Democrats attempt to shutdown SDN

[Beowulf]

Well, not specifically, but this retarded law could have that affect.

Trolling someone online? Bill would slap you with jail time
A new cyberbullying bill aims to punish those who intend to cause "emotional distress" online with fines, jail time, or both. The problem—as usual—is the vague language used in the bill, which leaves many critics concerned that it could be used to censor speech on the Internet.

By Jacqui Cheng | Last updated May 10, 2009 10:43 PM CT

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.

We have to protect the children, don't we?

[Darth Wong]

Why don't they just tighten up their retarded slander laws instead of trying to pass laws like this? It seems to me that this behaviour is only really objectionable when someone is saying objectively false things about someone else. This would fall under the category of slander except that the burden of proof for slander in the US is ridiculously high, because they demand that you prove the defendant's state of mind when he committed the slander: a virtually impossible thing to do unless he blabbed on record to somebody.

If someone says "fuck off, you idiot", that's not slander. But depending on how "cyber-bullying" is defined, it could be defined as bullying, which would be a completely unreasonable restriction. One might as well throw people in jail for giving each other the finger in traffic.

[fgalkin]

Would they even be able to do anything to the board, considering the servers are in Canada?

Also, the bills seems to address things like people being caused significant emotional distress. How the hell are our trolls going to prove that? Off themselves like that Myspace girl?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Jaepheth]

Why don't they just tighten up their retarded slander laws instead of trying to pass laws like this? It seems to me that this behaviour is only really objectionable when someone is saying objectively false things about someone else. This would fall under the category of slander except that the burden of proof for slander in the US is ridiculously high, because they demand that you prove the defendant's state of mind when he committed the slander: a virtually impossible thing to do unless he blabbed on record to somebody.

If someone says "fuck off, you idiot", that's not slander. But depending on how "cyber-bullying" is defined, it could be defined as bullying, which would be a completely unreasonable restriction. One might as well throw people in jail for giving each other the finger in traffic.

They still want to be able to troll their political opponents in nationally televised commercials.

[General Zod]

I'll be amazed if this makes it out of committee. As it is it's so impossible to enforce I have to wonder how retarded you have to be to think this kind of thing would actually fly.

[NoXion]

Aren't there already laws against harassment? What's wrong with them?

Seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.

[Sea Skimmer]

One might as well throw people in jail for giving each other the finger in traffic.

That's an 1,125 Euro fine in Germany. Course they also made it a crime to run out of gas on the autobahn.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

One might as well throw people in jail for giving each other the finger in traffic.

That's an 1,125 Euro fine in Germany. Course they also made it a crime to run out of gas on the autobahn.

It almost sounds as if the law exists to generate public funds.

[aimless]

What's the real life legal parallel to this: like what is the language for laws dealing with actual bulling with the intent of causing sever emotional distress etc etc?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, if on-line bullying gets you jail time, I guess we should lock up every elementary school student who's ever insulted a class mate too.

Also, I love this bit from the first paragraph of the article: "which leaves many critics concerned that it could be used to censor speech on the Internet." Unless I'm missing something, the entire fucking point is to censor speech on the Internet.

[Thanas]

One might as well throw people in jail for giving each other the finger in traffic.

That's an 1,125 Euro fine in Germany. Course they also made it a crime to run out of gas on the autobahn.

What are your sources for these two more than dubious claims?

[Dahak]

What are your sources for these two more than dubious claims?

A quick google search for "Beleidigung" and "Stinkefinger" gives you a rather full sample of court decisions with fines up to several thousand euros.
For the second, googling again reveals that there are courts that decided running out of gas (when you could have expected it) violates §23 of the StVO.

[Sea Skimmer]

What are your sources for these two more than dubious claims?

http://www.bugeurope.com/transport/drivede.html

Got the number off of that, but I have heard the gist of both things many times for many years, and I know for a fact that the Pennsylvania State legislature strongly considered a very similar law and cited Germany as the basis. Belief was that reducing insults would reduce road rage and lead to fewer accidents but the bill was defeated. You basically could be ticketed for no gas on some US roads too in no stopping sections when only emergency stopping is allowed, and as no fuel is your fault you could still be given a ticket. On a road with no damn speed limits it would be kind of stupid not to criminalize any and all stopping that could be possibly avoided. We make lots of other shit illegal for no other reason then peoples own personal safety already in nations around the world.

[Thanas]

What are your sources for these two more than dubious claims?

A quick google search for "Beleidigung" and "Stinkefinger" gives you a rather full sample of court decisions with fines up to several thousand euros.

Yes, § 185 StGB. However, to claim an exact number is wrong - courts will always decide on a case-to-case basis. You may get away with a fine as little as a few hundred euros.

For the second, googling again reveals that there are courts that decided running out of gas (when you could have expected it) violates §23 of the StVO.

Yes, that is to be expected (For those not familiar with german law, §23 StVO deals with obligations of the driver). However, that does not make it a crime. It is a misdemeanor at best.
Unless you did it on purpose, I see no way that this would result in it being judged as a crime.

[fgalkin]

A misdemeanor is still a crime, is it not?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Thanas]

A misdemeanor is still a crime, is it not?

I used the literal translation of crime into german, which is Verbrechen, Vergehen. The problem is that in germany "Krimineller" which is the direct translation of "criminal" means someone who has committed a felony (Verbrechen and some of the Vergehen). In Germany we have Straftat, Verbrechen, Vergehen, Ordnungswidrigkeit and Gesetzesverstoß. The first three and the last one can all be translated as crime into English and frequently are in books. On the other hand, Vergehen, Ordnungswidrigkeit and Gesetzesverstoß might or might not be misdemeanors. (The case at hand would be both a Gesetzesverstoß and a Ordnungswidrigkeit).

It is a bit puzzling and that is why I differentiated. It might very well be that in english usage crime connotates no punishment above a small fine (this is extremely complicated in german law, if you want to I can elaborate on that one) per se, but it does in German.