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.
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
Anthony, I have been a great admirer of your work and have recommended your website to many people as source of serious and interesting scientific information and discussion which is both useful and appealing to commonsensical individuals, sceptics, or even agnostics wanting to understand the various factors influencing climate. I have also in general appreciated the way in which you show up the follies of many politicians and politically-inclined scientists in relation to the subject of the AGW theory/hypothesis. This time however I think many of the responses to the post on Ms. Sanchez show that your inclusion of it was unwise. While I agree that politicians try to write far too many laws addressing and attempting to conrol the minutiae of human behaviour and thus give the green light to the worst kind of lawyer trying to get money to compensate for supposed “emotional distress,” I think it is grotesque to equate (which many of your commentators seem to do) the sort of anger and frustration which many of us feel at the antics of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hansen with the appalling mental damage inflicted on vulnerable people by internet bullies. The key point here is intent, and vicious intent at that. The law should indeed in my view punish deliberate and sustained cruelty of whatever nature. I suspect Gore and Hansen and Prince Charles for that matter have genuinely convinced themselves that they are doing good, however blind and foolish and even greedy we may think they are.
Best wishes
Senex
Katherine (12:45:51) : 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.
Katherine, with all due respect, any “hate speech” law is bunk. Thought crimes of any sort all fall to the same axe: They depend on some other party to define what offended them.
Can a muslim call me “infidel” and it’s OK? (I am terribly offended by the notion that I am lacking in fidelity to God. Seriously.)
Can a Jew tell me that I am not one of The Chosen People? ( I am terribly offended by the notion that God has chosen them, and not me. Not so seriously…)
Can a Christian tell me that I am doomed to Hell because I have failed to heed Gods warning? ( They do, and it doesn’t offend me, because it’s probably true, but I could fake offense if there’s a cheque for me in it…)
I’m sure that I can assemble a list of repeated, severe occurances of each of those. Hostile I can only guarantee for a few of them… but with a little posing on my part, I’m fairly certain I could get hostile out of each group.
BTW, I’m also quite certain that I could get a repeated “Severe and hostile” communication via electronic means out of all three groups by professing support for various Nazi, Satanic, or certain sexual; practices. So I ask you:
Will only some folks be allowed to be offended?
Will only some folks be protected from offense?
Who will decide what is offensive? What thoughts are OK?
Who will decide what is severe?
Is “gay marriage” a severe emotional distress? Is it hostile?
( I know folks to whom it most definitely is…)
The only workable answer is for the government and the law to stay out of the issues of “hate” and “emotion”. Offenses must have real, physical manifestations, not emotional states, if they are to have any hope of a stable definition.
Your example fails the “support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior” requirement, which implies targeted communication.
And are not both sides of the “gay marriage” dispute issuing “targeted communications”? Are not both sides “severe” and “repeated” in their communications? Do not both sides have folks who would be described as “hostile” by the other side? How about abortion? (for both sides). How about tobacco consumption? Gun rights? ANY controversial issue for BOTH SIDES?
At exactly what point does a strongly held true belief become a crime?
Hmmm?
Or does the government choose sides?
And do those side change as the Republicans and Democrats swap power?
As someone who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, living in that schizoid world scares the hell out of me (to the moderator: Snip, if you must, but please retain the thought…)
The only answer that makes sense if for the government it be neutral in the issue. For “Freedom of speech” to mean exactly that. Period.
To quote Chomsky,: “Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”
So the very concept of “Hate speech” is terribly broken.
For example, I find your assertion that there can be protected vs. unprotected speech “hateful”, “hostile”, “Severe” and seriously offensive. Very very seriously.
So please, pretty please, say it twice. That’s all I ask…
F. Ross (16:54:46) :
“h.oldeboom (12:44:41) :Dort wo man Buecher brennt, dort brennt man auch Menschen.”
I think this would translate roughly as: “There where books are burned, there also is mankind destroyed.”
I translated it as more nearly: “Where people burn books, there will they burn mankind”
William (12:56:51) :How can I contact the daft woman to give her some grief? Her website only allows for email from the USA and I am in Europe.Is she the future of American freedom of speech? if so you are all doomed
One can get a Gmail, Hotmail, AOL, etc. free account very easily and be a citizen of the cybersphere… At worst, you need AOL and to dial a U.S. phone number to get a U.S. IP address (though I’ve never had an issue using a different ISP and launching Gmail or AOL from it, as ways to look “normal” … not that I’m not normal normally 😉
FWIW, you can use Santa Clara, California 95050 USA as an address to tell the freemail accounts where you live. If they need a street address, either “El Camino Real” or “Pruneridge” are valid streets and any street number with 3 or 4 digits ought to work… Not that I’ve given this a lot of thought, mind you!
Linda Sanchez, “Ve haf vays of killing off anything ve do not agree vith…”
The UK is already well down this appalling path, dragged there by a humourless, politically correct, fascist and extremely corrupt government. Said government is being rocked by charges emanating from the blogosphere which said government is desperately trying to silence.
And the reason why we should not rise up and slaughter them all is…?
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!
Paul Vaughan (13:46:24) : Those incapable of cool restraint might be alarmed, but people conducting themselves sensibly probably have nothing reasonable to fear so long as some sensible people are keeping a close eye on the evolution of the wording.
Paul, I’m sorry, but I must strongly disagree. This law is RIPE for abuse.
Why do I say this? Experience in the jurisdiction.
At a former managerial employer in California I was run through “Managers and the Law” EVERY 2 years to assure we didn’t get our asses sued off. (My boss still got sued, settled for $50,000, for nothing of merit.)
ONE of the “offenses” we were specifically warned against was “Elevator eyes”. If you (assumed male, but not required) looked down to a woman’s shoes then back to her eyes that could cost the company thousands for sexual harassment (case law…). No joke. Didn’t matter if she had neon flashers on her shoes or was naked… Another specifically mentioned was to NEVER make any comment about hair (i.e. “I like what you’ve done with your hair” could cost the company tens of thousands… )
Another case was that of a guy in a bar who picked up a lady and took her out on the town for the night. Even though he did not know she was an employee of the same company, and repeatedly asked if she was willing, and did not do anything without her explicit consent; she won a herassment case because “she felt pressured” even though she never said anything and he asked permission at every step of the “relationship”.
At another company: a late 20’s “lady” had a suit against a guy she had seduced (in the same group) because (so she claimed) he had given her herpes. He had a counter suit claiming slander (I think it was) and that she gave him herpes. I, as the newly hired manager, learned to ask in future interviews “Are there any current or pending law suits in the group?”…
She showed up at work ( week 1, before I knew about the suit and herpes) with a VERY tight top leaving her entire “midriff” exposed (business casual?) down to her low cut shorts… (This is in a “law office” type environment as a “professional”… ) I never looked below her chin and she got very irritated… (figure it out.. I’ll wait…) eventually going to my (newly hired after 2 weeks) female V.P. boss and complaining about The Evil Bad Boys… but had nothing on me because I didn’t look below her chin despite her wiggling and, er, “posturing” … ( you have no idea how hard it was to not look, her being really cute and well built, … but I’d been run through The Class with my boss at the other company every two years and watched my boss get reamed anyway…)
End game? I got a several months severance package if I went away (no complaints from me, worked 3 weeks and got paid for 1/2 a year!) the V.P. got fired about 4 months later, and I have no idea what happened to the “couple”… but I’m sure the company paid for everything…
(BTW, I now NEVER look below a woman’s chin and NEVER will make any behavior that could be interpreted as an advance toward anyone – male or female – as a result… so you can forget the notion of a “workplace romance”. On the job, I’m an emotional “dead fish”, like it or not. Women, if you are wondering why guys are ignoring you, well, think about it… at least in California, it’s a one way ticket to the poor house for the guy and the companies are beating everyone over the head about it…)
So if that’s what happens when you have a sexual harassment law (that ought to have some sex and some harassment required, but in practical terms just requires somebody being grumpy) what do you think will happen when all that is required is the grumpiness ? Hmmm?
Me? I started my own company and ran it for another decade or so. Then I left the business. I now trade stocks. I have no employees and no liability. At one time I had a corporation with 12 employees. No more. Kiss off 12 jobs and a $100,000 per month of turnover. I’m better off now than I was then. Some times I think about going back to work. With a thought crime law? No way…
OK, now consider this: I’m not unique. California is now struggling with a $14 Billion deficit. Their answer was to raise tax rates. The result was an $8 Billion decline in revenues (tax beatings will continue until morale improves!) and an announcement that they are now projecting $40 Billion in deficits in the future….
So how does this all tie together? Pretty simple:
It takes one heck of a lot of work and ‘risk taking’ to go into business. You have a 50%+ monkey on your back from state and federal government taxes. Add in some liability for any employee who has any sex drive and THEN add a “grumpy tax” for anyone who feels offended? Guess what, it doesn’t cost me anything to lay on the beach in Florida and a six pack a day works out to about $4,000 a year, or less than the cost of legal and accounting fees to keep a corporation in existence … So which do you think I’m going to choose? I have no need to provide a job to anyone, and I already own a beach chair… And I like Pilsner…
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!
Ron de Haan (14:01:25) : and a dim sun.
Dim sum – Hearts Delight… I like it!
(yeah, I know “m” vs “n”…)
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).
Gillespie Robertson (01:10:54) : “The key point here is intent, and vicious intent at that. The law should indeed in my view punish deliberate and sustained cruelty of whatever nature. ”
The prolem with your key point is the question of who gets to determine what the “intent” is and what level the viciousness is. What you believe to be cruel, I may take as no big deal. I believe in free speech with the speaker suffering the consequences of that speech. I certainly don’t want anyone to tell me what I can say or cannot say. Look at the religions of the world. Many use the concept of blasphamy to control speech. I believe that is nothing more than another way to exert control over people. You may see it differently. Who is right? I believe in the old addage “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. You may believe it is better to mandate a certain temperature for the kitchen. Do I want a cooler world, no, I like it warm and toasty. My brother, on the other hand, likes it cool. That’s why he lives in New England and I live in Florida. I believe if you don’t want people to text you bad things, stop using texting.
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.
The Democrat “progressives” (fascist in practice) have controlled college students with political correctness codes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo_incident
Excerpts follow:
The “water buffalo incident” was a controversy at the University of Pennsylvania in 1993. Student Eden Jacobowitz was charged with violating Penn’s racial harassment policy. He had shouted, “Shut up, you water buffalo,” out his window to a crowd of mostly black Delta Sigma Theta sorority sisters creating a ruckus outside his dorm. Others had shouted at the crowd, including several who shouted racial epithets, but Jacobowitz was the only one charged.
On May 13, 1993, news anchor John Chancellor had the following commentary:
“Eden Jacobowitz is a student at the University of Pennsylvania. His studies were interrupted by a noisy crowd of students, many black and female. He yelled out his window, “Shut up, you water buffalo.” He is now charged with racial harassment under the university’s Code of Conduct. The school offered to dismiss the charge if he would apologize, attend a racial sensitivity seminar, agree to dormitory probation, and accept a temporary mark on his record which would brand him as guilty. He was told the term “water buffalo” could be interpreted as racist because a water buffalo is a dark primitive animal that lives in Africa. That is questionable semantics, dubious zoology, and incorrect geography. Water buffalo live in Asia, not in Africa. This from the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Jacobowitz is fighting back. The rest of us, however, are still in trouble. The language police are at work on the campuses of our better schools. The word cops are marching under the banner of political correctness. The culture of victimization is hunting for quarry. American English is in danger of losing its muscle and energy. That’s what these bozos are doing to us.”
Larry Moneta, a vice-provost of the University at the time,[1] is quoted in Kors and Silvergate book, “The Shadow University” on subject being asked on NBC if the statement was indeed racist, replied “The issue is not whether I have or not. The issue is also, you know, language in my mind is neutral. It’s a question of the context in which is language is used.” Later on, Kors’ and Silvergate report Moneta grudgingly said that at the University, “All speech is free.” [2] As of 2007, Moneta is now facing scrutiny while being sued by students at Duke University for First Amendment Rights violations during the infamous 2006 Duke University lacrosse case.
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.}
I would not have posted it again if it was not so damn important.
It’s about a meeting in Germany where it is discussed if our democratic regimes (you read this correct) democratic regimes are suitable to push through the harsh climate regulating measures.
Because many US organizations are involved you all have to take good notice what is going on here.
It is a strong indicator that CO2 regulation is not about the climate but about abolut power and population control.
“Democratic regimes are not well prepared for the level of participation that is required: Can free democratic societies cope with the effects of grave changes in the global climate, or might AUTHORITARIAN regimes possibly be better placed to enforce the necessary measures?”
This is a link where you can download a flyer. http://www.greattransformation.eu/
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:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=9669116235+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
And, for 422.6, the Penal Code reads thusly:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=9669116235+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
OT but why is this
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
so different from this?
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.5.7.2009.gif
They are 2 days apart but I don’t think this could account for the huge differenece in mediterrenean SST. Also notice spots on both Poles maybe satellite NOAA is playing up?
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
There a problem with the snow cover one as well look at Arctic
http://moe.met.fsu.edu/snow/
Actually this site commonly seems to botch up the graphs and suspect AGW site anyway…
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?
If I say “Nuts!!!” to geo-Greenism do I get that late night police visit?
Where do you think Friedman stands on this issue ?
“Judging by the $75,000 speaking fee it paid to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has plenty of green to burn even in these lean times.
Friedman spent about two hours with the group, including answering questions and autographing copies of his latest book, “Hot, Flat and Crowded” – in which he argues that a national strategy of “geo-Greenism” is needed to save the planet from global warming and to make the country more productive.”
If I email you saying “This guy is nuts !” do I end up in jail with a $50,000 lawsuit on me when I get out ?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/10/BA8517HE1E.DTL
A “lack” of love is in her eyes ( not a “look”, of course ). When blankets become cold hate increases…(no heat, of course)
“…have you ever been a member of the AGW Skeptic movement, or knowingly been associated with a member of the AGW Skeptic movement?”
McCarthyism Mk II would seem to be on its way….
There is a steamroller quickly moving through our society, and most are blind to its presence.
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.