There are times when I really don’t enjoy living in California, this is one of them.
The idea for a law, by Rep. Linda Sanchez, Democrat, of California is sheer lunacy. She has proposed a bill that would make it a federal felony to use blogs, text messages, and Internet messaging (“electronic means”) to harass someone and cause them “emotional distress.”
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? There will be DMVesque line with a wait.
It’s coming to that it seems.
Linda Sanchez (D-CA) coming after bloggers
“Greg Pollowitz at NRO Media Blog sends the alert (via The Volokh Conspiracy) that Rep. Linda Sanchez, Democrat of California, has proposed a bill that would make it a federal felony to use blogs, text messages, and Internet messaging (“electronic means”) to harass someone and cause them “emotional distress.” Eugene Volokh pulls these snippets out of H.R. 1966:
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, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both….
[“Communication”] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; …
[“Electronic means”] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.
(h/t to Helogenic Climate Change)
Here is her official website where you can contact her and let her know what you think about this idea. Be nice.
http://lindasanchez.house.gov/index.cfm?section=contact
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Re: Roger Sowell (14:23:35) :
“This bill in its present form would be found unconstitutional, as it violates the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. Among other things, it is overbroad, and likely void for vagueness.”
So should have been the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, but the court let that stand. I’d prefer not to take the risk, since you can bet that it would be signed by the White House if presented.
Frankly, I’m not certain that anyone residing in DC for more than a few days is allowed to retain any common sense regarding the plain meaning of the constitution or for that matter common sense at all.
Well, the law is just plain incompetent, as written. Sanchez is clearly not up to the requirements of her job. But then I could name others in Congress who are just as clueless, or more so.
The woman who precipitated this, on the other hand, is total scum. She pretended to be a teenage boy, “Josh,” on MySpace, and ‘befriended’ a 13-year old girl who was a rival of her daughter. Drew obtained assistance in this from an employee and several others, three or more women ganging up on one 13-year old girl for revenge.
After chatting up the victim over a period of time, Drew, as “Josh,” turned on her and sent messages saying things like “You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.” The victim hanged herself a while later.
Some call this a prank. I disagree. It was a hoax, yes, but no mere joke. There was nothing funny about it, though Drew apparently laughed when telling others about it.
But the proposed law won’t bring the victim back. And I think one thing has been overlooked. If a US citizen vacations in Australia and sends an e-mail to a customer in NZ asking them to pay a debt, he’s broken this law. This law is extraterritorial. Such laws are based on ownership of the citizen by the state.
The thing will never pass. I hope.
It seems the constitution doesn’t mean much to the Democrats. This bill violates the first amendment. They have an anti-gun bill in the house which would infringe on the second amendment, HR 45 . They also have a bill which would create a committee to determine if mandatory service can be imposed on Americans (i.e involuntary servitude). That bill is HR 1444. But don’t get me wrong. The Republicans aren’t much better. Another anti-gun bill HR 2159 was introduced by a Republican. And both parties supported the TARP bailout bill, an unconstitutional robbery of $700 billion from the treasury for the benefit of the crooked bankers who caused our current financial mess. Throw them all out and vote Libertarian.
There is an old chinese parable, about a squad of militia marching to their mustering point. Their way is blocked by a bridge across a ravine that has gone out, so they are sitting by the road.
Finally the lieutenant says to his men, “What is the penalty for being late to mustering?”
“Death,” replied his men.
“And what is the penalty for rebellion?”
“Death,” replied his men, again.
“Well men, we are going to be REALLY late for mustering.”
So began the overthrow of an emperor.
The website of Greenpeace causes me intense emotional distress; enough to put them out of business, I hope.
The silly bint who came up with this didn’t have the wit that this censorship knife cuts both ways.
For those e-mailing Miss Sanchez, you might ask her why she referred to “so-called Free Speech” in her defence of this bill.
DaveE (11:35:34) :
I think the key is “severe, repeated & hostile”.
Well, Dave, this applies to Greenpeace and Al Gore. They have repeatedly been hostile to my being, enough to cause me emotional stress.
Remember the Greens DEMONIZE regular folk who don’t subscribe to their religion, rather like the …..
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?
Re: Robert Wood (15:46:36)
Be wary of applying double-standards though …for example, let’s keep in mind the well-being of WUWT …but the proposal seems to be about attacks targeted on specific individuals, so all should be fine if cool watchdogs keep a sharp watch on the wording (and drag out deliberations indefinitely if there are issues).
No need to lose any cool in dealing with fanatical cults – the best road to walk in dealing with them is the high one – i.e. let them be the ones freaking out & looking irrational. No need to sacrifice ground by stooping to their uncivilized level. That would only lead to a compromised position. The high-ground is the most strategic position to occupy. (The tide is turning.)
As you note Robert, this could backfire given the hostility of the left. However, I still find myself tempted to send her an email filled with invective; terms like Orwellian, totalitarian and Nazi come to mind, as do several hyphenated expletives.
How could seeking to establish the truth and/or using rational arguments to falsify the non-scientific theories of others be construed as coercion, intimidation or harassment, capable of causing substantial emotional distress to a person?
Logically to call someone a “denier” just because of a difference of opinion could be considered coercion, intimidation and harassment.
However, the probability of causing substantial emotional distress is low. As a so called “denier” the pseudo-science of the AGW arguments poses no threat to cold hard facts.
So there you have it. Let the other side resort to whatever tactics they wish to deploy, in the end they will fail. They can run from the truth , but they can’t hide the truth.
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.
Well, everyone wants to be seen as doing “something”, and the case that brought this out clearly required “something”. Personally I think that woman should have been subjected to vigilante justice… but that’s just my opinion.
There probably should be a law that prohibits deliberate and vindictive actions in online posting, but this isn’t it. I know many people who take this stuff pretty seriously. I don’t have a problem with the occasional expletive or even abusive post, but SOME people don’t know when to stop and get on with their own lives.
I’m going to expose an experience that nobody here knows about: I spent most of last year with a young girl who got pregnant. She wasn’t my girlfriend, it wasn’t my kid (thanks for asking), but I took her under my wing. I was there when the adoptive parents got the baby (even her mother was MIA on that one), and it was an emotional time.
UNfortunately, she’s not the brightest spark (obviously), and failed to consider that the father, and several ex-bfs were on her facebook, along with the adoptive parents. The father was FURIOUS that she put the kid up for adoption instead of marrying him and being with him, so he started posting with the adoptive parents. He convinced them that she had been threatening to kill the baby if she ever had the chance (not even remotely likely). As a result they were pretty much forced to get the law involved. Now she is prohibited from ever visiting, even though the adoption was originally set up as open.
This was a deliberate and vindictive and HARMFUL act with absolutely no recourse. I can definitely understand the desire to have some tool for law enforcement to use for situations like this… but ultimately the best defense is to delete everyone you’re no longer friends with and sever ties… and don’t keep going places where everyone doesn’t like you (advice that one or two regular posters to here might consider 😉
This is not about bullying or protecting kids; this is about shutting down free speech. Welcome to America, 3rd world dictatorship.
I think this would translate roughly as: “There where books are burned, there also is mankind destroyed.” Very apt analogy to the possible destruction of freedom of speech on the Internet.
Ms. Sanchez proposed law is just the next step to eliminate free speech and individual thought.
Anyone believe that, should this travesty become law, the ACLU will come out against it? Pardon the olde cliche, but not a chance of a snowball in hell.
Correction: Sanchez’
I like this site for the science and observations. Unfortunately, there are times when I must be political:
Paul Vaughan @16:26:45
I enjoy your argument and hear what you say. Wise words to a wise man.
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.
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.
California tax revenue down 39% in April.
You would think the politicians would be doing something abut that instead of wasting their time restricting free speech. In Canada you better be careful what you write or you will be brought in front of a tribunal for a show trial.
State of California
April of 2008.
Tax Revenue
Compared to April 2008, General Fund revenue in April
2009 was down $6.3 billion (-39%). The total for the three
largest taxes was below 2008 levels by $6.3 billion
(-40.3%). Sales taxes were $452
million lower (-50.9%) than last April,
and personal income taxes were
down $5.7 billion (-43.6%). Corporate
taxes were $142 million below (-8.6%)
http://sco.ca.gov/Press-Releases/2009/05-09summary.pdf
Check her expenses!
“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
“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
The Democrat “progressives” (fascist in practice) have controlled college students with political correctness codes. The organization called FIRE has worked against the fascist administrations. A sample is as follows:
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8597.html
Under the program, students were required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and “one-on-one” meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The university also instructed RAs to ask intrusive personal questions during one-on-one sessions, including “When did you discover your sexual identity?” A student who responded, “That is none of your damn business,” was, according to the university’s own materials, written up—along with the student’s name and room number—as having one of the “wors[t] one-on-one” sessions.
The program’s materials stated that the goal of the residence life education program was for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These “competencies” included: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and
(note)
“Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”
And in the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, the program was described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation, including referring to the program as “treatment” and defining “learning” as “specific attitudinal or behavioral changes.”
End of excerpt.
Unfortunately, only a few brave students have been willing to risk their education by reporting the fascist tactics that are typically being used by the “progressives” that control America’s Universities.
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