

U.S. Lawmaker Defends Imprisoning Hostile Bloggers - miked
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/lawmaker-defends-imprisoning-hostile-bloggers/

======
TallGuyShort
The news story linked to in the article is worth a read, if you're not
familiar with it.

[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/prosecutors-seek-
th...](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/prosecutors-seek-three-years-
in-prison-for-lori-drew/)

Even though the jury did not find her guilty of the charges filed against her,
they claim there's a legal precedent to sentence her anyway. The argument is
that the jury's decision only means that there is "doubt" as to their guilt.
But the constitution expressly says that someone has to be proven guilty
"beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to be convicted (Ammendments V and XIV).

Both the prosecutors in that case and the proponents of this bill are on some
very thin legal ice. As good as their explanation of why this bill is
necessary to prevent cyber-bullying is, I fail to see the difference between
the bill itself and Nazi Germany burning books. Blogging has become one of the
most crucial forms of communication in our society.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm tired of these overwrwought comparisons. The legislation certainly needs
work (which is the point of committee and congressional votes), but there is a
qualitative difference between writing '(public figure) is a doofus!' and
'(private individual) is an evil person who strangles kittens' and conducting
a campaign of character assassination.

At present, one can leverage the internet for unfounded personal attacks to a
far greater extent than the law provides remedies to defend against them. Our
libel and slander laws are written for a simpler age where publication carried
an implication of editorial control. You're probably not going to find civil
remedies adequate if someone has already falsely identified you as a child
molestor for the lulz, say.

~~~
ajju
You're right, but the solution is to fix the laws so that they are applicable
to the Internet age. If the OP is right, this law would have the effect of
removing the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause, at least for these types of
alleged crimes. You seriously don't want things to go that far because this
would be far easier to misuse.

In the end, you have to decide whether not letting someone get away with libel
is worth potentially putting innocent people in prison.

------
anigbrowl
Aside from the substitution of editorial viewpoint for any actual reportage
(eg, quoting some lawyers who specialize in first Amendment cases on what the
implications might be), this article and others seems to depend on ignoring
the first paragraph of the proposed legislation:

"(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."

There are legal thresholds for intent and severity which would have to be met
before any criminal case would stick. Everyone keeps focusing on the
'electronic means' as if the act of closing a circuit is the focus of the
legislation, rather than a sustained campaign of personal attack which a jury
would find intolerable.

Those bleating that Sanchez doesn't understand the internet seem to have an
extremely poor grasp of the legislative process and the scope and history of
the first amendment, which is not invalidated by any given piece of
legislation.

~~~
TallGuyShort
>>which a jury would find intolerable.

My point in the other comment was that in the case this legislation is named
after, the jury DID find it introlerable, and found the defendant not guilty.
However, she was still convicted by a judge, due to arguments that directly
contradict the Bill of Rights.

I agree that there's a big difference between true harassment / slander and
your average blog, but they're taking way too much power with this
legislation. If you think that problems like this don't backfire, I'd refer
you to the legal history behind the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The
Commerce Clause of the constitution was used to argue that Congress couldn't
make it illegal to take a gun into a public school. Yes, practically everybody
agrees kids shouldn't take guns to school. So doesn't it scare you that
lawyers and judges took such a broad interpretation to contradict the obvious,
and it worked?

~~~
steve19
... because all the school shooting in recent years were done by upstanding
adults carrying concealed weapons permits.

Banning guns in schools works, now we just need to tell the young psychopaths
that they must take their violence elsewhere.

------
TrevorJ
I enjoyed the point made at the bottom of the article about how the
legislation itself is emotionally distressing to journalists and that the
authors of the bill should be the first one's prosecuted under the new law,
should it be adopted.

------
space_cowboy
Sometimes I think you don't have to be very bright to be one of the most
powerful people in the world.

------
miked
>> with the intent to ... cause substantial emotional distress...

That's almost every satire ever written.

We already have laws that prevent libel. What changes just because it's
published on a website rather than a newspaper or in, say, the collected works
of Moliere?

