Cyberbullying Bill a Potential Free-Speech Threat

A while back, I wrote an article about a situation my brother-in-law was living through.  A few kids he knows at his school were sending him mean, nasty text messages, and it was really starting to get to him.  With time, some conversations with people who know and love him, and a thickening of his skin, he was able to start ignoring the stupid messages he was getting and move on.  He's a good kid, and knows that people say and do dumb things.  He's no worse for it, and from what I know, it has stopped and doesn't bother him any more.

Other kids are not as fortunate as my brother-in-law, and don't necessarily have the tech-savvy and attentive parents, brothers, and sisters that he does.  Some kids are left to deal with this sort of thing on their own.  It is with that in mind that HR 1966 was introduced to the United States House of Representatives on April 2nd, 2009.  The bill, known as the "Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act," is designed to prevent and punish bullying using electronic means, such as "email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages."  The bill would amend United States Code Title 18, Chapter 41, which is the section on extortion and threats.  It would make harassment by electron means punishable by fines and up to two years in prison.

While I have no issue with the spirit of the bill, I have a giant, monumental problem with the way it is written.  Section 3 of the bill adds a new section to Title 18, Chapter 41 of United States Code that reads:

SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING.

(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 881. Cyberbullying

`(a) 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.

`(b) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `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; and

`(2) the term `electronic means' means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`881. Cyberbullying.'.

Parts (a) and (b) of the proposed amendment to United States Code basically states that anyone writing anything that could cause "substantial emotional distress to a person" could be prosecuted.  Even the use of the word "coerce" is questionable, since there are plenty of websites in the internet designed to convince their audience of something.  And the inclusion of "blogs, websites" in part (b) makes all bloggers and web journalists vulnerable to prosecution if they publish something someone doesn't like.

Now, don't misunderstand, I do support legislation that protects kids.  Having been bullied a bit myself when I was younger, I understand that it can cause all sorts of social and emotional problems.  So I would like to propose a solution: A change of wording.  Just add an age-specifying phase, such as "at or below the age of 18" to part (a), so it reads:

`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person at or below the age of 18, 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.

I believe this would still offer the protection that is the heart of the bill, but would eliminate the big-brother type worries that currently surround the proposed amendment.  After all, isn't the intent to protect kids under the age of 19 from potential threats, not limit the freedoms of our country's blogging and journalistic communities?