Maryland The Latest State To Trample The First Amendment With Quixotic Attempt To Outlaw 'Cyberbullying'
from the this-again?!? dept
Cyberbullying seems to be a popular moral panic point for many politicians, who are just sure that (a) it's a huge huge problem impacting lots of kids and (b) the "cyber" element somehow makes it much, much worse than everyday bullying among kids. We've seen various states like Arizona and Louisiana pass absolutely ridiculous First Amendment-destroying laws trying to stamp out the scourge of people being jerks online. All of this despite the evidence that cyberbullying is a pretty minor thing, and the laws do little to stop what actual bullying happens online.So, given all that, Maryland appears to be the next to spit on the First Amendment with its own "anti-cyberbullying legislation," which, like the others, seems to want to outlaw being a jerk online, if that behavior is directed at a child. While the bill the Assembly passed took out some of the worst language, it still has massive problems:
While electronic annoyance of an adult becomes criminal only if it continues after a request to stop, no such triggering provision is included for behavior that may annoy a minor. (And as I read it, there is no requirement that the defendant know that the person being subjected to intentional emotional distress is a minor — engaging in a vigorous “flame war” with a Maryland resident might turn out to be criminal if the username “ParentInLinthicum” turns out to conceal a teenage user.) Exceptions are made for speech that is intended to express political views or convey information, a curious pair of exemptions in that it has long been assumed that our First Amendment protects many types of seriously annoying speech other than those two.In the long run, these kinds of laws only serve to create massive chilling effects on speech, and will, undoubtedly, be used to cause much more trouble for other children. As Walter Olson notes:
We are supposed to support this law — and some lawmakers I admire did support it — to show that we care about children. Once on the books, however, this law will assuredly ruin the lives and futures of other kids who will be the subject of investigations and prosecutions, and not all those kids are monsters whose ruin we should accept with equanimityYes, bullying sucks, but passing a law that ignores the First Amendment is never going to stop kids from saying mean things to one another -- though it might just put them in hellish situations in which they're prosecuted for doing things that kids do.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cyberbullying, free speech, maryland
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Tsk...
Here, this is what I think about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_ZiRT8Nwkk - NSFW, harsh language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tsk...
when i was in school that would have been a good day.....this coming from a fat, geeky red head(aka fire crotch) that got untold amounts of shit from people from preschool all the way thru highschool....
My view is, society for far to long has been doing all it can to keep stupid people from killing/harming themselves.
watch the movie idocracy and i really feel thats where we are headed...
I say, if people are so weak/stupid they are going to off themselves over words, LET THEM, dont rty and stop it.....there genes shouldnt be in the genepool if they are that weak.
if somebody is so stupid they blow off some fingers or a hand with fireworks, let them, just dont give them disability when they do....dont punish the rest of us for the actions of total rtards....
mind, I dont think most mentally disabled people are even close to as stupid as some of the true moron rednecks I have worked with....i mean the kinda guy who will smoke a cig as they use gasoline to clean engine parts....
bah....I say again, we need to stop coddling the stupid....let natural selection decide who breeds and who offs themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But nvm, go ahead and criminalize your youth. In the future when everybody is a felon for some petty and absurd reason everybody will be equal again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is all sorts of stuff that happened when I was a kid that would never be allowed in our current society. Run around in the dark with a water pistol, playing water tag, hell no...you'll get killed by the police. Draw pictures of stuff you like (movies, television shows, etc.) hell no, you'll get arrested for drawing pictures of guns and space ship battles.
We seem to be spending a lot of time breaking our kids for the sake of "for the children." I just don't understand what it is meant to accomplish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure. I think that we actually gave them a better childhood for a while (100, 200 years ago kids as young as 12 were already being thrown up into adulthood). However we went a little bit too far and kept them locked into a rosy fantasy made up world fearing that too much exposure would harm them. And along with it we elevated the bar of "childhood" into absurd ages (ie over 18). Now we are seeing the obvious result that is infantilized adults that can't cope with many things that adults would. And they are in key power positions.
Of course these aren't the only reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://apublicdefender.com/2013/04/09/treating-juveniles-as-adults-there-are-no-winners/
The last two paragraphs say it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I remember making mistakes as a kid. I was lucky enough to learn from them. I don't make those mistakes now as an adult because I learned from them as a kid. While I never did something this bad (I had good parents, and I doubt, very seriously, that either would have just dropped me off at the courthouse and left, never to be seen from again,) there are plenty of things I did that could have landed me in trouble at the time.
I have to remind myself this from time to time, when some kid makes a mistake. It is so easy to get upset, but the truth is, unless they are doing something that could get themselves or others seriously hurt, it isn't really worth making anything a federal case out of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You nailed it with the "breaking our kids" line. That's the dream of the campaigners -- hang threats over their heads for acting like kids just like you "fix" a dog for acting like a dog. We have to protect the kids from the experience of freedom so they'll transition more easily to life as cogs in the American plutocracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The man who makes no mistakes usually doesn't make anything." I don't know who the author of that quote is but it's true. Learning from your mistakes and failures gives you emotional strength and develops character.
"Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will" ~ Mahatma Gandhi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(2) A PERSON MAY NOT USE AN INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE TO MALICIOUSLY ENGAGE IN A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT INFLICTS SERIOUS EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ON A MINOR OR PLACES A MINOR IN REASONABLE FEAR OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY WITH THE INTENT:
(I) TO KILL, INJURE, HARASS, OR CAUSE SERIOUS EMOTIONAL DISTRESS TO THE MINOR; OR
(II) TO PLACE THE MINOR IN REASONABLE FEAR OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.
So, what, it's OK as long as you don't use an interactive computer service?
And wait, even if you have the intent to KILL the minor, that's a misdemeanor?
Oh, and also. "SUBSECTION (B)(1) OF THIS section does not apply to a peaceable activity intended to express a political view or provide information to others." But what I posted above is in subsection (B)(2). Which means that even this small protection does not apply. And it's clear from the markup that they did this intentionally - the original version just said "this section".
Which means that they intentionally criminalize "a peaceable activity intended to express a political view or provide information to others".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd be more apt to ban politicians. The world would be a much better place for the children. Especially when you think about the statistics involved. Your kid is more likely to die in a automobile collision than they are to be pushed to commit suicide by a bully. Especially if you are a good parent and are involved in your kids lives, instead of using the TV/Internet as a babysitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liberty
Who should enjoy Liberty? The “Innocent until Proven guilty”, law abiding citizens in the US.
Should Liberty be subjugated to fear? If people are afraid of what you might say, should you be prevented from saying it?
Should EVERONE be subjugated and prevented from speaking due to what a "jerk" online says and held responsible for what they say?
Law abiding citizens are being linked and subjugated to the fear that groups hold regarding the actions of others/criminals. The purveyors are implying that the law abiding citizens, who are Innocent until Proven guilty, CANNOT BE TRUSTED because of the actions of a others/criminals.
Fear is not the default to decide who gets married, who gets to speak, which religion to practice or if a law abiding citizen can own a gun.
Liberty demands that all law abiding citizens MUST be draped in the full rights of innocence and NOT connected and subjugated to acts perpetrated by others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liberty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liberty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liberty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as it cuts both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
....aaaand now the link:
http://www.cbc.ca/ns/beyondtheheadlines/2013/04/social-media-demands-justice-for-rehtaeh. html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not saying that Government Officials and Politicians should be shot,However they should be WELL AWARE it's part and parcel to the Job description.(if they find that offensive, then maybe they should not take the job/office)
a pliant populous is easily led populous, regardless of the "will" of the people.
I personally believe that "dueling" should make a come back and be legal.
It's keeps those in power more humble, and more willing to listen to the populous.
Voting is to easily rigged/bought for the common man to have any say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CT Teacher's Push Propaganda
http://www.examiner.com/article/ct-school-teaches-that-americans-don-t-have-constitutional- right-to-bear-arms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CT Teacher's Push Propaganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a) do what is intended
b) have any harmful effects
c) if there are any possible adverse effects noted, do they ever alter the bills
d) ignore everything just so as to have their name on something
e) ever get sued because of an adverse effect of a badly thought out and/or written bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
a)how much money will I make
b)how many votes will that money buy me
c)what 6 figure job can I get when out of office
d)how big will my personal bank account be after leaving office
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
e)doesn't matter for I will just exempt myself from any laws I get passed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love my state!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two wrongs make a right
In that situation, if that teenager thought that being cyber-bullied was unpleasant, they're really going to dislike life after after they get charged under the CFAA for misrepresenting their age and end up in juvenile hall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]