OpEdNews Article: First Amendment Rights Watch: Criminalizing the Internet

In the last few years as my work has increasingly integrated with the Internet, blogosphere and Netroots, I've been constantly reminded that there are a lot of great people out there -- but I've also been reminded that there are a number of really crazy, nasty, unhinged and generally bad people out there, too. The Internet's unique mix of interactivity, instant response and anonymity can really bring out the worst in people -- all you have to do is read the comments sections on many major blogs, both liberal and conservative, to know that there's a lot of hate out there.

However, the Internet is a terrifically democratizing force, and while most of us can't stand the haters who try to hijack this medium for their own sad agendas, any effort to criminalize speech in this medium is really unacceptable.

Unfortunately, such an effort is underway, headed by Democratic Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA). As Wired magazine notes, her bill, HR 1966, is called the "Cyberbullying Prevention Act" and includes this section:

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.

Look, I'm all for putting people in jail for violating the law, whether they violated it on the Internet or somewhere else. However, this bill is so broadly written as to be an affront to the First Amendment. Really, who is going to determine what "intent to coerce, intimidate or harass"? At times, I've felt intimidated and harassed by quasi-stalker-ish commenters and hate mailers. And I've certainly been the target of attempts to "coerce" - as has anyone who has read a blog post pushing a certain position. Should folks go to jail for that? I don't think so.

David Sirota is a full-time political journalist, (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Authors' Articles

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

10 comments

To view all comments:

(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I, for one.... by richard on Saturday, May 16, 2009 at 10:06:39 PM

UDHR... by Jason Paz on Sunday, May 17, 2009 at 2:30:26 AM

UDHR is very telling of the human condition by Kimmo Salonen on Sunday, May 17, 2009 at 5:13:51 AM

I agree with Richard by jersey girl on Sunday, May 17, 2009 at 7:54:15 AM

Jersey Girl by Sister Begonia on Sunday, May 17, 2009 at 4:53:47 PM

Apply rule of law to everyone, including its sponsors! by crispy on Sunday, May 17, 2009 at 8:18:20 AM

correction to my post by crispy on Sunday, May 17, 2009 at 8:26:00 AM

The future of the Internet is bright by Sister Begonia on Sunday, May 17, 2009 at 4:49:14 PM

At best, her bill is vague and ambiguous by Dave Kisor on Sunday, May 17, 2009 at 8:53:01 PM

Criminalizing Care-Bear Fascism by Kyle Griffith on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 10:57:54 AM