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
At volohk.com you can find a good list of scenarios where this law could be invoked that proves its absurdity and unconstitutional nature. However, Sanchez has attempted to rally defense (she does not concede that any language in the bill should change) by invoking the standard rallying cry: “It’s for the children.” So taking Ms. Sanchez’s statements at face value, that this bill is about preventing teenagers from committing suicide because of communications they receive electronically, I offer the following scenario that hits closer to home:
Sally, 18, decides to break-up with boyfried Billy, 17. Billy does not take this well and tries on multiple occasions to ask Sally to get back together with him. Wanting to maintain distance from Billy, Sally responds via e-mail, and with each e-mail her frustration increases. She becomes increasingly hostile and severe towards Billy as she sees that he does not get it that there is no chance for them to get back together. Feeling that she has no choice but to bring Billy back to reality, she relates in increasing detail with each e-mail the personal failings of Billy that make him undesirable as a boyfriend. She intends this to cause Billy severe emotional distress, as she thinks this is the only way she can make him realize she does not love him and want to be with him.
Billy, a rejected and depressed teenager too emotionally immature to see his situation from a rational perspective, takes his own life. The police investigate the circumstances of his death and find the repeated, hostile and severe e-mails clearly intended to cause emotional distress on his computer. Sally is arrested and eventually sentenced to 2 years in state prison for her role in Billy’s death.
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?
There is a knee-jerk reaction by many to propose a new law against any injustice they may observe. There is already a myriad of laws on the various books against libel and slander whereby anyone may seek relief in various courts of justice. What proponents of this latest proposal for criminal penalties under the federal code are missing is an appreciation of “the law of diminishing returns” whereby additional measures result in more rather than less injustice.
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?
Towards balance:
1) Truth about context: Just Want Truth… (18:10:52) (liberty for wolves & sheep).
2) Solid argument: adoucette (18:44:22) (“[…] they have to be much more specific to hold up to judicial scrutiny”).
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
Here is that pesky First Amendment getting in the way great legislative initiatives, once again.
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
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.
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
This law doesnt appear to be too bad.
If bloggers concentrate on the issues in question, rather than the personalities, then I cannot see how they could fall foul of the law.
Personal attacks are always unnecessary, and often counterproductive. Of course they are not so counterproductive if you have anonymity because no one knows who you are.
The real point of the law is to stop people using the web to ‘bully’ people. We are not talking bullying the Al Gore’s of this world here, we are talking about the small people. Say an ex-spouse, subject to pernicious and vile hatred due to the twisted mind of a sorry and relentless individual.
Of course there is latitude for such a law to be misused, but the courts are pretty good at distinguishing between wholesome intellectual debate and downright evil.
The latter does exist, and those who dont like the law, have to say how they would counter the occasional evil actions of others on the internet.
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.
This bill is causing me emotional distress. This congress-critter is harassing me. Where do I sign up to sue? Hurry up and pass the bill! I need to sue Rep. Linda Sanchez!
I’m afraid that to tell the Congresswoman what I think and “be nice” are mutually exclusive propositions.
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.
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!
Do you know what hysteria is?, no?, then, there you are!!
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.
Unfortunately should this become law – the Ninth Circuit would uphold. Because what is forgotten is the inherent human ability to discern. Should we now ask government to discern for us that which may be offensive or “hostile?” And thereby discard the common sense that tells a man to shut the door when the rain comes in?
“Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
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
Damn, there’s nothing I like better than to harass someone and cause them “emotional distress”, whatever that is, using electronic media. Nanny government has prevented me from using conventional means I won’t let them take away my last medium for concerted bullying efforts.
It’s political correctness gone mad.
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
Albert Coakes has a big ass and a small brain. The two wars he’s talking about never brought any democracy anywhere in the universe. World War I led to the installation of communism in USSR while World War II led to the expansion of communism. Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. surrendered to the communist tyranny right after the end of that war. What democracy is Albert Coakes talking about?! He has a twisted mind which delivers non-sense. Poor lunatic.