Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Everybody's a Critic—and a 'Cyberbully,' Apparently
It was bad enough that a grandstanding U.S. attorney successfully prosecuted Lori Drew, a Missouri woman who participated in a cruel MySpace prank that apparently precipitated the 2006 suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier, under an anti-hacking law that clearly was not intended for this sort of situation. Now Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) and 14 of her colleagues want to make such prosecutions easier through a breathtakingly broad bill that would criminalize a wide range of speech protected by the First Amendment. The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would make it a felony punishable by up to two years in prison to transmit an electronic communication ("including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages") "with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person...to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Off the top of his head, UCLA law professor (and Reason contributor) Eugene Volokh suggests half a dozen situations that could be covered by this law, all involving protected speech, including online criticism of politicians, angry demands for refunds from manufacturers of shoddy goods, calls for boycotts, and hostile messages to an ex-boyfriend. "The examples could be multiplied pretty much indefinitely," he writes at The Volokh Conspiracy. "The law, if enacted, would clearly be facially overbroad (and probably unconstitutionally vague), and would thus be struck down on its face under the First Amendment."
[via Hans Bader]
Bags|5.1.09 @ 6:40PM|#
Another pandering, piece of shit legislation named after a dead child. Who'd of thunk it.
Paul|5.1.09 @ 6:41PM|#
Now Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) and 14 of her
colleagues
Wasn't there another thread where we were told that D's always
opted for more liberty? Or will we get a long series of convoluted
arguments as to how this will increase liberty. People will be free
from the ravages of ugly comments and being called a
poopy-head?
|5.1.09 @ 6:44PM|#
Hmm, this reminds me about Fordham Law Professor Joel Reidenberg
and his class project to form a dossier of
Justice Scalia. This was in response to Justice Scalia's
comments that certain personal details are not legally
protected as private online, though it may be bad judgment to
collect them.
Justice Scalia's response to the dossier was as follows:
I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law.
It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.
Well said by Justice Scalia, and to my mind applies to the Lori
Drew case. If only Rep. Sanchez (D-CA) and others could take that
to heart.
Mad Max|5.1.09 @ 6:48PM|#
Reason su . . .
Wait, officer, I haven't finishing using the Internet for
harassment purposes!
Mister DNA|5.1.09 @ 6:57PM|#
Another pandering, piece of shit legislation named after a dead child. Who'd of thunk it.
No shit. It's only a matter of time before military appropriation
bills are named after Dead White Girls.
By the way, has Xeones been posting lately?
|5.1.09 @ 6:58PM|#
Moynihan secretly can't wait for the signing ceremony. Before the ink dries on Obama's signature, Moynihan will be pressing charges against me and MNG.
Fluffy|5.1.09 @ 7:09PM|#
I feel it important to note that, if this thread was about gay
marriage, we'd be hearing from the usual parties all bent out of
shape because the judiciary gets to decide what legislation is
constitutional.
Nobody wants to step up and complain about legislating from the
bench on this one?
Always remember: without judicial review, nonsense like this law is
what you'll get - only a thousand-fold.
MNG|5.1.09 @ 7:12PM|#
Sanchez is a very, very dumb person. I remember her since her
upset of Dornan, she's one of the lightest of lightweights.
Paul, this marks an area where, if most of those co-sponsors of the
act are Democrats, I will readily say they are in the wrong.
It sounds like an "uncommonly silly law." Strike that, an
uncommonly wicked law.
What kills me is that she couldn't think of a better law to get at
people like the human poop pile that is Lori Drew? Like some kind
of federal "knowing infliction of emotional distress on a minor"
tort action? Jesus...
|5.1.09 @ 7:12PM|#
By the way, has Xeones been posting lately?
Yes, but you can steal his phrase any time.
Naming legislation after dead children is something that every
politician feels they have to try at least once. It's just such an
easy pander, how can the lazy fucks resist?
MNG|5.1.09 @ 7:13PM|#
fluffy
You're an oft mistaken libertarian tool (thank you ex-post facto
clause), but very, very good point on judicial review...
MNG|5.1.09 @ 7:14PM|#
"Yes, but you can steal his phrase any time."
And he would SO hate it if I did it...Oh hell, can't wait:
Yo, fuck Linda Sanchez (again, thanks ex post facto clause)
Paul|5.1.09 @ 7:16PM|#
You're an oft mistaken libertarian tool
This could mean several things...
Anyhoo, time to git my swerve on...
|5.1.09 @ 7:25PM|#
I, for one, think that the prefixes "cyber-" and "e-" are to
blame. It apparently makes normal shit seems lots scarier to
politicians.
"It's my new e-helmet... It's heavy as hell, but it is also cool as
crap."
Mad Max|5.1.09 @ 7:27PM|#
'Loretta Sanchez upset B1 Bob. [Linda Sanchez] is her
sister.'
I know a gal who lives on Capitol Hill
She'll ignore the Constitution, just like her sister will.
|5.1.09 @ 7:48PM|#
"The law, if enacted, would clearly be facially overbroad (and probably unconstitutionally vague), and would thus be struck down on its face under the First Amendment."
And when it is struck down the voters of California's 39th
Congressional will think "oh, those awful judges (who will most
probably be liberals) hate children but, thank goodness, Linda
Sanchez loves children."
What delicious irony it is that this woman represents Tricky Dick's
old district. Two people, who if you look at their lives, represent
almost everything that is wrong with America.
Suki|5.1.09 @ 7:55PM|#
"with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause
substantial emotional distress to a person...to support severe,
repeated, and hostile behavior."
There is quite a bit of existing law that covers threats against
persons, coercion, extortion, etc. is there not?
What difference does it make if it is online?
Beloved boyfriend got his gun permit and was instructed to never
ever again (as if he ever did this) challenge or invite any
confrontation, just in case he ends up having to shoot someone in
self defense (not sure about defense of others) they can't come
back on him saying he started it. It is a whole long thing too!
Making sure if someone bothering him and does not go away that he
announces that they are scaring him or something.
If you have to go through all that just to defend yourself, why
does threatening people get a free pass?
MNG|5.1.09 @ 8:18PM|#
"Two people, who if you look at their lives, represent almost
everything that is wrong with America."
Amen.
MNG|5.1.09 @ 8:19PM|#
"There is quite a bit of existing law that covers threats
against persons, coercion, extortion, etc. is there not?
What difference does it make if it is online?"
I'm not sure how an online version would ever be imminent, and only
imminent threats, I think, should be actionable.
Suki|5.1.09 @ 8:28PM|#
"There is quite a bit of existing law that covers threats
against persons, coercion, extortion, etc. is there not?
What difference does it make if it is online?"
I'm not sure how an online version would ever be imminent, and
only imminent threats, I think, should be actionable.
YOU said "think" in first person? HAHA!
Only "imminent" extortion should be actionable? Just what is that?
How is nit different from the more common term of strong-armed
threat?
Only "imminent" coercion?
Oh, it can't be imminent if it is online, so if the ransom note is
sent via email that is fine, only the kidnapping can be prosecuted,
if there even was a kidnapping.
Gotcha!
My sides are hurting now.
Anonymous|5.1.09 @ 8:43PM|#
How do you expect to be part of the global community without changing your laws? You can't, that's how.
|5.1.09 @ 8:57PM|#
If Kennedy retires so Obama gets to replace him, I bet this Law would survive SCOTUS 5-4. It's possible it will without Kennedy retiring, depending on how the wind blows that day.
jtuf|5.1.09 @ 10:11PM|#
We already have harassment laws. Just apply them rationally to the internet. There's no need for a separate law concerning electronic communitcations.
|5.1.09 @ 10:57PM|#
I feel it important to note that, if this thread was about
gay marriage, we'd be hearing from the usual parties all bent out
of shape because the judiciary gets to decide what legislation is
constitutional.
Ah, the smell of burning straw in the evening...
|5.2.09 @ 1:07AM|#
this law could shut down Daily Kos and quite a few others, I'd imagine...Sarah Palin and Ms California alone could keep the feds busy for months.
|5.2.09 @ 7:47AM|#
I feel it important to note that, if this thread was about
gay marriage, we'd be hearing from the usual parties all bent out
of shape because the judiciary gets to decide what legislation is
constitutional.
C'mon. fluffy. Those of us who give a shit about separation of
power and limited government think there is a very real difference
between striking down a law to preserve negative liberties (ruling
that this bill would be unconstitutional) and amending the law to
create a positive obligation (amending, for example, CA law to
change all references to "a man and a woman" to "two
persons').
If you don't get the difference, well, then its hard to have a
serious conversation about the proper role of the judiciary, the
value of separation of powers, or even limited government.
Beloved boyfriend got his gun permit and was instructed to
never ever again (as if he ever did this) challenge or invite any
confrontation, just in case he ends up having to shoot someone in
self defense (not sure about defense of others) they can't come
back on him saying he started it.
If he shoots someone properly, who exactly is this "they" who will
be claiming that he started it?
In my concealed carry class, my instructor was very much of the
opinion that, if you ever have to shoot anyone, make damn sure they
are dead. Dead people don't bring lawsuits or give testimony.
Suki|5.2.09 @ 8:01AM|#
If he shoots someone properly, who exactly is this "they"
who will be claiming that he started it?
The relatives of the deceased, the prosecutor and or police talking
to witnesses. Did you think they were on your side as soon as you
got a permit? They aren't.
In my concealed carry class, my instructor was very much of the
opinion that, if you ever have to shoot anyone, make damn sure they
are dead. Dead people don't bring lawsuits or give
testimony.
Did she tell you to kill all of the witnesses too? And the person's
relatives?
She bother to tell you to make sure people heard you say you in
mortal fear before shooting? Since a lot of places want to make you
the criminal if you shoot someone and you were not in fear of
losing your life. Have heard lots of different wording to that, all
means the same.
MNG|5.2.09 @ 8:16AM|#
Oh I'm sorry Suki, I didn't read your post through (that's usually a waste a time) and so I thought you were talking about, well, the subject matter of the thread, which is a bill not about extortion or threats but about a bill criminalizing "email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person..." And I replied that such things, which if imminent could possibly amount to a threat, could never be so online.
MNG|5.2.09 @ 8:23AM|#
RC Dean
Regardless of your negative liberty/positive liberty distinction
the U.S. Constitution seems clearly to compel the striking down of
laws in both areas (to protect negative and positive liberties), as
I'm sure you would agree that it correctly compels the striking
down of a law that bans interracial marriage for example.
|5.2.09 @ 10:27AM|#
a felony punishable by up to two years in prison to transmit
an electronic communication ("including email, instant messaging,
blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages") "with the intent
to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional
distress to a person...to support severe, repeated, and hostile
behavior."
I'll get a lot more done once H&R is shut down.
alan|5.2.09 @ 11:22AM|#
The Nameless Fetus Spicy Food Consumption by Pregnant Mothers Prevention Act of 2009.
alan|5.2.09 @ 11:30AM|#
D'oh, in answer to this:
Another pandering, piece of shit legislation named after a dead
child. Who'd of thunk it.
Fluffy|5.2.09 @ 1:54PM|#
C'mon. fluffy. Those of us who give a shit about separation
of power and limited government think there is a very real
difference between striking down a law to preserve negative
liberties (ruling that this bill would be unconstitutional) and
amending the law to create a positive obligation (amending, for
example, CA law to change all references to "a man and a woman" to
"two persons').
If you don't get the difference, well, then its hard to have a
serious conversation about the proper role of the judiciary, the
value of separation of powers, or even limited
government.
This is even more disingenuous douchebaggery than I have come to
expect from you, RC.
The "negative right" in question here is the freedom to enter into
a common contract. That freedom is granted to some citizens, but
not others.
The fact that stopping the state from continuing this unequal
protection of the liberties of its citizens requires the state to
edit the text of its laws does not make the right in
question a "positive" right.
The Angry Optimist|5.2.09 @ 3:06PM|#
It does, however, create a "positive right" to tax breaks.
The "negative right" in question here is the freedom to enter into a common contract. That freedom is granted to some citizens, but not others.
To be fair, everyone is disallowed same-sex marriage (in the state
with said law); it's not de jure discriminatory.
Oh, and before you flip the fuck out and try to swear up and down
at me, I SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.
Naiomini Klein|5.2.09 @ 5:00PM|#
I might have been an AudioBully
cus when they're on form they rock like the Clash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmVen_IjLPM
|5.2.09 @ 5:35PM|#
Always remember: without judicial review, nonsense like this law
is what you'll get - only a thousand-fold.
With the Obama courts and the Obama Justice Department, nonsense
like this law is what we get.
|5.2.09 @ 5:35PM|#
Humm, just shut up and never say a word as ANYTHING you can say
will offend some thin skinned power over monger. And the lawyers
will enrich lawyers.
Seems that this whole thing is just totally out of hand...
MNG|5.2.09 @ 6:01PM|#
"To be fair, everyone is disallowed same-sex marriage (in the
state with said law); it's not de jure discriminatory."
And in Virginia before the Loving case everyone (of all races) was
disallowed a mixed-race marriage.
|5.2.09 @ 6:06PM|#
Ms. Sanchez's law makes perfect sense. There is too much bullying on the Internet, especially by right-wing neanderthals against good decent Americans. Many of these people, including some who have posted in this thread, could well benefit from two years in prison!
|5.2.09 @ 6:33PM|#
Ms. Sanchez's law makes perfect sense. There is too much
bullying on the Internet, especially by right-wing neanderthals
against good decent Americans. Many of these people, including some
who have posted in this thread, could well benefit from two years
in prison!
You're talking about me, aren't you? I'll see you in court,
fuckwad!
|5.2.09 @ 6:56PM|#
"The relatives of the deceased, the prosecutor and or police
talking to witnesses. Did you think they were on your side as soon
as you got a permit? They aren't."
This is why I live in Texas, which passed a specific law that said
if I shoot a burglar in my yard, neither the burglar nor his
relatives can say jack squat.
The Angry Optimist|5.2.09 @ 7:25PM|#
MNG -
And that law was found un_________ based on the _______th
Amendment.
Fill in the blanks, big guy.
Crafty Hunter|5.2.09 @ 8:42PM|#
Rep. Linda Sanchez eats sheep excrement, and loves it!
Rep. Linda Sanchez eats sheep excrement, and loves it!
Rep. Linda Sanchez eats sheep excrement, and loves it!
There, I've just purposefully and maliciously and repeatedly
transmitted an electronic communication to a blog with the specific
intent to intimidate with the threat of ridicule and social
ostracism, to harass with my own ridicule, and to cause substantial
emotional distress to the party mentioned in the above
statements.
I say to the above party, "Suck it, vermin."
Oh, look! I did it again!
|5.2.09 @ 8:53PM|#
It should be illegal to name ANY law after a (i) dead person (ii) one of the purported victims the law would have helped or (iii) a politician.
Yael|5.3.09 @ 10:11AM|#
What a busy little bee. Sanchez is also working on reparations for African Americans http://tiny.cc/GLtEn and "gun control" http://tiny.cc/bcw3O
MNG|5.3.09 @ 11:25AM|#
TAO
?
The VA law was found unconstitutional under the 14th. Which is the
same part the pro-same sex marriage folks say is being violated by
same sex marriage bans. In the first situation the law applied
equally to all people (no one could marry one of the opposite race)
and in the second the law applied equally to all people (no one can
marry one of the opposite sex). You find the latter situation to be
non-discriminatory (TAO@3:06), do you find so with the first?
So I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you?
The Angry Optimist|5.3.09 @ 12:36PM|#
The 14th Amendment was on-point relating to race. For that and
many other reasons, administrative decisions and legislation based
on race are subject to strict scrutiny.
I don't know if I've seen a compelling reason to elevate the
scrutiny with respect to "sexuality". I'm asking you to lay out the
case.
MNG|5.3.09 @ 5:02PM|#
TAO
But your general point, apart from Equal Protection case law, was
that barring same sex marriage doesn't really discriminate because
nobody can get one, and I pointed out that by that logic the law in
Loving did discriminate because no one could get an interracial
marriage either.
As to your Equal Protection question (a different one btw), I think
under Carolene Products the case could be made, and I've made it on
other threads, but have to go now. I'll try to come back and
re-make it (I should save it on Word for Pete's Sake!)
|10.25.09 @ 6:07PM|#
I cannot believe that you guys can type. The way your knuckles must be scraped up from dragging on the ground!! This is especially for Mad Max and MR DNA...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245