This federal crime is poorly written and overbroad, intended to criminalize hacking into computer systems for illegal purposes such as theft, yet it captured Ms. Drew (and many others) in its net for the “crime” of setting up a MySpace account that did not use her real name, age, or gender. This was only a crime because it violated MySpace’s Terms of Service which nobody ever reads. Indeed, a study done by the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that a *majority* of MySpace accounts countained false information. No doubt if a study were to be conducted of the numerous online dating services, it would surely be noted that many described themselves as taller, slimmer, or in some way more flattering than the Terms of Services required.

The fact that many people had access to and used the MySpace account set up by Ms. Drew and since the prosecution was never able to determine who sent the final email to Meier that allegedly caused her to commit suicide, only led to the addition of conspiracy charges against Ms. Drew.

Why is the proposed Cyber Bullying Prevention act a threat to the 1st amendment? Because we already have laws against stalking and harassment which include electronic communications. H.R. 1966 criminalizes speech which is “not nice”. If you don’t defend freedom of speech for idiots, you’re not defending freedom of speech for yourself.

And, yes, Mr. Barr. You make a good point. I agree with you, but this internet bullying law pales in comparison to the Patriot Act, a law specifically designed to weaken the Bill of Rights.

Second, Mr. Barr is making a strawman argument, no doubt learned in law school as being both fallacious and effective, to attack this sort of legislation. He claims, and several posters have concurred, that it will penalize something as innocuous as an insulting e-mail or text message. Clearly, this is not the intent of the law. Mr. Barr may be correct in suggesting that the scope of the law is too broad, and there no doubt could be some tightening of it, but that is no reason to dismiss the proposed legislation entirely.

Thirdly, pronouncements about the violation of the 1st amendment are disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. As we are all surely aware, laws limiting defamatory speech exist already. However, libel and slander laws do not cover all of the potential issues that arise on the internet. It is entirely possible to create legislation that punishes people who translate their abusive tendencies into virtual form.

In the case mentioned – in which Mr. Barr incorrectly claims a teenager was involved – the adult female responsible for said bullying intentionally and maliciously attempted to destroy this very young girl’s life. I’m sure she never intended for the girl to kill herself, but actions like hers SHOULD have consequences. Suggesting otherwise denies the emerging realities of today’s world. This legislation is necessary because the woman was acquitted because there was no clear law that applied given the virtual circumstances.

I wonder that we are so anxious to agree with Mr. Barr because of our terror of the “evil Government”. I was under the impression that the government was supposed to protect citizens from harm. If Lori Drew (the woman responsible for the emotional abuse) had carried out her actions in the real world, there would have been consequences. I’m not sure why Mr. Barr, or any of you, frankly, think that there shouldn’t be consequences when malicious abuse occurs over the internet.