Well OK, there was one liberal Republican among the 14 sponsors of this House Bill that in part states:

“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.”


One would hope this doesn’t stand a chance of even getting out of committee, but given recent history and our present one party government, who knows?

Do they even do that anymore, or did the Democrats stamp that out as well? Cyber-bullying can cause psychological harm. We are creating a country of wimps.

I can name some of the crap that was put on the house floor that limited freedom when the the GOP was in charge but this is in response to a lack of cyber bullying in laws, in response to the girl who was harasssed by her friends mom and as a result commited suicide hence the name of the bill.  Its not even an ideology issue - nothing here to see people you can all go home now

-- Modified on 7/11/2009 1:56:34 PM

that we have put ANYONE in Congress who is so reckless of our freedom that they would even sponsor such a bill.

The fact that it exists as a bill at all is a disaster.

And -- the fact that republicans might have done something similar in no way justifies democrats doing it too.

This is nothing more than a 3 year old getting reprimanded for something, then pointing his finger at his 5 year old brother and saying "but he did it too."

Time to grow up.

but the Ohio law which it originate from does not allow an adult to harass a child under 17, since the states define cyber laws differently, the bill goal is too give a "definition" of cyber bullying.  The Ohio bill does not  punish kids and you still get to harass liberals on this board LOL

So to be clear, if an adult willfully and knowingly harass a child - they should recive jail time.

I haven't taken a look at this bill, so I have no idea what its intent or application will look like in the final analysis. Furthermore, I doubt if this bill will have any bearing on an issue that arose here in Missouri a year or so ago.

This lady assumed a false identity either Facebook or Myspace (I can't tell either waste of cyberspace apart) and posed as a teen age boy, then went on to harass this poor girl. The end result was that the girl committed suicide. Certainly the woman, who was an adult, could not have forseen that her behavior would result in the girl committing suicide, but her actions were still criminal in my mind. Currently, there are no statutes that address the sort of fraud, or bullying if you will, that she committed. She was tried on a very flimsy charge of accessing a computer without authorization, or some such nonsense. She was convicted but appealed the conviction, and now a judge has overturned her conviction.

I say all this to make the point that we do need to re-think the idea of cyberspace being a place of total freedom where one can do and say as they please without "big brother" looking over their shoulder. I don't know what sort of middle ground can be found, so I'm happy to allow wiser heads than my own try to parse the details. I do know that woman was wrong, she set out to hurt a child not physically, not sexually, but emotionally and mentally, and she used the internet to do it. Although I suspect this bill is aimed more at terrorism given the reference to foreign commerce", I can't quite bring myself to oppose legislation that would make using the internet to terrorize or harass someone a crime.

So this bill in the house IS in response to what happened to that poor girl?

GOOD! This is one bill I will whole heartedly support from the Democrats then.

My post is no tit for tat partisan poke in the eye. It goes to the fact that for all intents and purposes we have for the moment one party rule. Earlier Republican bills that purportedly reduced freedoms generally passed with HUGE bipartisan support (e.g. Patriot Act). Earlier Republican bills never stood a chance due to a large minority Dem presence in the Senate.

This bill is so POORLY worded that it should scare everyone. I have no problem with federal curbs or control of cyber violence, but “bullying”? With such poor wording the application of this law could go in many (hopefully) unintended directions. Let’s see if it gets out of committee, what changes are made, etc., but the chances for bad outcomes due to the present makeup of the legislature and executive warrant a close watch.

Section 3.881.a makes no reference to or places limits on age. This bill is very poorly written. I seriously doubt it would pass a First Amendment challenge. But in the mean time, what's the damage potential?

Crazy Republican bills never stood a chance, but the point here is that this one actually does.

remimber when I posted that internet globalisation and security act, when I was new ?? And I was trying to tell yall that it meant wht you are now realizing, and all of yall blew me off, AS A NUT??

This is ONE OF THE MANY BILLS, that stemmed from the security act i posted..months ago..Not only that, but their will be rewards for people to turn us in, Hmmm..Paying people to turn their brother in during the worst economy EVER..Should be popular...

Imma try to find this bill for you ..So you can read it again..But here is a link about ALOT of other hate and thought crimes our GOVT has been passing, and dont forget odrama is pushing through a bill for preventaitive detainment.. So if they think you might commit a crime, the can preventivly detain you..No shit

-- Modified on 7/11/2009 3:24:34 PM

way back when..With your mind where its at now, and see how truley scarey it is!!

-- Modified on 7/11/2009 3:37:42 PM

I automatically linked to the Ohio Law but the bill did not mention the intention of the Ohio law that was passed after Megan Meirs death.  The law agin was meant to protect bullies as clearly mentioned in the findings:
(1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet

So the intent was as I stated in my OP but its not clear in the actual law.  

But if this bill makes it through commitee and even to the floor in its current form then repost, otherwise it much to do about nothing


-- Modified on 7/11/2009 4:05:56 PM

It isnt the act, that allowed all the bills to be passed? I think it is wizard..I know theyre not the same bill..the internet security act, created the bullying, security bills..Check again

The post by RWU, is an amendment to an already passed law HR 41 Chapter 18, it amended to include in our stalking laws, internet stalking but as I conceded it not clear about its intent to protect minors

Your post is about internet security and it not a house bill but a working bill not sponsered by anyone in particular.

-- Modified on 7/11/2009 4:06:58 PM

I just dont have that version, but im sure its very close to the one I managed to find, as well as its passing is dirrectly related to our internet czar..and the broad language in this bill, that could define any of us.. I think theyre related..

I know this passed, I just dont have the version, and you sound like you think this will be a very good idea to keep us ''safe'' huh?

attack on liberty by the capitalist class. This is one of the more stupid ones though. I guess there is a profit motive in this bill somewhere. People will claim that posting on the P&R board is an art form so to avoid prosecution by the lackeys.

There are laws against harassing people using a Plain Old Telephone. Suppose, you are against that too.

Do you know that if customer complains to the telephone company that someone is harassing them, the phone company has to track the caller done and disclose the information? May be not.

You can't use US Postal service to harass people either, it is also against the law. If one complains, Postal Service has to investigate. You can't use Postal Service and the Telephone to run scams either, both are illegal.

I see this as extending the same type of law to the modern media. You see at as an overreach by democrats.

Granted -- due, as you have pointed out, to Democrats essentially constituting single party rule at this point.

But we are absolutely agreed that this sort of legislation is a disaster waiting to happen!

We disagree on whether legislation pertaining to "cyber" stalking etc. is desirable at all, no matter how carefully worded.

In my view, it is already a crime to use interstate communications infrastructure to facilitate an illegal act. Additional legislation in the regard, particularly using ill-defined terms, could only be construed as a curb on free speech or a prelude to same. It is very difficult to define something like "stalking" in virtual space.

About 85% of the email on the Internet is spam that is illegal under federal law. (You never see most of it due to comprehensive filtering to eliminate it.) Once in a great while, the feds bust somebody; but 99.9% of it goes unpunished.

The feds can't even enforce the laws they've already got -- why give them even more regulatory authority over the one real bastion of free speech that we have? I see it as the camel's nose under the tent.

I understand the concern about bullying, etc. And I'm sure the situation where a young girl committed suicide had SOMETHING to do with that. And it was some other kid's parent who did the dirty work.

But I have to ask: where were the parents of the girl who committed suicide? Who was monitoring her Internet access, etc.?

This bill is an attempt to protect children from something that parents should be protecting them from to start with. Yes, some parents will fail.

But I see the onus to be on parents, not government, to protect their kids in cyberspace.

This bill is an attempt to protect children from something that parents should be protecting them from to start with.

but thats part of the problem...  the goberment believes they "know better" then parents.  So it may be a bill with the intent of "protecting children", but all it serves to accomplish is the removal of parental rights.  The onus is on the parents.  So the questions is:  Are parents being parental...or are they just trying to be their kids "best friends"?

No I did not read the bill and don't intend to because it is a logical progression for modern day communication.



Gross exaggeration and misrepresentation

It's only one half page and I provided a link for you. You haven't read it. You won't read it, so you don't know exactly what's in it, yet you praise it.

We've come to expect this form of logic and reasoning from you.

"Protecting children" is a hot button frequently used to push fucked up legislation through congress especially when dealing with cyberspace issues.