Protecting Victims, Preserving Freedoms

If you were walking down the street and saw someone harassing a child, would you just walk by and look the other way? If that person was telling the child the world would be better off if they just killed themselves, would you ignore it?

This is what is happening on the internet except it is more painful, and can be more abusive because of the faceless anonymity the web provides. Bullies are using technology in ways we could not have imagined only years ago, and studies show that outdated and erroneous beliefs that bullying is "harmless" downplay its true seriousness.

Laws criminalize similar behavior when it takes place in person, but not online. In fact, we have laws criminalizing stalking, sexual harassment, identity theft and more when it takes place in person and online. All of these actions have consequences. But there is one serious online offense that has no penalty -- cyberbullying. Do we not think it is as serious because it takes place in cyberspace and not face to face?

Missouri already has a law that criminalizes cyberbullying, but cyberbullying isn't just happening in one state. It's happening everywhere and it follows kids home -- occurring at any hour of the day or night. Cyberbullying is hurtful enough and affecting kids enough that its victims have turned to suicide or violence just to make it stop. Should we just ignore it? Pass it off as simple child's play?

When so-called child's play turns hostile and a child becomes a victim, it is time to act. Victims of cyberbullying do not choose to participate. Rather than build character, bullying can cause children to become anxious, fearful, unhappy, and even cause them to be physically sick. A young person exposed to repeated, severe and hostile bullying online is deserving of protections because bullying puts them at risk for depression and suicide. According to a study by the United States Secret Service, being bullied is a risk factor for perpetrators of school violence, such as the kind that was unleashed with tragic results at Columbine High School in Colorado.

When so-called free speech leads to bullies having free-reign to threaten kids, it is time to act. The Supreme Court recognizes that in some instances words can be harmful. For example, you cannot falsely yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. If you say it even once you can be held liable. Yet, you can repeatedly emotionally abuse someone with words, pictures, and false impressions online and get away scot-free.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would criminalize bullying like this when perpetrators hide behind the emboldening anonymity of the web. Severe online bullying must have consequences.

Current Supreme Court jurisprudence already recognizes some reasonable regulation of speech is consistent with the First Amendment. For example, the Court has found that true threats, commercial speech, slander, and libel can be reasonably restricted consistent with the Constitution. Slander and libel law provide for different standards when the injured party is a public official or private person, and nothing in the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act attempts to override that principle. Instead, the Act would give judges and juries discretion to recognize the difference between an annoying chain email, a righteously angry political blog post, or a miffed text to an ex-boyfriend and serious, repeated, hostile communications made with the intent to harm. I consulted with a variety of experts and law professors in crafting this bill to preserve our American freedom of speech and protect victims of cyberbullying.

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.

But the internet should not be the last refuge of scoundrels who use its anonymity to abuse, harass, and bully our children.

Congresswoman Linda T. Sánchez represents the 39th Congressional District of California.

Comments

[fightthepolicestate]

Not to make light of the feelings of bullying, but no one forced you onto online social networking. PARENTS are the first line of defense in protecting children, and that MAY JUST MEAN PARENTS HAVE TO REGULATE THEIR CHILD'S ONLINE HABITS (caps for sarcasm). *shudder*

Why not pass a bill to force parents to be an active presence in their child's life? You're pretty much passing a bill addressing a problem that could be dealt with by better parenting. If this passes, every parent of a child in the US should take it as a referendum on their ineptitude. This could all be handled with a letter from the schools to the home, and *gasp* monitoring of your teenagers' internet habits.

I hate to sound like a Republican, but if you can't take care of your kids, why did you start f%king in the first place? Just because now this is a white, middle-class issue doesn't mean there needs to be a law. If there needs to be a law, there should be an equally-condescending and pedantic social service set up to teach these people how to manage their children, just like the social workers that used to go door-to-door in poor areas during the Clinton years to teach people how to cook a healthy meal, bathe, clean, etc.

Oh, and the "I can't manage my job/stress/kids/sex life/blah so I need help" commenters? Let me call a waaambulance for you.

[Virginia777]

and this is not a "Trojan Horse" bill, this is applying the same rules we have in place for other settings to the Internet. The Internet has been abused as a "tool" to viciously attack other people and get off scott free (without accountability).

The bill you all should be griping about is HR 256, the upcoming Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

Now this one endangers Free Speech!

HR 1966 is a needed and necessary bill.

[Virginia777]

This is GREAT news!!!

I have been the victim of a cyber bully and let me tell you, someone attacking you with graphic sexual references (and having a million people read it), and doing so as who-knows-who,

isn’t a lot of fun, but neither is it right!

and so I applaud the authors of this bill, its about time!!

[greylurk]

"Laws criminalize similar behavior when it takes place in person, but not online"

Why do those same laws not apply online? Wouldn't it be a simple matter to ammend those laws which currently state "When using compressed atmosphere to transmit insults" to now state "when using compressed atmosphere or electronic impulses to transmit insults" instead of creating a whole new law?

[Richard Gomez]

"If you were walking down the street and saw someone harassing a child, would you just walk by and look the other way?"

File under: Apples/Oranges

It sucks what happened to Megan Meier. She was obviously a troubled girl well before the MySpace incident. However, we don't need another "Think of the Children!" reactionary bill. All you are doing is pandering for votes just like every other politician who has the same reaction you did. Please stop pushing your "morals" and "values" upon me and the rest of my countrymen.

Btw, if what I just said "coerces" you or caused you "emotional distress", I could be prosecuted thanks to your bill. So, keep up the good work.

[Stephen Levine]

I would worry about a bill like this, with its broad definitions. It could result in a somewhat emotional internet message resulting in the end of a professional career. In fact, I have seen stuff in this newsletter which could be construed as harrassment and could make someone a felon under this law and a non-discriminating prosecutor and jury.

A laudible cause is no excuse for making bad laws. What is needed is a more competent approach to this problem recognizing the complexities of the issues involved, punish those who truly are harrassers without criminalizing innocent behavior.

sjl

[VaneWimsey]

(1) "Laws criminalize similar behavior when it takes place in person, but not online."

No, they don't. There is no law against telling someone the world would be better off if they just killed themselves. (And for good reason.) But if there were, it would apply both in person and online. There is no "online" exception to the criminal law. As she immediately goes on to concede, we already have laws against stalking, etc. that apply both in person and online.

(2) "The Act would give judges and juries *discretion* to recognize the difference between . . . a righteously angry political blog post . . . and serious, repeated, hostile communications made with the intent to harm."

Exactly. And also discretion *not* to recognize the difference, and to punish both.

[xenofile]

"so-called free speech"

I think that says it all. I think, if you're unclear on the concept, you shouldn't be crafting legislation on it.

[googoogajob]

I like the comments I see here so far.
People are mostly suspect, and rightly they should be.

Sounds like a Trojan Horse of a bill.

Maybe Ms. Sanchez has the best of intentions (or maybe she doesn't) but regardless of what is in her heart, her bill WILL be used by those in congress who wish to impose restrictions on YOUR free speech (esp. if said speech is angrily critical of the very same politicians passing this law).

And even if it is not meant to attack free speech, it surely nibbles away at it.
These type of laws tend to develop 'interpretation drift', becoming something else as time goes by--usually something worse.

Get enough of these well meaning 'but what about the children'? bills passed and you've lost your ability to say whats on your mind in any direct or maybe 'hurtful' way.

Hurtful?
Are we ALL children now?

If the language is changed to solely protect minors then maybe no harm. But as it stands, watch out!
A chill will surely descend upon your right to speak freely.

[lfotweaker]

We move forward on torture, and backwards on free speech.

[montestruc]

I think that the right of freedom of speech is just a bit more important than whether or not someones feelings gets hurt.

What you are advocating is putting people in prison for "hurting someone's feelings" without even proof of intent, let alone proof of actual harm.

[elizabetta]

I think I understand your concern, but i am not sure if I understand it right. I don't think it is putting people in prison just for hurt feelings.

How I understand it,
this is not about having peoples feeling hurt, but this is about harassing language which actually can have bad results. Specially among children. Simple offenses are harmless and hurting someone feelings,well... It can happen accidently and unintentionally. Here, so far I understand, the subject is about h real bulling, which can have real consequences and do real harm. The same verbal abuse does. Bulling is abuse, not just hurting others feelings, hurt feelings is another story, it is not serious.

As fore example harassment at work place, the hostile abuse done verbally is harmful. If someone instead of saying uses the same language online,and it is abusive, what is the difference?

There is of course place for constructive critique, freedom of speech, and being able to make jokes about politicians,etc. But if one person freedom abuses his/ her right of freedom of speech, and interffers with another person's freedom, it is harmful.Tired example: we would not scream "fire" in a crowed movie theater just for fun of exercising freedom of speech.

[montestruc]

The incident that the congresswoman referred to in Missouri involved a woman breaking existing laws by misrepresenting herself as male, and as a teen, basically as not who she was, and also accessed computers that were not hers to access. She was convicted for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier

That Miss Meier committed suicide is a terrible tragedy, but the woman convicted in that case was not responsible for her death, Miss Meier was. That Miss Meier would necessarily do that was not foreseeable by a reasonable person.

People, even young people commit suicide often for reasons that seem absurd to those they leave behind. That does not make someone who insulted them, or otherwise spoke ill of them responsible.

Nor would a reasonable person think they were. Misrepresenting who you are with the intent of harming others is another matter, but that is already illegal.

You have no business making laws to restrict speech, nor is that incident indicative of a need for any new law to that effect.

Insulting someone, or speaking ill of someone is not an abuse of freedom of speech. Fraud or misrepresentation can be and often is, and in that case resulted in a conviction.

Our heritage of freedom of speech was paid for in oceans of blood of patriots, do not throw it away over a tragedy that is all too common ( a teen committing suicide for reasons she would think absurd a year later).

[FogBelter]

Representative Sanchez, protecting children is admirable but I am wondering if c111:H.R.1966 actually does that. I was looking at the language of the Bill (Available at http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for Bill Number c111:H.R.1966) and it struck me as a little vague.

In the text of Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act under Sec. 2. FINDINGS. your Bill does cover some startling statistics about the prevalence of Cyberbullying and its impact upon our children, but in SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING. subsection 881. Cyberbullying it states this:

"(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."

"or cause substantial emotional distress to a person"?

If the point is to protect children shouldn't it read "distress to a minor"? As it is written it seems it opens the door to litigation between adults over cyberbullying ... or was that the point of your bill?

And since "any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person" is truly subjective, it really leaves interpretation up to a Judge's whim.

Protecting children is a virtue, but this Bill requires some tightening up.

[ProgressiveVoice]

"For example, the Court has found that true threats, commercial speech, slander, and libel can be reasonably restricted consistent with the Constitution."

The laws, that the Supreme Court found constitutional, currently on the books can be used to prosecute offenders, regardless of the means of communication. Unfortunately or fortunately, there are no laws against "bullying", which is no more a crime if it takes place over the internet. Restricting internet speech is a very poor way to defend children against cyberbullies. Did anyone suggest to the victims that they close their My Space or Facebook page? Did anyone suggest not establishing profiles on the sites in the first place? It should be of no surprise to anyone that kids are cruel to each other. Frankly, as a childhood geek myself, parents should recognize the uniqueness in their own kids that may cause the child difficulties and forbid their child from putting themselves at risk by signing up to these social web sites. It's what I would do.

The last thing we need is for Congress to pass restrictive laws, in absence of firm proof that a problem exists as opposed to anecdotal evidence (especially since the truth has come out about Columbine "bullying"), in response to this kind of hysterical outbreak.

[Caliwoman]

All children should be taught how to deal with threatening and harassing behavior. They need to know how to head off harassment verbally, how to protect themselves physically, what their rights are and what adults have a legal responsibility to act in their interests to protect them. Awareness might be the better tactic here, then use harassment and other existing laws to address the bullying?

[DaCoach]

While I applaud the intent of the legislation, the prosecution of offenders would be impossible considering the vast volume of abusive comments. This seems to call for a higher degree of diligence by web hosts rather than assuming the courts intervene in allegations.

[fightthepolicestate]

I agree that the sheer number of cases would render the law unenforceable. To your other point, however: no message board or networking site would be in existence if this law were on the books already, let alone if the service provider were held accountable for the actions of its users. Imagine the number of cases that could come only from 4chan or encyclopaedia dramatica alone. Their whole thing is telling vapid, stupid—err, responsible citizens on the internet how useless to the world they are. I guess the whole concept of "an hero" is, well, an heroed.

If no one has any idea what I'm talking about, look it up, or an hero.

[bhopeful]

Stopping cyber bullying is easy....don't read the messages. I'm from Missouri and the Megan Meier case was about BAD PARENTING. I detest knee jerk laws!

[dubster]

Bad Parenting? really? posing as a young boy to help your daughters ex-friend feel more insecure about herself then suggesting she kill herself is more than bad parenting it's absolutely criminal. Which isn't a "knew Jerk" reaction. I detest jerks like you, that can't comprehend the gravity and severity of certain things.

[brdallas]

Those actions were horrible, and could be grounds for a civil suit, but they were not criminal. Taunting and bullying aren't illegal and can't be made so, at least not in a free country. If you go down the road of mommy state legislation, where rude or unpleasant behavior is criminalized, you might as well shred the Bill of Rights and turn the US into a police state.

[elizabetta]

Dubster, I agree, htis is not a case of bad paernting at all. Actually wah twas describes by law it is defined as criminal, and again, why should be not criminal because happens online. I also agree with Caliwoman that there should be more awarness. I think some children, who are agressively inclined, they don't realize that things are bad is the first place. And let children know, they could be protected, they don't need to hide their suffering, that they can turn to adults for help, and will not be ignored as "sissies," or something similar. The expertise of child psychologists should be taken more into account, instead of personal opinions, as there will be always some one who will describe something as "knee jerk laws."

[iggy06]

dubster, under this new law, you could go to jail for your "hurtful" comments you made in reaction to bhopeful.