A warning to online trolls -- Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Act

[Jenny-talia]

A recently introduced cyberbullying bill could land us all in jail—that is, if you have ever used an electronic medium to troll someone. HR 1966, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, is named after the high-profile "MySpace suicide" victim Megan Meier. It's meant to prevent people from using the Internet to "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." However, as with many bills of this nature, the murky language and vague standards leave much open to interpretation, which has caused critics to call it the Censorship Act instead.

HR 1966 was introduced in April by US Representative Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and it's supported by 14 other members of Congress. According to the text, individuals who bully others via any electronic means could face fines, two years in prison, or both. This, of course, could include those nasty text messages you sent to your ex on Saturday night, the questionable e-mail you sent to your brother, or those forum posts you made in which you called for someone who liked the new Star Trek movie to jump off a building.

The bill largely flew under the radar until fairly recently (thanks to NetworkWorld for the heads-up) but criticism has been building. The language in the bill is so vague, it could be interpreted to apply to practically any situation, including blog posts critical of public officials. 

UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh went into detail on his blog, suggesting that numerous everyday situations could render regular citizens felons if their behavior is considered "severe" enough. "I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite/campaign promise breaker/fool/etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) 'to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior'— unless, of course, my statements aren't seen as 'severe,' a term that is entirely undefined and unclear," Volokh wrote.

Still, Sanchez insists that the bill isn't meant to dampen free speech online. "Congress has no interest in censoring speech and it will not do so if it passes this bill," Sanchez wrote on the Huffington Post. "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."

Although Sanchez seems to think there's no possibility for abuse with this bill, we all know what the road to hell is paved with. Despite her reassurance that it won't be used to censor Internet communications, there's no way to predict how judges would interpret such a law. One thing we do know is that cyberbullying cases have picked up since Missouri passed its own law following Megan Meier's death—if HR 1966 makes it past the House Committee on the Judiciary and into the books, we could see a serious uptick in those types of cases.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/trolling-someone-online-bill-would-slap-you-with-jail-time.ars

And the full text of the bill from GovTrack

HR 1966 IH

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

‘(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.’.

Remember the Constitution?  Better kiss that goodbye.  If this passes, free speech will have taken a hit unlike any other.  The intentionally vague language could (and will, mark my words) be applied to texting your best friend and telling her your mom is being a bitch, blogging about the idiots you work with, venting online about family problems...any negative speech about another person, transmitted electronically, could you see nailed to the wall of a federal jail.

[DivaG]

May. 26, 2009 at 1:56 AM Like they say, you can never tell how judges are going to interpret this law. People charged will have to cling to proving that their intent was something other than to, "coerce, intimidate, harass, etc..." for defense.