Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act

[Subdivisions]

What do you guys think of this:

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1966

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 2, 2009

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act’.


SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:


(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.


(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.


(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.


(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.


(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.


(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.


SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING.


(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:


‘Sec. 881. Cyberbullying


1‘(a) 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.


‘(b) As used in this section--


‘(1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and


‘(2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.


(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:


‘881. Cyberbullying.’

ETA: Here is Rep. Sanchez's commentary:

-snip-

Congress has no interest in censoring speech and it will not do so if it passes this bill. 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.

-snip-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-linda-sanchez/protecting-victims-preser_b_198079.html

I tend to agree with CNN's SciTechBlog on this bill:

Bill could mean jail for Internet flamers

A cyberbullying bill introduced last month has the potential to put half the Internet behind bars.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act is Congress’ response to the 2006 suicide of a 13-year-old girl who was harassed on MySpace. The bill makes electronic communication a felony if “the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.”

Congressmen probably aren’t the most Web-savvy bunch, but anyone familiar with trolling, flaming, and various other forms of online bullying could see a problem with this bill.

-snip-

While Rep. Sanchez’s assurances may be comforting, judges tend to follow the wording of a law rather than its sponsor’s intent. So before you text your cheating ex, slam those Apple forum fanboys, or call me a ‘moron’ in the comments, consider the possible consequences of this new bill, or at least put your lawyer’s number on speed dial.

http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/12/bill-could-mean-jail-for-internet-flamers/

Everyone in DU's own 9/11 Dungeon would be felons under this legislation, as well as half the rest of the board.

[paulsby]

1. kneejerk crap overreaching overbroad

legislation.

typical.

most of the worst legislation is done to "save the children"

this is the PERFECT example.

i will also bet dollars to doughnuts, this will NEVER survive judicial review.

much discussion in legal blogs and the consensus is the same.

[Mythsaje]

2. My gawd... don't get into an email battle with an ex... n/t

[paulsby]

3. or call somebody names on a political blog

somebody called me a name... on the internet.

oh noes.

call the fbi

[LisaL]

4. Hell it's less than 2 years.

I've been emotionally distressed by many posters right here on DU. How many people would end up in prison over calling each other names on the net?
:crazy:

[Mythsaje]

5. Rather makes troll-baiting a dangerous sport, doesn't it? n/t

[MADem]

6. Where is this bill now? In committee?

That's probably where it should stay, gathering dust.

Parents should go over to the computer, and pull the fucking plug. Then look at the kids, and say "GO OUTSIDE AND PLAY."

It may take them awhile but they'll eventually figure it out. It's called "playing" and the result is "exercise." That leads to "good health."

[Mythsaje]

7. Play where?

The corner lot is gone, filled with broken glass, or fenced off so the owners don't get sued.

The local park is a hangout for thugs and drug dealers.

The schools don't allow kids on property unless it's during school hours or an authorized event.

The neighbors complain about the noise if the kids play in the yard (if you have a yard).

Not to mention all those predators out there.


Some parents used to complain about us playing D&D. Funny thing, one mother told them, "at least I know where they are." Then again, we used to run around the woods too. We were lucky enough to HAVE woods. Now all those woods are gone to put up more houses. No woods for the kids in that neighborhood these days.


Not so simple as it used to be.

[MADem]

10. Time for the parents to start complaining about park security, and

demanding that the police clear out the drug dealers, and get together on a Saturday, instead of watching sports and drinking beer, to help clean and reclaim the corner lot. They should talk to the school and come up with a chaperone schedule to use a field or a gym for after school activities, with parents taking turns making sure the kids don't wreck the joint.

It's just easier to sit on one's ass, watching TV, playing on the computer, texting, etc.

Nothing happens without effort, and effort is in short supply. I don't buy that "Ewww, too hard," stuff. I don't even buy that "we're too busy" excuse, either. If every parent in a school gave an hour a month, and were reliable about it, kids would have plenty of chaperoning and a safe place to play.

It's only too hard if there's an insufficient amount of caring. A lot of what's needed is parental involvement, but that, too, is in short supply. The parents certainly hover (the helicopter parent) but they're more like zookeepers, telling kids what they can't do.

It's way too often delegated to the schools, who nowadays are expected to raise the children, and criticized when they do the best that they can manage.

One view: http://www.exploretheoutdoorsohio.com/latimes.html

Excuses: http://www.highlights.com/mt/parents/polls_and_your_opinions/parents_poll_outdoor_play_a_thing_of_the_past.jsp

UK perspective: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3640401/Be-a-bad-parent-and-let-your-children-out.html

[iamthebandfanman]

8. yikes, this goes BEYOND

anything that should be done.

these things should remain on a case by case basis when it results in some sort of physical harm...

if we go down this route, half the things said on DU mite be 'illegal' just because we get into heated arguments that sometimes turn into emotional dashings...

[paulsby]

9. and in those cases

MAYBE it should get CIVIL results

"intentional inflection of emotional distress" lawsuits for example. that redress is already there

but we do not give govt. the power to arrest people cause they said mean words to people.

that is absurd.