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 Bullies are using technology in ways we could not have imagined only years ago, and studies show that outdated and erroneous beliefs that bullying is "harmless" downplay its true seriousness.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.
John W. Whitehead: Zero Tolerance Schools Discipline Without Wiggle Room
Loading comments… 
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
I hate to sound like a Republican
Oh, and the "I can't manage my job/stress
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.
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-
isn’t a lot of fun, but neither is it right!
and so I applaud the authors of this bill, its about time!!
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?
File under: Apples/Ora
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!" reactionar
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.
A laudible cause is no excuse for making bad laws. What is needed is a more competent approach to this problem recognizin
sjl
No, they don't. There is no law against telling someone the world would be better off if they just killed themselves
(2) "The Act would give judges and juries *discretio
Exactly. And also discretion *not* to recognize the difference
I think that says it all. I think, if you're unclear on the concept, you shouldn't be crafting legislatio
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 restrictio
And even if it is not meant to attack free speech, it surely nibbles away at it.
These type of laws tend to develop 'interpret
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.
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.
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,w
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 constructi
http://en.
That Miss Meier committed suicide is a terrible tragedy, but the woman convicted in that case was not responsibl
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 responsibl
Nor would a reasonable person think they were. Misreprese
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 misreprese
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).
In the text of Megan Meier Cyberbully
"(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communicat
"or cause substantia
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 cyberbully
And since "any communicat
Protecting children is a virtue, but this Bill requires some tightening up.
The laws, that the Supreme Court found constituti
The last thing we need is for Congress to pass restrictiv
If no one has any idea what I'm talking about, look it up, or an hero.