Friday, May 8, 2009

H.R. 1966: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act

Okay – now bear in mind that I have two young children myself (and I’m about as protective of them as you might expect for someone carrying around this particular online-nic), so I’m automatically going to be against any sort or level of ‘bullying’.

While being ‘Me’ means being personally more likely to ‘deal’ with anything of the sort myself – I can also understand the impulse of those people who are not ‘Me’ to wish for some institutional answer to the problem – the “There-Oughta’-Be-A-Law” reaction to injustice.

But the rub there is that that 'Law' would require the buy-in of your elected officials.

If there’s anything to be learned from the past 18 months or so, it’s that an alarming number of your elected representatives care FAR more about being ‘Elected Representatives’ than they do about YOU - the people they’ve been ‘Elected’ to ‘Represent’.

It’s not that they’re unaware of the topics you feel are important – they just consider those topics to be largely dismissible or otherwise subordinate when compared to their own agendas…

except when those topics can be used as a screen to help further those agendas.

By now, everyone has heard of Megan Meier, the 13-year-old girl who was ‘CyberBullied’ until she finally committed suicide – it was, more than anything, a horrific example of grownups refusing to act as though they had any grown-up standards or expectations to live up to – If you’re not familiar with the story, go HERE.

While anyone who’s ever read or heard this story agrees that it is one of the more nightmarish things connected to internet-use-by-otherwise-seemingly-normal-kids, what follows here - and bears her name - seems to be one of two possible things:

- Either a shoddily-written bill that inadvertently lends itself to abuse,

- Or a larger-agenda piece of legislation that uses tragedy as a cover for its own advancement.

H.R. 1966: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act

This is a surprisingly short Bill, light on explanation or definitions (which automatically makes me suspicious), so hitting all of it won’t be a big chore… that said;

Let’s Review:

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.

Specifically, that’s Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41 of the US Code – “Extortion and Threats” – to which “Cyberbullying” would be added as its own subsection.

Now, I don’t usually spend too much time on the findings – but in this case, they actually lend to the picture of the thin-veneer laid over the worst parts of the Bill language, so this time I’ll make an exception.

Section 2: Findings

Congress finds the following:

1)Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.

Not what you’d expect in a country “facing the worst economic crisis since the great depression’, but okay…

(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.

That’s a little like saying “Kids who play in the street are more likely to be hit by a car” – seems like more of a mood-setter than any sort of “Finding” a committee would have to “Research”..

(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.

Okay – leaving aside that neither Lori Drew nor the UK Pentagon-Hacker would likely concur with the ‘provide anonymity’ part – take out all of the embellishment and this “Finding” is saying that “Electronic communications…” [are] “potentially…” “severely dangerous and cruel to youth”...
I’m afraid that I would have to contend that it is ‘cruel communications’ by people lacking a proper upbringing or sense decency are potentially dangerous to youth.

(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.

This is another one like #2 – “victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems” – another mood-setter “Finding”.

(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.

Which sounds like ‘regular’ bullying – except you can hit the ‘off-switch’ to escape the ‘Cyber’ variety.

(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.
This one bothers me in a more subtle way – the “Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues” was taken by a group of psychiatrists and responded-to based on data gathered from existing patients. in ‘people already being treated for overt mental-health issues’ – which, if you’re a looking for a mental-health related “Finding”, seems sort of like fishing in a stocked-pond.

Not to mention that, given the ‘stocked-pond’ conditions, that “60%” becomes rather less impressive or imposing – if this were a legislation-worthy crisis, wouldn’t you expect them to hit higher than “60%” among a sample-group of psychiatric patients?

…me too.

But as we look at the section they’re proposing to include into the US Code, it becomes more likely that we’re looking at legislation that has a completely different purpose:

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.’.

I’m going to take this out-of-order, because I think that proper focus on the included definitions is important to really understanding the scope & breadth of this deceptively-short bit of proposed inclusion.

If the definition of “communication’ is:

- The electronic transmission of information of the user’s choosing
- between or among points specified by the user (thus being the User’s “audience”)

And if the definition of “electronic means” is:

- any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an “information service”.

And if “information service” includes – yet is apparently not expressly limited-to:

- “email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.”

Then this, as written, absolutely applies to... (wait for it)...

Television and Radio.

Notice also, that this language is completely devoid of definitions for “coerce”, “intimidate”, “harass”, “cause substantial emotional distress”, “severe”, “repeated” or “ hostile behavior”.

That being the case, if you have a Television show, Radio show or Blog that someone (ostensibly ‘someone in government’) finds to contain:

‘coercive’ (to compel to an act or choice),
‘harassing’(critical or mocking?),
‘repeated’ (critical or mocking?),
‘hostile behavior’ (critical or mocking?)

…that ‘causes substantial emotional distress’ (which I suppose could be more subjective…somehow)

Then You, as the creator/participant in that Television/Radio-show/Blog, would be subjected to fines, imprisonment or both.

Notice that there is no provision for anything like “except in the act of political discourse” in there.

But here - at the very beginning – is the part where they tip their hand as to the real intent of this Bill :

” Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication…”

So a Bill supposedly offered up as a “response” to the Megan Meier tragedy – wouldn’t have been applicable to her case, because that entire exchange occurred within the same neighborhood.

So this would only be applicable to ‘Cyberbullying’ that comes from out-of-state or a foreign country.

Like Fox news, if they’re being critical of the government…

Or Michael Savage, whose speech against the government, jihadists etc., has managed to get him banned from the UK.

Or like this blog – if you happen to be one of the congressmen sponsoring this Bill.

Go ahead and say I’m just being paranoid if you want, but it would have only taken the addition of a few short phrases to keep this from being so used, if that was not their intent.

Only a tiny bit of extra effort.

But they didn’t.

- MuscleDaddy


  1. OMG~Uptown Steve and DJ Black Adam are going to bring us up on

  2. Thanks for bringing to our attention this piece of legislative garbage. The attempt by government to 'fix' every possible human action that is found offensive by someone is insane.

    More and more I'm starting to define myself as a libertarian. Up until 2009 I'd never have said this, but as our federal goverment increasingly attempts to legislate and control every aspect of our lives and then use such legislation toward liberal-progressive aims...I'm becoming more outspoken.

  3. MuscleDaddy is a doodiehead!

    Does four times count as "repeated"? How about five?


    Only in this case I'm more worried about MD reaching through his computer screen to kick my butt than the long arm of Uncle Sam.

  4. ...and if I could fit my hand through this wireless network - I would give you such a smack!!.


    - MD

  5. I guess we need a disclaimer for people visiting here that says:

    By accessing this web page, you agree that you are emotionally stable enough to weather any perceived affront posted here. If you feel that any content here may rise to the level of "severe" "hostile" behavior as defined in 18 USC 881 or any other applicable statute, you agree to cease viewing this site before it can be "repeated" such that it can be punishable by any such statute.


    And grow a pair.

  6. Monster - put that as a portal page, with two buttons beneath it. One saying, "OK, I'm Ready", and the other saying "I'm A Big Pussy". The "I'm A Big Pussy" button takes them to somewhere like the "Hello Kitty" homepage.

  7. We all like Happy Bunny.

    See, the real point of this legislation is to stop Rush from picking on Barack. Michelle is tired of having to dry his tears every night before bed because Rush was mean to him.

  8. How the hell did we get to this point in society, where it's not okay to hurt each other's feelings? It's insane! I like what Monster said, and I like what Wayne said on top of that. Nice work, boys! It's becoming less and less popular, but I think that daddyquatro should have every right to repeatedly call MuscleDaddy a doodiehead, and MD should have every right to smack the heck out of him in retaliation. That seems like a pretty good self-correcting system that needs no outside influence. But no! If the wackiest legislators get their way, the above proposed interaction would be full enough of 'crimes' to put the two in jail. INSANE!

  9. I think that daddyquatro should have every right to repeatedly call MuscleDaddy a doodiehead, and MD should have every right to smack the heck out of him in retaliation.Nope. MD's right to retaliate is limited to calling D4 names, or one of them quitting this site and going where the other isn't allowed to post. If he calls him something more substantive, he may have redress in a court for libel, slander, defamation of character, etc.

    If you think that calling someone a name justifies violence, you're a doodiehead. Now, if you want to smack the heck out of me for calling you that, you justify my use of force to defend myself against assault.

  10. It just occurred to me that as worded here, 18 USC 881(b)(1) fits nicely with my proposed disclaimer:

    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 receivedThe ASCII sequence "doodiehead" does not magically jump off this server and onto your computer's screen.

    In order for your web browser to receive any electronic transmission from this web site, you must initiate that transmission by means of a HyperText Transfer Protocol "GET" request. By doing so, you are the "user" who is "choosing" to transmit the information in question.

    Patient: "Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do this."
    Doctor: "So stop doing that."

  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  12. Haha, now her name is on the internet

  13. Im supposed to take it down but I cant, Hahaha


We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.