Post an Opinion, Go To Jail

I think the key is “severe, repeated & hostile”.
Bad enough but maybe not as bad as it seems.
Probably open to abuse though.
DaveE.

Sorry I just can’t say anything nice here…what a moron. As if California does not have enough REAL problems to be solving. Just shows the inane degree to which the incompetent clowns in the legislature will go in order to make it look like they are getting something done when in fact they are doing nothing but frittering away the state’s money while pushing an extreme agenda.

Ooops – I guess that last comment could potentially be outlawed.

“Does Al Gore using the word “denier” constitute “intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person,”?
Do death threats sent to scientists like Timothy Ball constitute this also? (I know he is Canadian, not a citizen of the US. I’m just trying make a point here.)

Be warned from the UK experience:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2696031/Anti-terrorism-laws-used-to-spy-on-noisy-children.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1952551/Anti-terror-law-used-to-snoop-on-fishermen.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/antiterror-laws-used-to-spy-on-family-807873.html
The list is huge.

Can I sue her now? Her message and attitude distress me.
Are there not laws that cover the serious sorts of issues she thinks are a problem?

Democrats and lawyers tend to work together quite well. Whenever it is their turn in power a lot of laws get written to help the lawyers sue more. So this law really doesnt suprise me any.

“Probably open to abuse”??? Gee, ya think???
Astounding how few pols, and how few people in general, have any concept of what the 1st amendment means, and why the founders considered it so important.
This, of course, is another attempt to legislate Correct Thoughts. How, after all, can you know whether or not someone intended “emotional distress” unless you know their thoughts?
And of course, it’s a simple step from here to the obvious corollary – good thoughts (as defined by the government) will be legal, Bad Thoughts (again, as defined by the government) are to be a Criminal Offense.
Of course, it will not only be legal but Highly Encouraged for all those who possess Good Thoughts to cause emotional distress to all the Bad Thought evil-doers.

This is the result of parents giving children and teens access to the information highway and then blaming that highway for the stress it causes said children and teens. Children and teens do not need any other phone than the one that plugs into the wall at home or resides in a parent’s pocket. Neither do they need unfettered access to the internet. Dumb law. If this passes, maybe we should be able to bring suit against Burger King when parents buy 2000 calorie meals for their children 4 times a day, they get fat, and die of heart disease at 14. Oh wait, we already do that.

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

I agree with DaveE. “Severe, repeated, and hostile” are the key words. Those would make the communication unprotected speech, rather like hate speech or death threats.

So if my local paper, the Enterprise Record, posts a web story that “causes somebody emotional distress”, do the aggrieved then just dispense a lawyer from a vending machine in front of the newspaper office and walk in with a lawsuit?

Not unless it’s libelous. Your example fails the “support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior” requirement, which implies targeted communication.

Does fear of being snipped by Charles the Moderator et al constitute emotional distress?
[SNIP!]
[Well, okay, you didn’t say anything. But you were thinkin’ it! ~ Evan the moderator]

We in the west fought 2 world wars for freedom, including freedom of speech. Democrats in the U.S. Congress appear to wish to turn that over, what with successfully keeping Christopher Monckton silent.
Your is a superb blog. lol, Bertie

“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…”
Hmmm… Lookout Joe Romm.

This is a a sinister and dramatic development, especially when you are in opposition of a political doctrine which is based on a religion.
What do I say, it’s impossible.
We have seen many, many times how they respond to a simple remark like: “There is No Consensus” to get them in a state of “substantial emotional stress”.
I’m afraid we have to close down this blog. NOT
Let’s stop this nonsense right now and write some nice mails to the Rep’s website.
P.s Someone in the room whispered a remark in my ear which could soften the effect of such a Bill.
How can anyone determine if a person living in the US has got into “a state of emotional distress” because of an e-mail or a blog posting, if half the population is living on a diet of Valium and Rohypnol already?
There is now way to execute such a law without detoxing the population first.
Traquilizer anyone?

I feel emotional distress caused by Sanchez. Who do I call to get her locked up?

I’m with Adoucette on this one; its a serious problem in New Zealand as well. There have been many instances of young people being text-hounded to the point of desperation by their class-mates, and others, and I believe at least one suicide has resulted. This is also a tactic used by the reptiles who cruise the web looking for vulnerable young people to prey upon.
It looks to me as though Ms. Sanchez is trying to address this issue and make it possible to deal with Drew and his like. The problem, of course, is whether or not a well-meaning proposal can be diverted and mis-used to further far more sinister ends. That would never happen in America, I thought, but then a name – McCarthy, is it? – seems to be in the back of my mind.
Light snow starting to fall in the hills around Dunedin, more forecast and massive dumps in the ski-fields inland. Well, it will be winter in three weeks, after all. Oddly enough, ten years ago we were worried that the ski-fields would rarely see decent snow; this weekend, still nearly a month from opening day, you can’t get up the access roads.

Well it looks like Steve McIntyre is going to be in trouble for causing repeated emotional distress to Mann, Wahl, etc.
Pielke, Jr., could be in trouble for constantly correcting MunichRe which I’m sure constitutes harassment, as could Pielke, Sr., for causing emotional distress to all who swear by globally averaged temperatures, and refuse to consider land use/land cover change as important as CO2 forcing, at least regionally and locally.
Then of course we have websites such as Gore Lied whose very existence I am sure may be construed to cause lots of emotional damage.
On the other hand, RealClimate could be sued for causing emotional distress to all skeptics and deniers, and Joe Romm would be in trouble for harassing anyone who is not a true believer in the program (such as Hansen). And let’s not forget ExxonSecrets, whose very existence is designed to harrass.
Ah, what a tangled web we weave … clearly Sir Walter Scott was ahead of his time!

Let’s cause some substantial emotional distress among the AGW crowd:
1. http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/05/graph-says-it-all.html
2. http://www.seablogger.com/?p=14172
Stop the Socialists
politics by seablogger
I think the carbon tax, whether it takes the from of cap and trade, or a sweeping new regulatory mandate, is essentially dead. Two forces have defeated it: blue dogs and a dim sun. You don’t need me to explain further, eh?
3. AGW = DEAD

The Federalists would have been proud of this Sanchez law.

Libel and harrassment are already illegal under various state codes. And there already is Federal law against interstate harrassment, which was broadened to include the Internet:

THE US COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996
While the Communications Act referred only to “interstate or foreign communication (harassment) by means of telephone”, the amended version proposed in 1996 (called the Telecommunications Act) changed that text to refer instead to “interstate or foreign communication (harassment) by means of a telecommunications device.” This change was brought about directly by the rise of harassment on the rapidly growing Internet, and the subsequent lack of legislation to deal with it.
Title V of this bill was named Obscene Or Harassing Use Of Telecommunications Facilities Under The Communications Act Of 1934. Section. 501 of this new bill named it the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and proposed to amend the Communications Act to make illegal the use of a telecommunications device (i.e. including Internet technology) that:
makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person
-or-
makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
-or-
makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication.
These US Federal anti cyberstalking laws were passed in 1996. While other parts of the CDA failed to satisfy the US Supreme Court and were struck down as infringing on Free Speech, the anti cyberstalking sections were not challenged.
The CDA text and associated documents can be found at The US House of Representatives Internet Law Library.
http://www.wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_harassment/us_federalstalkinglaw.html

The wrinkle in Sanchez’s bill is the impossible-to-define “substantial emotional distress to a person”, an open invitation to litigation if ever there were one, and a blatant threat to the First Amendment by restricting even political speech if the object of such speech could convince a judge or jury that it caused “substantial emotional distress.”
So if I were to repeatedly post on various blogs comments to the effect that this Rep. Sanchez is a vile woman who is nothing less than a domestic enemy of the Constitution, and she were to claim that these posts upset her, I could be sent to jail. This is not the beginning of a slippery slope toward tyranny; it is well down the slide toward the bottom.
/Mr Lynn

Move to Canada and make some sort of statement in print or online, in a group setting, on the street or over the phone about any socio-ethnic group and win a free session with a HRC (Human Rights Commission) tribunal. Where you can actually be banned from expressing your views on the offending subject ever again in your lifetime.
This is what happens in a left of center country, if you want to see your future look North my American Friends.

Here is a valid 9 digit zip code in her district: 90703-2718.
It is all you need to send this loon a message.
Anyone who thinks this is limited to situations like Megan Meyer is naive.
This is the first step by the socialist thugs in the White House and the Democrat side of Congress to stifle their critics. It has Rahm Emanuel written all over it.

For those e-mailing Miss Sanchez, you might ask her why she referred to “so-called Free Speech” in her defence of this bill.

Just about every electronically transmitted thing I see, hear and read these days (except at this site, of course) causes me “emotional distress”, with the musings of “His Largeness, The Goracle” and the former royal sidekick, “Safari Hansen” (did you see that hat?) heading my personal list of harassers. This proposed legislation would appear to indicate that, with Rep. Sanchez at my side, I will be able to unleash the legal hounds on these miscreants. We’ll just take that pesky Constitution and shove it when the incoming shift of federal judges, who are encouraged to “rule from the heart”, side with me as they “feel” my obvious “emotional distress”.
This will be great! What else can we change?

Those quoting the “severe, repeated and hostile” proviso as if it mitigates the totalitarian nature of this bill completely miss the point. The point is: Who decides if the action meets these subjective criteria. Because it’s not really a law; it’s a means to take down political enemies using the state.

This is not about bullying or protecting kids; this is about shutting down free speech. Welcome to America, 3rd world dictatorship.

Correction: Sanchez’

Well, for me, lesson #1 has been STAY AWAY FROM FACEBOOK.
Based on the justifying cases presented for this vile legislation, it would seem that a facebook presence is obligatory. in the estados unidos.

Check her expenses!

“It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have these three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence to practice neither.”
~Mark Twain

For all those defending the first amendment, remember that right is not absolute.
Your speech can’t involve danger to the public peace or to the security of the state.
You can’t stand on the street corner and advocate armed overthrow of the government.
You can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theater.
You can’t threaten the President
You can’t use the right of free speech to extort or blackmail someone.
You can’t hide behind the right of free speech to slander someone.
Clearly there are some limits.
Sanchez is trying to establish a new limit and apply it to the other than oral speech.
The problem is that trying to specify what is clearly unlawful, while not infringing on what is not, is very difficult.
Which is why the existing Title 18 – part 1 – Chapter 14 limits itself to a very limited and a very specific set of THREATS and EXTORTIIONS.
In contrast her proposed clause:
“harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior,”
Is neither specific nor exclusive.
The term “substantial emotional distress” is obviously subjective and the amount of distress is determined by the person receiving the communication, not the one uttering it.
It makes no sense for someone to be able to be charged of a crime based on the lowest tolerance of anyone reading an internet communication.
Likewise the second clause: “severe, repeated, and hostile behavior” is also similarly quite subjective as to what constitutes levels of severity or hostility, and repeated is simply more than once.
While it might make legislatures feel good to pass these type of laws, they have to be much more specific to hold up to judicial scrutiny.
Arthur

Robert Wood (17:13:58)
“Unfortunately, the Gorists have an intent, not secret, but not revealed either. That is, control of the global economy by themselves, under the excuse of “saving the planet”.
These little “effers” should be put down.”
I get the arguments made here loud & clear – and the best way to deal with unruly folks is not always to get in the gutter & lowball with them. The tide is turning. Feel no fear. Suffer no emotion. The higher ground will be taken by objective fighters. Stay cool – and watch corrupt regimes defeat themselves. (It’s just a matter of time.)
–
Just Want Truth… (18:10:52)
“The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among human creatures.”
-attributed to Abraham Lincoln”
This makes sense – and so the games go on ….

To esteemed yet deluded Congress woman Sanchez,
You have clearly demonstrated that a village Idiot can indeed achieve great things, even elected office.. however, it is incumbent upon me to ask you instead of focusing your attentions on a summary execution of our first ammendment rights, you might try something much more in line with those whom share your mindset,; though to do so would require time travel, or a clairvoyant, as hitler and stalin are currently unavailable.

Now maybe some stalker has a blog designed to harass their victim from prison. The problem with our legislatures is their desire to create a rule for every eventuality…. yet the rules are very broad, and always have unintended consequences.
With respect to climate, has everyone heard that California has shut off water to the central valley (A huge agricultural area) to protect a certain species of smelt? Will California melt down to show us the foolishness of environmental hysteria?
The drought was blamed on climate change, but the lack of water may have more to do with environmental hysteria than weather.
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/the-california-water-v-delta-smelt-war/

no we shouldn’t be afraid, just to laugh at this [snip]- enforcing such nebulous categories as ’emotional distress’ would lead to a very silly quagmire. We need to enjoy the humor of this y’all.

I haven’t read all the post at this time so I may be overstating something that has been stated before. In my humble opinion this HR1966 is unconstitutional. That said it it should pass I feel that it will be challenged in court very quickly. By the way her site only lets you email if your are a resident of her district. She does provide links to find you representative and email them. I have sent my Rep an email and let him know my feelings about this proposed bill. In my opinion this is nothing more than an attempt to restrict free speach via electronic means.
Tell your Rep to vote no.
Bill Derryberry

This leads to the law of unintended consequences. Canada has such a law (as does each province and territory), normally just called Section 13(1) and it has been hijacked by leftist activists to pursue anyone they dislike – normally white Christians (in fact, almost exclusively white Christians). There is currently a battle to repeal it and even the original advocates are now saying it has been misused. Check out http://ezralevant.com or, better still, buy Ezra’s newly released book ‘Shakedown’, ISBN 978-0-7710-4618-6. It portends a very grim future where freedom of speech applies only to those who enforce their own leftist views by quasi-legal means. Ezra Levant is a Jew who had the temerity to publish the Danish cartoons in his magazine and was dragged through Hell for offending a radical Imam. You don’t want or need that law!

Okay look, believe it or not like with all things of this nature people are trying to do something good. In my opinion, for what it is worth, the moment you start limiting any kind of speech no matter how annoying it is you are going to start having idiots that move to every other kind of speech. We all wanted the ‘DO NOT CALL’ Law a few years ago and it worked it has pretty much silenced every telemarketer out there, all that are left are Charities and Political pollsters, So they will try to do the same thing on the internet. Impose fines, jail time, etc.
Look when you start classifying speech then you get just that classified speech and people who don’t care administrating it.
All I can hope is that this congress person does not get her way, I am offended on a regular basis on some of the AGW stories that I hear. To the point it causes me emotional distress ( I start cursing about idiots and how can they blindly swallow bunk ) after that distress I critically examine what is being said, try to glean any truth from it, sigh heavily, and get on with my life.
BTW I hate telemarketers but I hate stupid laws more. I can hang up on telemarketers ( I have refused to put myself on the Do Not Call List ) and only know they are dying out because I never get called anymore. Such stupid laws.

I live in Southern California, and I’ve watched this woman for a few years now. Linda Sanchez is what some might call a “Reconquista.” The issues closest to her heart are those of illegal aliens that share her ethnicity. She would love to use this bill to silence those who criticize unlimited immigation, illegal immigration and amnesty/guest worker schemes. She’s a brown supremacist.

US citizens should fight this sort of thing from the outset, before you sleepwalk in to the INGSOC totalitarian state we have been living under in the UK since the arrival of Billy Liar Blair in 1997.
The socialists have perfected “mission creep” , the EU being the classic example , creating a European superstate regardles of the wishes of the voters.

Mike Bryant and CTM, I think you both missed the fact that Mike is Canadian and was correct initially, as he was calculating from the Canadian dollar. :^] -Further to this post; “You have the right to free speech, as long as you’re not dumb enough to actually try it !!!” -The Clash, from the song “Know Your Rights”.

Thank you for pointing this out. The congressional e-mail system won’t let me write to anyone other than my own representative – John Spratt – the fat old guy hanging around Pelosi all the time.
I did write him asking it Sanchez was an idiot of simply ignorant of our Constitution. Once I got started, I just couldn’t stop writing – I doubt he reads his e-mail anyway.
I’ve been reading the Federalist Papers straight through for the first time rather than as a reference book. This in concert with our current political situation, actually a constitutional crisis, has me in a foul mood. Then, I see stuff like this and I go nuts. Why do we continue to elect idiots? We have to stop. This is all our fault.
A friend refers to Pelosi, Reid and Obama as the “axis of stupid” and I think many more should go on that list.
Anyway, thanks for the heads up on this so I could stay up ’till 4 AM writing to people.
This can’t happen – it really can’t. It’s just silly.
Sincerely

I can see what she’s trying to achieve, to get some statutory protection for people or businesses being subject to the sort of harrassment that would get a restraining order placed upon the perpitrator, should they be doing this in person, but the scope for abusing this is great. I can see lawyers and judges with a political motive queueing up to slap a few suites down.
I note E.M.Smith (01:11:39)’s post, raising the spectre of religious and sexual-orientation issues, there’s a great area to start with!

I agree with UK Scepitc. I see he reads similar sites to me. Well done sir!
I am not an Californian nor even an Amercan, (although having visited San Fran back in the 80’s I sometimes wish I was), but as a citizen of the province of the UK in the Peoples Democratic Republic if the EU, & therefore suffer a vast raft of legislation telling us how must live our lives, I feel I can contribute. I dare say the proposed law is very well intentioned (benefit of doubt given), but what I have found here is that function creep & abuse of the laws are used by the state provincial government, err sorry UK government. What we have seen are laws passed for one apparently legitemate purpose, yet soon find a small part of the law applied to penalise certain sections of the community. What we have also seen is money on the table for various “good” things, but small print shows they want something in return that will penalise us in the long term if we do not sway with the wind.
So be warned, ensure the legislators tie the small print in tight so there can be no abuse or misuse of the law, should it be passed!

Sad. [snip]. I caught this, too, via Wired, and scribbled a few thoughts at Cognitive Dissonance (http://cognitivedissonancefiles.blogspot.com/2009/05/megan-meier-cyberbullying-prevention.html).

That, along with the latest insanity in LA of not allowing ‘black painted’ cars (mud Brown in okay) to fight ‘GW’ makes me heartily glad I do not like in the Peoples Republic of California, where up is down, left is right, and only right thought is permitted.

I posted this article earlier on WUWT. A lot of Michigan wine growers and eonophiles [wine lovers] are going to be very upset with the idea raised,i.e., Global Cooling means the demise of the Mich wine business. With this law on the books, will I get that special late night visit ?
“Global cooling and Northern Latitude Wine Production
Around some fantastic wines at a close friend’s home last night, I shared some of the theory and predictions behind David Archiblad’s “Low Sunspot activity= Global Cooling” idea.[We reside in Michigan].
My buddy, one of the most expert individuals I know of on the topic of growing wines in Michigan as well as around the rest of the wine-growing world, indicated that if there were any significant decrease[ two weeks, three weeks ?] in our growing season, wine production would be dead.My two favorites, reds like Cabernet Sauvignon and Red Zinfandel, would be especially vulnerable………..”
{The rest of the article can be accessed at Archibald’s “Our current Minimum is more Maunder than Dalton.}

Some appear fixated on the words “severe, repeated, and hostile.” Yet, the key phrase here is “with the intent to…”
Proving intent is difficult. This is only one of the several failings of this draft bill. One could argue in defense that his/her conduct/speech/writings were not intended to coerce, harass, etc., but to bring a straying person back to the path of righteousness, peace, happiness, and salvation.
If this defense is invalid, then just about every preacher/priest/rabbi on every Saturday/Sunday is in trouble, if he/she has reduced the sermon to an electronic communication means such as posting it on the internet, broadcasting on the radio or tv, or storing on tape, cassette, CD, or DVD. If the preacher spoke into a microphone and it was amplified over a public address system, he could be in trouble. When was the last time anyone heard a preacher NOT use a microphone and PA system?
Btw, literally hundreds of Billy Grahams’ sermons are on the web, and on tape, CD, and DVD. Are we to arrest the Reverend Dr. Billy Graham? Are you serious??? Do you want to start a Holy War, right here, and right now? That man has more followers world-wide than can be counted.
As to hate crimes, and hate speech, California (here we go again) has these gems in the Penal Code:

“422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other
state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly
requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) “Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole or in
part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived
characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) “Hate crime” includes, but is not limited to, a violation of
Section 422.6.”

http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=9669116235+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
And, for 422.6, the Penal Code reads thusly:

“422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law,
shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate,
interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her
by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or
laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more
of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in
subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall
knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of
any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with
the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part
because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of
the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall
be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year,
or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by
both the above imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the
defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed
400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days,
during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school
attendance. However, no person may be convicted of violating
subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that
the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or
group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to
carry out the threat.”

http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=9669116235+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Anthony, you have greatly eased my emotional distress caused by material on your blog — you seem to have excluded the Google ads between the headline and the text. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I hope this practice continues.
I could not comment yesterday because my response would have caused emotional distress to others. To see this blog, the Best Science Blog of 2008, accept the Google shill for “global warming” was more than I could handle.
REPLY: Sorry to be a stressor. It’s experimental, I may or may not keep it. – Anthony

Just saying “It has cooled off a little” to Joe Romm would fulfil both the ‘hostile’ and the ‘severe’ requirements. Of course, at his blog, there is zero chance of the ‘repeated’ part, but two out of three is a good start in litigation proceedings.
Is it people such as he that this aims to protect?

A “lack” of love is in her eyes ( not a “look”, of course ). When blankets become cold hate increases…(no heat, of course)

Let me expand on what has been posted by both UK Sceptic and Alan the Brit. Here in the the UK (home of the mother of parliaments!?!), we have something called the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The avowed aim of this piece of legislation was so give the ‘security services’ the ability, under controlled circumstances, to put people they suspected of terrorism under surveillance so as to avoid another attack on the London Underground.
Nothing wrong with that, you might think.
Except that the organisations allowed to use powers under the Act, and the reasons they are allowed to use them, have actually been cast so wide and loose that they have been used to investigate such heinous crimes as putting the wrong sort of rubbish in bins or choosing to send a child to the school nearest to his or her home.
I do not know whether or not the current US government or state legislatures are as demented as ours, but it seems that, with this piece of nonsense, they may well be. We have already been burned by intolerance here – I think it would be better if the US avoids it. Just say no, guys.
I do enjoy visiting the Bay Area (and to cheer me up, I even saw the Raiders win last year). I keep coming back because it seems to me as a tourist that it is more relaxed than the UK. I do hope it stays that way.

It would seem that under this proposed bill, that moveon.org and a host of its clones would be outlawed. I guess it depends on who has the power.
Alien and Sedition act anyone?

Sorry I didn’t read all subsequent posts, so I’m guessing someone may have already pointed this out, but wouldn’t such a law violate the U.S. constitution, in terms of freedom of speech?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I don’t find any reference to “fire in a crowded theater” (“AGW on a crowded planet”?). I can’t find the part that says “of course, none of these rights are absolute”, either. Maybe my copy’s defective…
Best,
Frank

Frank Kotler (12:05:13) :
“I don’t find any reference to “fire in a crowded theater” (”AGW on a crowded planet”?). I can’t find the part that says “of course, none of these rights are absolute”, either. Maybe my copy’s defective…”
Your copy is not defective. But, lawyers and judges have a way of making things complicated, while attempting to bring clarity. The link below has some cases and articles that explain how the First Amendment has been interpreted over the decades.
Basically, each phrase was defined with reference to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, then exceptions were carved out.
As an example, ” Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” “Congress shall make no law” is pretty clear, it’s referring to the federal House and Senate, and a bill signed into law by the President, or if he vetoes, then by the veto override procedure. “Abridging” is used in its meaning in 1790, to deprive, or to diminish in scope.
But, what is “Freedom of Speech?” What is Speech? Is it only the spoken word, or does it include silent acts meant to express an opinion? If so, which acts? Can a law restrict the content of such speech or silent act, or merely the time, place, and manner of its delivery? Are there any exceptions that should be defined by law, for various reasons?
And there are lots of exceptions, including speech that is defamatory, obscene, pornographic, inciting to riot, a threat to the President, a clear and present danger to the Government, interference with a war effort, or false advertising, and many others.
Finally, to whom does this Freedom of Speech apply, and in what circumstances? Shall a prisoner have the same rights as a non-prisoner? Shall school children have the same rights while in-school as when out? What about observers in a court-room? Speakers at a public high-school graduation? Anyone in a government work-place? Can a government worker with a top-secret security clearance enjoy the same rights of Free Speech as his neighbor who is a private carpenter? What about aliens (non-citizens)?
What is at issue with the Sanchez bill is whether a person can express him/herself in a manner described in the bill, or shall that form of expression be punishable by the state because of the harm that could result?
see http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org

Interesting link, Roger. Thanks!
My guilt over my carbon footprint causes me emotional distress. I’m not sure if it rises to the level of “substantial”. Who decides? Me?
The Sanchez bill doesn’t seem to mention “harm”. Should we prohibit behavior which “could cause harm”, or limit ourselves to “did cause harm”? If the former, how likely? Who decides? Mann or Hansen? 🙂
Best,
Frank

The bill made sense to me up until “emotional distress”. I agree that such a bill could be abused. It’s also qualified with “intent to cause”, not merely that it did cause such distress for whatever reason on the reader’s part. I think terms like “harass” have specific enough meanings that the rest of it wouldn’t cause problems for blogs.
One plausible cause for the bill came to mind. Have any of you heard of Kathy Sierra? She was a prominent figure in IT and web marketing circles up until a couple years ago. She decided to cease those activities due to harassing, menacing, and threatening messages about her were posted on her blog (in comments) as well as other blogs. So I think the bill has some merit, though I agree that “emotional distress” is an ominous “catch all” provision that would leave the door wide open to abuse of this bill.

I’m afraid that to tell the Congresswoman what I think and “be nice” are mutually exclusive propositions.

Jeff Alberts (13:39:10) wrote: Mental distress! Mental distress!
Barry: Help! Help! I’m bein’ distressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!

What this is, is legislated political correctness. In a short time, anything that could possibly offend anybody at any time will not be allowed to happen, whether on the internet or not.
In the future, we will all be shielded from any possibility of the least sort of mental or physical harm. How incredibly tedious the future is going to be.
And all in the name of ‘saving the children’. We are saving them for a future of unending boredom.

CodeTech (08:38:47) :
Graeme Rodaughan (22:35:24) :
How about training children in Cyber-Self-Defense.
Why create a new law when you could simply empower citizens with the capability to distinguish threats from non-threats and therefore look after themselves.
I nominate this as one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time. We live in a culture specifically designed to keep us unable to distinguish threats from non-threats, where airliners full of people flown into buildings is somehow nothing to be too worried about and yet the un-measurable effect of a trace gas in the atmosphere is something to panic openly in the streets about.
More examples abound… but I’m sure you get the point.
CodeTech – Thanks, I was actually serious – but I get what you’re saying.
Cheers G

This little diatribe against Environmentalists might well qualify the writer under those rules to an extended denial of freedom.
A. A. Gill is a restaurant critic for the London Times. My attention was drawn to this article due to the title “Environmentalists are just not attractive”. Below is a portion of the statement all forming part of a restaurant critique. Bon appetite. 🙂
The truth is, environmentalists are just not attractive. They’re not winning, engaging, amusing or empathetic. They are ranty, repetitive, patronising, demanding, deaf, weirdly bonkers and smelly. Environmentalists are the nutters with degrees in composting who sit next to you on the bus. But that’s not their real impediment. The real killer thing is the schadenfreude: the naked, transparent, hand-rubbing glee with which they pass on every shame, sadness and terror. No disaster is too appalling or imminent that the green movement can’t caper and keen with a messianic glee. Take George Monbiot, the Malvolio of the green movement, who, as I’ve pointed out before, would be a geography teacher if it weren’t for the amazing good fortune of imminent apocalypse. Every week, he sifts the minute details of demise, like a jolly self-congratulatory Scrooge. Most of us would rather drown with the polar bears and Bangladesh than get in a lifeboat steered by Monbiot.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/eating_out/a_a_gill/article6225761.ece