so...since nearly everyone writing in on this blog recenntly has made Randy, Sam and Merritt 'angry and feel bad'... so I guess we can all get adjoining cells?
I can see a challenge to that one.

I was a democrat, until they became the party of ultra sensitive, super PC, knows what's best for you nanny staters they are. They love to make laws upon laws that only achieve one thing: Taking away personal freedoms. It happens in the city and the state every day as well. That, or they throw our tax money away for pet projects or "green" industry that never pencils out. Too bad republicans suck too, I'd sure love to vote in a primary again!!!

Who's sponsoring that freakish bill -- Vlad the Impaler (R-Sixth Ring of Hell)? Certainly not any of our founding fathers or their true descendants.

Pardon me for introducing semantics, but the key phrase quoted on the link--intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress--is quite a bit different than "offend."

So can we get a clarificaton on the term "cause substantial emotional distress", please?

Linda Sanchez (D-CA) is the bill's sponsor I believe. Big D from the D land of CA.

Yeah...?

And you folks think this is new and unusual?

Have any of you read the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and its provisions about sexual harassment in the workplace?

"Offend someone, lose your job." You can be disciplined the first time around, but you will not know who your accusers are, what the accusations are, nor have any means of responding to the accusations. You are not allowed to speak to anyone about the incident, nor your discipline on pain of termination of employment.

It makes an ideal tool for management to discipline and control a troublesome whistleblower...believe me, it works when it's back with the legal and financial resources of a large bureaucracy...public or private.

It's already here and being enforced, folks.

Well, besides violating all the personal freedoms we Americans hold dear, that bill would kill the emerging social media.

I trust the appropriate lobbyists are already on it.

Is repeatedly emailing the site owner about removing my copyrighted material from his/her site considered 'stalking'?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did they repeal this when I wasn't looking? Specifically, the parts bolded?

not to be too dramatic, but this stuff is as old as the United States. for those that think repression is modern, take a gander at John Adams and the Sedition Act...for starters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act

you might find this part (in 1798, folks) of it has a familiar ring:

And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by [ 597 ]the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

I know godfry, and you would be surprised at the number of otherwise caring lawyers who don't seem to see a problem with this.
I must say that the blindness and sacharrine offend me, so where is my remedy?

This is the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. You are probably familiar with the case. The malicious mother of Megan Meier's former friend created a fictitious MySpace profile for a teenage boy and used it to develop an online friendship with Megan. After a month or so, the communications sent to Megan by the malicious mother posing as the teen boy turned nasty. Megan committed suicide. She was 13 years old.

The bill is written too broadly but maybe it can be saved by limiting it to cyberbullying of minors. I hope so.

Megan committed suicide. She was 13 years old.

And that was a terrible thing. But dontcha think maybe she was a little f'd up to begin with? I seriously doubt that some words would drive her to that all on their own.

This bill is a crock, no matter what its intent. Same with that stupid Fairness Doctrine crap.

And everyone was worried when the Bush Administration was "taking away our rights."

Dont worry, its for your own good.

oh, and who gets to decide what is offensive to who?

You're overreacting. The bill doesn't cover "offending" someone.

I find the bill emotionally distressing.

While cyberbullying may drive some kids to commit suicide (which apparently doesn't bother some people), others kids may arm themselves and shoot up their schools. The perpetrators of Columbine are idolized by some troubled teens and young adults.

Don't worry. We'll all be in the same Welsh resort community, numbered instead of named, with some creep who calls himself "Number Two" getting switched out every week. I understand you'll have a place right next door to Patrick McGoohan.

The perpetrators of Columbine are idolized by some troubled teens and young adults.

So is Hitler. Whats your point?

Maybe we should worry about how these kids are educated and parented before we start messing with civil rights of the populace "for the children."

You're overreacting. The bill doesn't cover "offending" someone.

Right. And the Fed's wiretapping legislation only covered terrorists.

sorry, that should read "covers" terrorists. It has not been changed by the current administration.

Oh, so white supremacists are afraid of this legislation?

I think everyone should be afraid of this legislation.

And I think any idiot who wants to do something stupid is going to do it no matter what the law says.

I agree that everyone should be afraid of it and that stupid actors will act notwithstanding the law. "Hate Speech" legislation has been promoted by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I recall the late Ace Hayes, editor of the Portland Free Press saying, "Isn't that an awfully rich poverty law center?"

It seems to me that thee "anti hate" efforts are clearly about preserving the status quo for people making money in ways that might be curtailed by advocacy, and that if advocates can be silenced with this kind of legislation, the profiteering can continue unquestioned.

I know from personal experience and the experience of my colleagues that the proponents of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act engaged in this practice in order to put a damper on legitimate animal advocacy. A few years back, I attended the annual Animal Law Conference at the law school with a friend. A few days later this friend accused me of "hate speech". I had no idea what she was talkng about. I called her to talk about it and she hung up on me; then I wrote to her and she sent back the letter. Finally, months later, she realized she had been manipulated. We are less susceptible to these things when we shed our gullibility, imo.

Hey, lay off Wales 'ya scouser!

I'd rather be having a pint at The Druid in Holywell, Clwydd, than sitting here watching Mayor Creepy in his slow motion crash and burn.

Yaqi Da!

I'm still unclear as to how this doesn't violate the First Amendment, as it is clearly a case of Congress making a law that abridges the freedom of speech, and of the press.