H.r. 1966: Offend Someone Online - Go To Prison

[ddavelarsen]

We have to watch these 'wipes very carefully. They want to micromanage every aspect of our lives - right down to what we think and say.

H.R. 1966: Offend Someone Online - Go To Prison

[Schizophretard]

This topic offends me! I'm calling the feds!

This does suck. They need to pass a bill that puts an expiration date on the government. Our government is run by a gang of control freaks. I hope that bill doesn't get passed but if it does I hope those who voted on it post something online.

[nana]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

"with the intent to coerce" What? And WHO is going to be judging what my INTENT was? I really do firmly believe that the only person who knows what I mean when I say something is...get this...ME! I can say something that might sound nice, but is a veiled insult. I have said things that to me sounded very nice and was well meant, but was taken completely wrong. So, if someone takes something I said wrong, and is OFFENDED by it, and thinks I had that INTENT in my, I can go to jail? I knew a long time ago they were taking away our free speech, but this is ridiculous.

I've been thinking that we should have the right to just plain FIRE anyone who is elected who LIED to get elected. Much like any business would FIRE a person who LIED to get their job. I also think we should be able to FIRE any one of them who is an IDIOT and tries to pass these kinds of things. Of course I also think it should be illegal to slip smaller things into larger bills so that no one notices and they get passed because they are voting on the larger one.

I better just shut up.

[Schizophretard]

You can't fire them because they are the bosses.

[ddavelarsen]

It's only getting worse - I'm really becoming quite concerned about our 'democracy.'

From the article: “Mr. President, is it true that due to your amendment to Executive Order 12425, INTERPOL may break into a home without a warrant, seize private property of a US citizen, hold a citizen for questioning without the right of legal representation and not be subject to any legal or criminal repercussion?”

Yep. Read it and weep:

International Police Granted Full Immunity in US

So much for "transparency," eh?

[nana]

You know, I hear tell that we are a "republic" and not a "democracy".

[BirdDog]

I get what you all are saying about this bill. In a certain way I could see how this could become twisted and used in other means than its intended purpose.

But do you know who Megan Meier is? The article forgets to mention why and how this bill came about. She was a young teenager that was bullied by an adult online and the young girl actually committed suicide. When they tried to convict the the woman that was taunting this young girl, there were no laws on the books that referenced cyberbullying. The woman was acquitted of the charges in 2009.

This bill will be added to chapter 41 (extoration and threats) of title 18 to the federal and penal codes for the United States of America.

I keep going back and reading the bill and where it would be added to title 18. This bill is poorly written and should not be added to chapter 41, in this part of the penal code it could become twisted and not applied for the intended use. I think it would be better to be added to chapter 110 of title 18.

[Schizophretard]

Exactly what rights did this bully violate? Was the bullied girl somehow prevented from blocking and ignoring the bully or forced to communicate with her? Who is responsible for the girls death? The girl killing herself out of her own freewill or the bully murdering her with words? If the bully is responsible then are the kids that bullied the Trench Coat Mafia responsible for the Columbine High massacre? If it turns out that the bully was bullied then is the bully no longer responsible? Is driving someone to commit suicide by hurting their feelings murder? If you hurt someone's feelings but they don't commit suicide is it attempted murder? If you legally are only allowed to say something nice or nothing at all then do you really have free speech? Where exactly is the fine line between used in other means than its intended purpose and used as intended?

[DannyBoyfromWashington]

Exactly what rights did this bully violate? Was the bullied girl somehow prevented from blocking and ignoring the bully or forced to communicate with her? Who is responsible for the girls death? The girl killing herself out of her own freewill or the bully murdering her with words? If the bully is responsible then are the kids that bullied the Trench Coat Mafia responsible for the Columbine High massacre? If it turns out that the bully was bullied then is the bully no longer responsible? Is driving someone to commit suicide by hurting their feelings murder? If you hurt someone's feelings but they don't commit suicide is it attempted murder? If you legally are only allowed to say something nice or nothing at all then do you really have free speech? Where exactly is the fine line between used in other means than its intended purpose and used as intended?

Exactly what I was just thinking. When did the people in this country become so weak willed that we blame another persons "words" for our "actions"? Oh well, my parents divorced when I was 1 year old so does that mean I can go commit a Jeffry Dommer and blame it on them? NO. This has come about because people with money/political power etc,.. have adopted the attitude " I am better than you so I don't have to put up with you saying that". Why should our "Freedom of speech" be tampered with simply because someone refused to exercise their "freedom of choice"?

Take responsibility for "your own actions" AMERICA. Now PLEASE excercise your freedom of speech and disagree with me if you want

[FTJoe]

When did the people in this country become so weak willed that we blame another persons "words" for our "actions"?

...

Take responsibility for "your own actions" AMERICA. Now PLEASE excercise your freedom of speech and disagree with me if you want

When the people are children, nuff said. A child is not emotionally stable enough to handle any type of bullying.

This was an adult tormenting a child through a fake facebook account.

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

Bottom line is the bill is well intended and poorly written. When I finally found a legitimate site that talks about it, it appears it will probably be struck down because it is too loosely worded. many states already have legislation, but the problem was to control the fact that this can occur inter-state. People who have seen me post know I am far from a gooberment fan, but the technology these days has outpaced the ability of us to protect our children. To some extent, parents are lazy in this regard, but the other reality is the children's ability to work tech is far and above that of their parents.

Edited January 6, 2010 by FTJoe

[BirdDog]

When the people are children, nuff said. A child is not emotionally stable enough to handle any type of bullying.

This was an adult tormenting a child through a fake facebook account.

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

Bottom line is the bill is well intended and poorly written. When I finally found a legitimate site that talks about it, it appears it will probably be struck down because it is too loosely worded. many states already have legislation, but the problem was to control the fact that this can occur inter-state. People who have seen me post know I am far from a gooberment fan, but the technology these days has outpaced the ability of us to protect our children. To some extent, parents are lazy in this regard, but the other reality is the children's ability to work tech is far and above that of their parents.

Thanks for posting the wiki article. Children, especially teenagers, cannot handle peer pressure. Because this case involved an adult, I felt it should be added to the chapter of title 18 under child abuse.

[FTJoe]

Thanks for posting the wiki article. Children, especially teenagers, cannot handle peer pressure. Because this case involved an adult, I felt it should be added to the chapter of title 18 under child abuse.

Agreed, despicable an adult would do that and there was no way to punish her. I think child psychologists think but do not say, pre-teens and teens are emotionally and mentally crippled. I know my 20 yr old daughter is only just showing signs of becoming "mature". I know all kids are different, but like it or not, gone are the simple days when the kids got up with the adults at 4AM, worked the farm, got a break and went to school, then more chores when they got home.

I ignored the comments about free will and blocking the tormentor though they still bug me. Someone abused rarely operates under free will, luckily the law has been decent about recognizing that. Abuse creates a prison, those not familiar with it don't see the walls and don't understand why but I imagine very few people kill themselves "of their own free will".

[DannyBoyfromWashington]

When the people are children, nuff said. A child is not emotionally stable enough to handle any type of bullying.

This was an adult tormenting a child through a fake facebook account.

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

Bottom line is the bill is well intended and poorly written. When I finally found a legitimate site that talks about it, it appears it will probably be struck down because it is too loosely worded. many states already have legislation, but the problem was to control the fact that this can occur inter-state. People who have seen me post know I am far from a gooberment fan, but the technology these days has outpaced the ability of us to protect our children. To some extent, parents are lazy in this regard, but the other reality is the children's ability to work tech is far and above that of their parents.

Ok, I can see what you are saying, and can kinda agree with it in part. But let me try to clarify what I am saying. If this child is not emotionally stable enough to handle any type of bullying, then why are the parents letting them on the internet alone? Parents of Americans, take responsibility for your failure to act. I have 2 children myself and neither me or my wife would even consider letting them (13yr old daughter and 6yr old son)use the internet unmonitored. So these parents made the choice to buy a computer and pay for an internet connection and then made the choice to let this young child use it without supervision. The parents are the ones that should be held responsible for the child commiting suicide due to their negligence. I believe it is called "criminal negligence" or something like that. And it is people like these parents that are the Americans I am telling to take responsibility for their actions ( or lack therof ).And the adult who did the bullying should get the same charges as the parents, but in now way should the entire American populace be facing consequences for 2-3 adults actions. And the only reason a child would have more ability to work tech than their parents is just more mental lazyness on the part of the parent. This kind of mental lazyness is what is causing the american people to give up more freedoms to the government just so that they can feel justified in being mentaly lazy by saying the government is supposed to take care of that. This attitude is total BS, in the end responsibility for our lives and our **children's lives and what we chose to do in them is ours and ours alone(**until they are mature enough to be considered adults in their own right, which is not defined by age but maturity). We always have a choice in one form or another and it is how we handle these choices that shapes our lives and influences our childrens modes of making choices. No offense intended to anyone, I just feel very vehemently that people being lazy and wanting the government to do everything for them is the attitude that has allowed the government to get to the (grossly stupid) point that it is at now. Supposed to be a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE! But is now a Government "of the sheeple" "by the power hungry" "for the greedy". rant end. Peace, Love, and Happy Thoughts

[elem187]

Warning progressive writing legislation... seriously we need to get rid of the progressives, their entire political ideology is controlling the people, because in their mind we are too stupid to make up our own minds.

and remember progressives are both republican and democrat.... McCain, Bush Sr./Jr., Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon.... and just about every democrat is a progressive - Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Jimmah Carter, Ted Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, etc etc...

It would be nice if conservatives (Republican and Democrat) took notice and get rid of these progressives out of their own party before they destroy the country... we need more conservatives like Reagan and JFK.

Edited January 6, 2010 by elem187

[DannyBoyfromWashington]

We need to replace almost the entire government and start from scratch with the constitution as the base again and this needs to happen at the same time as a serious change in the attitudes of americans as a whole or nothing will really change. Anything less than this would just be another patch job.

Oh and about adding another bill, comeon how about just enforcing those that already exist, "criminal negligence" on the part of megan's parents and on the part of the bullying adult.

Edited January 6, 2010 by DannyBoyfromWashington

[ddavelarsen]

We need to replace almost the entire government and start from scratch with the constitution as the base again and this needs to happen at the same time as a serious change in the attitudes of americans as a whole or nothing will really change. Anything less than this would just be another patch job.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I really can't feel too bad about making it a criminal offense for an adult to bully a child, even verbally. Whether this law would applied in that way is the point, and the point in the original article is a warning that it would not. I tend to lean in the paranoid direction in that regard myself. That's an even bigger problem than too many nanny laws - that the nanny laws are used to bully and coerce.

[DannyBoyfromWashington]

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I really can't feel too bad about making it a criminal offense for an adult to bully a child, even verbally. Whether this law would applied in that way is the point, and the point in the original article is a warning that it would not. I tend to lean in the paranoid direction in that regard myself. That's an even bigger problem than too many nanny laws - that the nanny laws are used to bully and coerce.

It is already a criminal offense for an adult to bully a child, whether in person or on the internet or otherwise, you should see how wide covering the criminal negligence laws really are. I am just against adding to the glut of new laws which the supposed point of making it is already covered by an old law. So since the scenario described as justification for this new law is already covered by an old law, then what is the point of the new law? I will tell you, it is to add phrazing to law that the govenment can use to take away more of our freedoms, and alow the government more ways to silence those who speak out against it. This kind of lawmaking is dangerous to all of us. just my $0.02

[FTJoe]

The parents are the ones that should be held responsible for the child commiting suicide due to their negligence.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Whether it's an adult or other teens, bullying is a form of terrorism and abuse. For years abuse has taken place among children, with trusted family members or neighbors. Are the parents responsible, the abused child? Or is the person who knowingly commits the act responsible? I don't understand how schizoid thinks it's he teen's fault for not turning away and ignoring it or you that it's the parents fault. I don't know the specifics of that case, but allowing access to the internet which many parents do, is not a criminal offense. As far as kids being technically proficient, that's a fact of life, adults (except for a few) can not keep up with the kids. If you are an exception, it is just that, an exception. There are kids out there better than you, they're just not yours. I believe tech will ultimately solve this, not the government, the government is doing what they are supposed to do (admittedly poorly), legislate.

[FTJoe]

It is already a criminal offense for an adult to bully a child, whether in person or on the internet or otherwise, you should see how wide covering the criminal negligence laws really are. I am just against adding to the glut of new laws which the supposed point of making it is already covered by an old law. So since the scenario described as justification for this new law is already covered by an old law, then what is the point of the new law? I will tell you, it is to add phrazing to law that the govenment can use to take away more of our freedoms, and alow the government more ways to silence those who speak out against it. This kind of lawmaking is dangerous to all of us. just my $0.02

From a wiki (FWIW)...Adult to child is Cyberstalking, child to child is cyberbullying

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

"Cyberstalking has also been addressed in recent U.S. federal law. For example, the Violence Against Women Act, passed in 2000, made cyberstalking a part of the federal interstate stalking statute. Still, there remains a lack of legislation at the federal level to specifically address cyberstalking, leaving the majority of legislative prohibitions against cyberstalking at the state level.[7]"

I'm not saying this is good or bad, but I'm not sure every crappy law these idiots come up with has a nefarious intent, sometimes its really just because they're idiots. ;-)

[Schizophretard]

When the people are children, nuff said. A child is not emotionally stable enough to handle any type of bullying.

This was an adult tormenting a child through a fake facebook account.

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

Bottom line is the bill is well intended and poorly written. When I finally found a legitimate site that talks about it, it appears it will probably be struck down because it is too loosely worded. many states already have legislation, but the problem was to control the fact that this can occur inter-state. People who have seen me post know I am far from a gooberment fan, but the technology these days has outpaced the ability of us to protect our children. To some extent, parents are lazy in this regard, but the other reality is the children's ability to work tech is far and above that of their parents.

When the people are children it isn't enough said. For an example, one of the arguments against us is that all the flavors of e-juice is appealing to children. After they make that point should we just shut up for the children? If we did we wouldn't have e-cigs much longer.

I think we all could agree that it was morally wrong what that person did to that girl but the purpose of government isn't to enforce morality but to defend our rights. What rights of this girl were violated? Does she have a right to not be talked to by *** holes and have her feelings hurt?

I disagree that a child is not emotionally stable enough to handle any type of bullying. If that were true then every child would commit suicide or shoot up their school. Going to school is like spending 12 years with Nazis that pick on you for any imperfection. Unlike that girl going online, kids have no choice but to go to school. Her parents allowed her to get online knowing that all the psychos in the world would be able to communicate with her. Where were they during all of this? Did they warn her of the dangers like murderers, child predators, and that given enough time she would have her feelings hurt by someone? How did they prepare her for getting on the Internet? Being bullied online is totally different than being bullied anywhere else because you can easily withdraw yourself from the situation. I don't see why we need laws to keep us from being bullied when we can hit the ignore button, block button, report the person to the owners of the site to get them banned, or hit the button on you computer to turn it off.

I feel sorry for this girl and her family but if I legally only have the right to say something nice or nothing at all then I really don't have the right to say something nice because it is my only option. *** holes have the right to say the most evil and cruel things and good people have the right to say good things. Having the freedom of speech doesn't guarantee that you won't have your feelings hurt but is one of the prices of having that freedom. Freedom isn't about making the perfect world.

[ddavelarsen]

This is some kind of great forum! I'm really pleased that people are willing to argue civilly; that's what democracy is for, and this is probably the best example I've ever seen of it.

I'm a big believer in personal liberty, and I rue our dwindling rights. Schizophretard, you make a very good argument, very convincing and in fact absolutely true - the First Amendment does not guarantee that someone's free speech won't hurt someone else's feelings. I absolutely agree with all of the arguments that this law is unnecessary because it doesn't break any new ground, and I agree that people, perhaps even children, could reasonably be expected to exercise their rights to not-listen.

That said, I also have some experience with abuse. Not personally thank God (other than the ubiquitous childhood school bullies), but I have known a number of people who have been subject to the most inhumane treatment. And guess what? The victim of abuse can't just walk away. It's psychologically virtually impossible, even for adults. Children have virtually no defense and in this case even the girl's mother didn't take the situation seriously - possibly because it's at such a remove (online) it seems unreal. But abused people get sucked in, brainwashed into believing there's no alternative, no escape. That's not hyperbole man, that is really true; abused people believe they cannot escape. They become helpless and hopeless.

I don't like this law, and I don't like the misuse I expect to come of it. But I do understand what drove its conception. Mostly it's an effort for people to feel like they're doing something. Megan's case is, in my opinion, one in which the parents had more responsibility in than has been acknowledged, regardless their technical expertise. It is the definition of being a parent to protect and teach one's children. But the perpetrator had the ultimate responsibility, and in the end was not held accountable. I'm unclear how that happened, frankly. A miscarriage of justice, for sure. Would this law have made a difference? I don't know; I don't see how, but the wiki article didn't give much info to help me understand that.

HR 1966 was probably born from good intentions, but I'm afraid it's likely to have an unintended effect of chilling all free speech. That is a great tragedy. (Call me Mr Understatement.)

[FTJoe]

When the people are children it isn't enough said. For an example, one of the arguments against us is that all the flavors of e-juice is appealing to children. After they make that point should we just shut up for the children? If we did we wouldn't have e-cigs much longer.

I have no idea where you are headed with that argument...

I think we all could agree that it was morally wrong what that person did to that girl

Actually I believe most would agree that this type of action is MORE than immoral. By your definition, an abused spouse or child who can physically leave the abuser and doesn't is basically choosing to be abused. Luckily the law stopped agreeing with that type of position a while ago.

the purpose of government isn't to enforce morality but to defend our rights. What rights of this girl were violated? Does she have a right to not be talked to by *** holes and have her feelings hurt?

I believe it's way more than personal rights the government is supposed to be defending. Our way of life, our society and yes our mores. I'm no law person, but I think the test of any law isn't to make sure it's defending a right, but to make sure it's not violating our rights.

I disagree that a child is not emotionally stable enough to handle any type of bullying. If that were true then every child would commit suicide or shoot up their school.

It's not a matter of all or none, how many more crack or withdraw because of bullying, etc. It is recognized that most children are emotionally unstable, you can disagree all you want, but most can be split open like a melon through abuse. I'm not proposing they all commit suicide, but bullying increases the numbers. It's always a question a free society has to ask itself, is the reward worth the cost whether the cost is in dollars, or inconvenience or someone's perceived loss of rights. Not everyone who is a bad driver goes off the road, yet we put guardrails up at dangerous spots because we know it saves lives.

And I do not know the details of the case, but whether she was looking or not (and probably couldn't help looking), I'm sure she was getting updates from her friends and enemies. Again, some children can't help it and do not inform the parents, it's a form of abuse they can not escape.

Having the freedom of speech doesn't guarantee that you won't have your feelings hurt but is one of the prices of having that freedom. Freedom isn't about making the perfect world.

Sorry - but this country did decide a long time ago there are limits to free speech. I am a personal fan of the saying that "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.", but there are limits none-the-less. Many people confuse freedom with anarchy, this is a democracy, we decide how we want it to work within the framework of the constitution (at least in theory).

Edited January 7, 2010 by FTJoe

[Schizophretard]

Agreed, despicable an adult would do that and there was no way to punish her. I think child psychologists think but do not say, pre-teens and teens are emotionally and mentally crippled. I know my 20 yr old daughter is only just showing signs of becoming "mature". I know all kids are different, but like it or not, gone are the simple days when the kids got up with the adults at 4AM, worked the farm, got a break and went to school, then more chores when they got home.

I ignored the comments about free will and blocking the tormentor though they still bug me. Someone abused rarely operates under free will, luckily the law has been decent about recognizing that. Abuse creates a prison, those not familiar with it don't see the walls and don't understand why but I imagine very few people kill themselves "of their own free will".

I've had suicide attempts out of my own free will.

[FTJoe]

I've had suicide attempts out of my own free will.

I'm just going by what I read. It is my understanding is most psychologists/psychiatrists believe a suicide attempt is done under an altered or modified state of mind, in other words, not a "normal state of mind" but one "not thinking clearly' or under duress. I guess what is considered normal or altered or modified could be argued and I made a leap to assume under those conditions, a person is no longer operating of their own free will.

[elem187]

We need to replace almost the entire government and start from scratch with the constitution as the base again and this needs to happen at the same time as a serious change in the attitudes of americans as a whole or nothing will really change. Anything less than this would just be another patch job.

Oh and about adding another bill, comeon how about just enforcing those that already exist, "criminal negligence" on the part of megan's parents and on the part of the bullying adult.

yea get rid of the entire government and replace them with more progressives??? we will be right back where we started.

Get rid of the politicians that ignore the constitution... aka the progressives.... just because they say they are a constitutional lawyer like our dear reader in chief, doesn't make it so.. base it on their actions and so far he gets an F on constitutionality of his actions.