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 Bullies are using technology in ways we could not have imagined only years ago, and studies show that outdated and erroneous beliefs that bullying is "harmless" downplay its true seriousness.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

[Pierce Nichols]

You should assume that any time a politician implores you to think of the children that they are about to rob you of something important. In this case, the freedom to speak your mind on the Internet. This law, as proposed, contains no protections for political speech or other sorts of speaking truth to power. This is the old SLAPP suit transposed into criminal law.

Its supporters have declared themselves enemies of our constitutional garauntees of political and intellectual freedom and ought to be driven from public life for the good of us all.

[Junkette]

The bill doesn't need to contain protections for political speech. That protection already exists. It is enshrined in the Constitution, which no law can override.

Any attempt to write in "exceptions" that already exist in constitutional law would be redundant.

Moreover, any attempt to write an exhaustive list of exceptions would probably fail to make them broad enough to coincide with our actual constitutional rights and would therefore unintentionally end up proposing to restrict speech further than the actual bill intends to do.

Better to let the courts interpret the law consistent with the Constitution than try to tell the Justices what the Constitution says.

[Pierce Nichols]

And how many people who can't afford to litigate it out will end up in jail or broke because they offended the wrong public official or religious leader? If the intent is to protect children, then make the law apply only to 'bullying' against minors. The failure to do so tips off what the bill is really about -- restricting the ability of ordinary citizens to call the powerful to account in the public square.

[ceindependence]

That is: did they have the required intent, did they use electronic means of communication, and was the communication severe, hostile, and repeated. ........

My question to Rep. Sanchez would be.....hav­e you not read the Huffington post. I have read communication that is severe, hate inspired, hostile and repeated about those who disagree politically with the posters here. No proof is necessary for these posts and quite often non could be provided. Therefore the cyber police would spend half their time just reading through the Huffington post. How would this be addressed?

[Junkette]

Political debate is not cyberbullying. Political debate is protected speech.

The "cyber police" don't exist. But cyberbulying does.

It is too bad the "real police" couldn't arrest Lori Drew for driving a 13 year old girl to suicide.

[brdallas]

There are cyber police. The FBI, most state, and some urban police forces have cyber crimes divisions. No one who cares about free speech online should want cyber crime cops searching sites and blogs for "cyberbullying" posts. If bullying becomes a crime, a lot of posters on even fan forums will end up in court.

The "real police" couldn't arrest the person in question because, as has been stated by other posters, bullying is not a crime. As sad as any suicide is, we can't jeopardize individual liberty in this country because of a case of someone not being able to deal with being bullied. This legislation would open the door for overzealous police and prosecutors to investigate and charge people they simply don't approve of. This bill would also set a dangerous precedent that something as simple as saying mean things to another person can lead to criminal prosecution.

[Caliwoman]

And why weren't the parents monitoring the girl's mental health, her internet activities, and her friendships, advising her on it all and using professional support through schools and otherwise? At 13 my kids could only use the computer in the family room where we could see the monitor easily and discuss what she was doing.

[radmul]

No offense congresswoman but you can't handle prosecuting war criminals for torture so you have no right to bring your lack of ethics to the web.