The “Cyber Bullying” Act – How Freedoms are Stolen

by Ken on July 4, 2009

What you are about to read demonstrates the way the our freedoms are stolen.

For most of us it is difficult to fathom that there are people who would act to destroy the founding principles of our precious nation.

But there are. Their mission is to control by whatever means they can muster.

A  general rule is that such actions are couched in beautiful sounding, “do-good” statements or titles. This is done to mask the true intent.

Please read the following bill (H.R. 1966) currently in congress. I will annotate (in red) certain aspects:


To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying. Note the name – who would not be against “bullying”
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the ‘Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act’.
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. Note that this bill is to protect the children.
(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.
(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.
(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.  Note that a our very psychological well being is being associated with this problem.
(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.
(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.
(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘Sec. 881. Cyberbullying Please note this – read the words and see how this would apply to most anything deemed hostile, or causing emotional distress. This is, in essence, the depiction of a “thought crime”
2‘(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: etc. etc.

The underlined words above are my emphasis to highlight the actual meat of the bill.

This bill is addressing “thought” crime.  It addresses  intent which leads to a communication. Do you see that?

Interesting how it is done:  A problem is being stated (Bullying, emotional harm to our youth) and then the solution is being asserted. It is marketing in its purest form. But the difference here is that the result will not be a purchase, under your own volition, but a LAW – with penalties.

Look at the wording of this solution. These words mean things.  Do you see how this, if enacted, would become a law that could be construed any many ways? If you decide that I am a scum bag and say so, and it hurts me then might you be guilty of having the intent to causing me emotional distress?

Think of all that is said and written by folks using electronic means. Look at their definition of “electronic means”. Pretty broad, eh?

Dangerous bills, such as this, when inacted, can be the the basis for dangerous precedences.

This is one example of some of the laws that move through the legislature. It is our disbelief that this is possible, an attitude of good people, that makes us less attentive and more vulnerable.  Add to that the American people’s infatuation with celebrities and “reality” TV, and Youtube, etc., and their fixed attention on THE ECONOMY; they are sidetracked. Few know this is happening.

What is the solution?

In my opinion, first, be aware this is happening.

Second, find folks who you believe are tracking this stuff and track them. Admittedly this is not easy; there are many gooneys out there on every side of the track.

However, once you feel you can trust someone, keep track of them and when they reveal one of these crazy actions to further hogtie our freedoms, lash out.

This is the true power of the internet. If you were in power and wanted to control thought and the world what would you fear most? … If you answered “The internet” you get a gold star.

We may not love Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck, or Scientologists, or Jews, or Islams, or atheists. We may not like Al Frakin or Obama even the congress lady,  Ms. Sanchez of California, who helped sponsor this bill. Or we may love all of them.

That is not the point. The point is that these folks, each one of them, has a view that should never, never be squashed – regardless of emotional impact and intent. And so do you and I.

We certainly need to be on our toes.

If we allow these encroachments to occur, who can we really blame but ourselves?

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: