name calling". It is about activities like the bully posting fake obscene pictures of you on the Internet. Of course you could do this with paper leaflets, but AFAIK that doesn't really happen, unlike the Internet version...
This is also about the bully spreading semi-plausible rumours in the Internet to relative strangers. Now again the bully could go to the street and yell the same rumours to everybody who passes by, but that would actually make the bully
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, actually it's about Megan Meier who committed suicide after being harassed by a 49 year-old woman named Lori Drew. Missouri prosecutors decided there was no legal basis to pursue Drew for her acts; this bill is the result.
The real concern isn't this bill, but the Federal indictment against Drew [wired.com] in Los Angeles
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lol, at 43 threatening to beat people up over the internet because you disagree. yes, you came out all normal for your bullying.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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...
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.
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].
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Come to Australia or Europe. Both are nice places.
Re: (Score:3)
While I do agree with you, I can't help but laugh that you said that. The case specifically being cited as the reason for such a law was not a kid being bullied by another kid, but a kid that was more or less goaded into committing suicide by the MOTHER of her friend.
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.
More tags! (Score:3, Funny)
oh great... (Score:5, Funny)
Tagged: goodluckwiththat (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I get the feeling this law is impractical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But with cyber-anything, they can subpoena chat logs & e-mails (in addition to the usual witness calling), which I imagine will make it much easier to show whether or not X was saying mean things with the intent to hurt Y.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The 9/11 TV coverage pretty much showed you are not anonymous in this country in the metro areas. It was amazing what they got from *private* cameras as they retraced that one morons steps. ( ATMs, gas stations, etc )
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why does the internet change anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why does the internet change anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why does the internet change anything? (Score:5, Funny)
ah, that explains it (Score:3, Funny)
Just like "Doing X on the internet." is a completely different patent from "Doing X." It's all getting clear now.
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".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you could bully me from anywhere on the planet. ... Why should someone from India bully me? He doesn't even know me at all.
I think the point is more where the victim is, rather than where the bully is. In other words, the bullying can continue even once you're "safe" in your own home. "Old school" bullying ended once you arrived at home.
And so far, I thought we already had stalking laws, they could be beefed up a bit and we're set.
Isn't that what this legislation is trying to do? Beef up the existing laws to ensure they cover the new forms that these actions have started to take?
From TFA: "When signed, the Missouri state law will update existing regulations on harassment and stalking to include instances of those ac
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The what we call th
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)
Re:Pesky First Amendment (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh no, someone is mean to you on a forum! That is a far, FAR cry from someone following you around in the real world and harassing you.
Actually, there's no mention whatsoever of forums in the article. According to the article, the point of this legislation is that it is specifically defining what constitutes "harassment", and that they are specifically targeting repeated harassment using the Internet, text messages, and other electronic devices.
So, this is actually not all that different from being followed around and harassed in the real world. In fact, it is being followed around and harassed in the real world, only the harassment is
Re:Pesky First Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No it doesn't.
You are pushing a blatantly fraudulent analogy between criminal prosecution for harassment and the truth as a defense in a civil suit for libel.
The bully is deep into games of power and submission. He wants something from his victim - if only a show of pain. This isn't speech, it is a merciless physical and pyschological assault.
Remember, lawyers won't wait until you've clearly crossed the li
german love? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was intended to protect people for the expression of religion and freedom of speech, but Modern Liberals have limited it due to political correctness laws and interpreting the separation of church and state to not just be limited to a church, but the expression of any religion that they hate so they have a right to censor it and remove it from the public and sue people over it. So much that it made Thomas Jefferson roll over in his grave so much tha
Actually I did post links but you ignored them (Score:3, Informative)
Girl told she cannot read bible at school [cnsnews.com]
Houston we have a problem, students want to read bibles at recess [adherents.com]
How about that crow you just ate? Was it tasty?
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.
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.
When rickrolling is outlawed (Score:2, Funny)
Somehow I do not think this will survive a constitutional challenge.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Legislation is not the solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nor should you have to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor would you want to.
In my experience, attempting to legislate common courtesy, or any other sort of common sense, just results in people feeling like they don't have any obligation to obey common sense as long as they stay within the bounds of the law.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember when you were little and called someone a poo-poo head and then their parents mindfucked you until you killed yourself?
"Actually, it was more like some whiny kid who learned how to manipulate their parents to get the retribution they wanted against someone."
Like creating a fake MySpace profile with the sole intent to harass.
Fook! (Score:5, Funny)
No more SPAM!!! (Score:2, 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.
Might as well get my two cents in now.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Blatant violation of first amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
We should not have to live in fear of everything we say perhaps being misconstrued in some wa. That is the kind of society which this will lead to, where people live in fear basically of saying anything.
This is just pointless. (Score:5, Funny)
Why Single Out Electronic Means? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why only when using electronic means? I should think it's not the tool you use that is important, but what you do.
Bullying (Score:3, Insightful)
But bad as bullying is, cyberbullying is several degrees worse. At least when you are being bullied by a group of people in school or at work, you have a physical enemy that you can in principle confront; and what they can do to you is limited by many factors. The cyberbully on the other hand, has access to much greater resources and does not have to witness your pain first-hand - so there is less to hold them back. And there is less to confront - as an inexperienced teenager you don't really know enough to handle this situation, and you can't even turn to your parents, because more likely than not, they don't know as much about computers as you do.
Of course passing a law doesn't solve the problem, but it is a necessary first step. The bullies are not going to stop on their own, and they will probably not understand an appeal their better self; so punishment is required. But we can't punish if there isn't a law that makes it a crime.
You cannot legislate bullying away.... (Score:3, Informative)
What happened with Mega Meier is extremely sad and disturbing, but as disgustingly sickening as the woman who did this was, she is not responsible for Meier's suicide.
Regardless of how awful someone is to someone else on a verbal level, the cannot force them to hurt themselves.
This girl was depressed and made the choice to take her own life. It's ver sad, but it happens every day. Had it not been this situation it likely would have been something else, and the next time she really got hurt the results would have been the same.
The charges filed against this woman in LA are ridiculous - they act as though violating Myspace's TOS is breaking the law.
You cannot legislate something like this because where do you draw the line? What is free speech and what is harrassment? What is a joke and what isn't a joke? Even if this sort of legislation passed can you image trying to enforce it and the people who would abuse such a law?
To break it down:
As sad as this case is, you cannot legislate something like this away. You cannot legislate cyberbullying away any more than you can legislate schoolyard bullying away. Bullies are a fact of life - and the only thing that can be done to to teach children how to handle this sort of thing - how to handle bullies and to really look out for your kids when they are at this sensitive age - and if they cannot deal with these sort of things do what you need to to get them help.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-1 Cyberbullying
We already have 10 of those:
Offtopic: For people cyberbullying bloggers
Flamebait: For people cyberbullying Slashdotters
Troll: For people cyberbullying Apple
Redundant: For people cyberbullying CowboyNeal
Insightful: For people cyberbullying Microsoft
Interesting: For people cyberbullying OOXML
Informative: For people cyberbullying Windows
Funny: For people cyberbullying US citizens
Overrated: For people not putting in a decent Slashdot effort to cyberbully anybody
Underrated: For people cyberbullying other modera
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at all the grief the Supreme Court throws at obscenity laws when cases involving them get appealed to their level... people should just give up on passing th