New bill: Jail for cyber bullying

[thir]

"A Florida bill advanced in the Senate this week to make bullying a crime, including cyber-bullying online. The new offenses criminalize a range of “harassing” behavior, both in-person and on the Internet. And a second conviction would send perpetrators to jail for a year, criminalizing what is primarily a problem among youths.

The bill comes in response to concerns of escalating bullying, especially cyberbulling, and is named for 12-year-old Rebecca Sedwick, who committed suicide in September 2013, after two teen peers allegedly harassed her over her dating of a particular boy. While Rebecca’s case did not involve LGBT harassment, bullying has been a particular concern among LGBT youth.

The bill establishes that someone who “willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harasses or cyberbullies another person commits the offense of bullying” — a misdemeanor — and that those who engage in such harassment accompanied by a threat are guilty of a third-degree felony."

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/no-flori...#ixzz2vfB6pkEl

This article thinks that this is bad idea which will send the youths on a prison path in general without solving the problem. (The jail time is on a second offense, not the first.) It also thinks it will not help.

It does not say much about what you should do instead, but points out the many recent overzealous zero tolerance punishment lately.

What do you think? Is it ok to make it an offense, will it help, will it harm freedom of speech?

[Thorne]

While I haven't actually read the bill, I would guess that the definition of bullying in there will be far too ambiguous. Would someone who criticized another's writings be bullying? Does disagreement constitute bullying? Who gets to decide what is harassment and what is justified criticism?

On the other hand, it does seem to specify that the bullying must be accompanied by a threat to be considered a felony. I can agree with that idea. Whether you are talking in person or over cyber media, a threat of bodily harm should not be taken lightly. Nor should calls for someone to kill themselves. But would a religious zealot telling an atheist that she is going to hell for her disbelief be considered a threat?

In general, though, I dislike zero-tolerance laws and mandatory sentencing laws. I think they are an attempt by legislators to control the judiciary, denying judges and DA's the ability to use discretion and mitigating circumstances to show leniency. On the other hand, they do prevent those judges and DA's from misusing their discretion to free career criminals.

So it's a complicated topic. And yes, if handled haphazardly it will harm free speech. Even now we see bigots claiming that their ability to bully others should be protected, while at the same time they want to restrict those they bully from retaliating. I don't know where you can draw the line, but I do think that threats of physical harm is well over that line.

[thir]

While I haven't actually read the bill, I would guess that the definition of bullying in there will be far too ambiguous. Would someone who criticized another's writings be bullying? Does disagreement constitute bullying? Who gets to decide what is harassment and what is justified criticism?

That I do not see as a problem. Criticism is not worded as bullying, which is designed to make people feel bad.

But would a religious zealot telling an atheist that she is going to hell for her disbelief be considered a threat?

I do not think so. A threat would be something that the threatening person wants to do him or herself.

In general, though, I dislike zero-tolerance laws and mandatory sentencing laws. I think they are an attempt by legislators to control the judiciary, denying judges and DA's the ability to use discretion and mitigating circumstances to show leniency. On the other hand, they do prevent those judges and DA's from misusing their discretion to free career criminals.

Hm. I thought zero tolerance simply meant that you had to react, not how -?

So it's a complicated topic. And yes, if handled haphazardly it will harm free speech. Even now we see bigots claiming that their ability to bully others should be protected, while at the same time they want to restrict those they bully from retaliating. I don't know where you can draw the line, but I do think that threats of physical harm is well over that line.

Yes, it is complicated, and ties in with the photograph under people's skirt (if posted online) and revenge porn. Where do you draw the line?

But a line would have to be drawn somewhere, even if carefully and with some cases going unpunished, rather than impairing free speech. Plenty of people want to do that already.

[Thorne]

That I do not see as a problem. Criticism is not worded as bullying, which is designed to make people feel bad.

But who gets to define "feel bad"? I feel bad whenever I'm criticized. I feel bad when it's pointed out that I am wrong, or I made a mistake. But that is not bullying. How something makes someone else "feel" is immaterial. "Feel" is a strictly subjective term. There's no way you can legislated based on what someone else "feels".

I do not think so. A threat would be something that the threatening person wants to do him or herself.

What about language which encourages a third party to do something? Isn't saying something like, "I hope someone beats the shit out of you!" a threatening, bullying remark? But it doesn't imply that the bullier intends to do anything.

Hm. I thought zero tolerance simply meant that you had to react, not how -?

Not necessarily. There are some laws which mandate the severity of punishment for certain crimes, like the three strike laws. A guy who steals a loaf of bread to feed his children will, if convicted of his third felony, be sentenced to life in prison because of such laws. There's no allowance for circumstances.

Yes, it is complicated, and ties in with the photograph under people's skirt (if posted online) and revenge porn. Where do you draw the line?

Personally, I draw the line at privacy. While the modern era pretty much guarantees that you are under some sort of surveillance whenever you leave your home, there are (theoretically) strict laws about how those images can be used, and where cameras can be placed. Clandestinely using cameras to invade someone's privacy should be illegal. Posting such images publicly, on line or in print, without the subject's consent should be a felony. Publishing those images for profit (as in the paparazzi) should require both the photographer AND the publishing entity to turn over all profits to the subject.

[js207]

But who gets to define "feel bad"? I feel bad whenever I'm criticized. I feel bad when it's pointed out that I am wrong, or I made a mistake. But that is not bullying. How something makes someone else "feel" is immaterial. "Feel" is a strictly subjective term. There's no way you can legislated based on what someone else "feels".

Unfortunately, I don't think that's enough to stop politicians trying to do exactly that - and doing damage in the process. Indeed, existing laws refer to things like making you feel threatened.

Not necessarily. There are some laws which mandate the severity of punishment for certain crimes, like the three strike laws. A guy who steals a loaf of bread to feed his children will, if convicted of his third felony, be sentenced to life in prison because of such laws. There's no allowance for circumstances.

There's usually an exception for "exceptional circumstances", or indeed much broader discretion, for exactly that reason - and of course stealing a loaf of bread wouldn't be a felony anyway: there's usually a threshold like $500 for that. There's a widely-repeated tale of "life for stealing a slice of pizza" which doesn't actually fit the facts (the repeat offender in question actually got a much lesser sentence, and has gone on to commit several subsequent felonies and violate probation, which would have been prevented had he really been jailed for life).

[Thorne]

Unfortunately, I don't think that's enough to stop politicians trying to do exactly that - and doing damage in the process. Indeed, existing laws refer to things like making you feel threatened.

LOL! Yeah, there's little short of the end of the world that could stop politicians from making stupid laws!

There's usually an exception for "exceptional circumstances", or indeed much broader discretion, for exactly that reason - and of course stealing a loaf of bread wouldn't be a felony anyway:

The point is, there have been several documented cases where a judge was required by the law to issue a sentence far worse than he actually thought applicable.

[js207]

I'm not sure if my previous reply posted (I got a strange error message) - I agree about the need for the judiciary to be more accountable; even in the extreme example of a judge lauding a serial burglar's "courage" for breaking into people's homes and letting him off with no jail time, he was merely publicly told off by a senior judge, rather than fired as he should have been.

I mentioned the arrest for posting a bad-taste joke on Twitter already; we've also seen prosecutions for possession of photographs of fisting, and for posting an adult BDSM fantasy on asstr.org - and today brought this alarming headline: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...web-censorship - the UK government wanting to remove online content which is not even "obscene", but merely "unsavoury". Presumably it hasn't occurred to them that the most unsavoury aspect here is their own conduct!

[Thorne]

I can only imagine just who will get to define "unsavory". I'm sure I can find all kinds of religious videos which I find both offensive AND unsavory. Think they would take those down, too?

[Valentier]

It does not matter how long he stayed in jail. If he doesnt show any remorse at the end of his term, only thing I see that works is throwing him back in again.

[IAN 2411]

Why does everything have to be complicated with these silly little get out clauses for the well paid lawyer? This bullying is, Written Abuse, Slander, Discrimination, and Bigotry. It is written by gutless persons that know there is a great deal of cyber space between them and the person they are taunting. There does not have to be a line drawn to say what is or what is not. The line was drawn in the UK at least with the outlawing of the four above. The only people that need a line or pull one out of the sky are liberal minded judges. The rest of the Human race knows where to draw a line; any of the above is prison because it is unacceptable in the twenty first century.

In answer to the question, lock them up, because they must be guilty of one of the four offences I have mentioned.

No, it does not harm freedom of speech, i would expect that rubbish to come out of the mouth of the defending lawyer.

I say give it a zero tolerance because it is mind and soul destroying, and if someone already has a low esteem of their self, it could be the push they don't need. Need I say anymore?

Below is what I wrote in another of thir’s threads [Online bullying] three months ago.


Let’s be serious here, online bullying? Don’t you think we are getting a little mixed up here? In the classroom or even at work I think bullying takes place, but the only people that understand it is going on is a few co-workers. In school it is normally contained to the class or in the odd case the whole school knowing.

On line however is a different ball game. It is done on social networks where families, friends and half the world can read the rhetoric. This is not bullying, its verbal abuse and threatening behaviour. Once the insults or threats are published they remain for all to see until it is removed by the abuser.

Verbal abuse in any form can be devastating to some of us older gender, but to the young children that have no idea how to handle it they can be driven to suicide. Most have no one to turn to, and I mean the parents will be the last to know in most cases. Abuse on the social networking never comes from a friend it is always from a person that likes the safety of cyber space. The person that is being abused is now caught in a trap. They don’t want to go on the network for fear of their abusers, but they must to socialise with their real friends.

Face book has got to be the worst offender on the planet. Even when told of abuse they never act, they just come back with a page full of legal disclaimers. No one wants big brother, but until these social sites start taking responsibility for their negligence in policing their networks on line, abusive bullying will continue.

Be well Ian

[thir]

I know this is a difficult question, and there can so easily be a slide towards censorship of the net, as we have seen. But for that reason it is vital to find the limits.

Her is where I think the line is:

Personalized threaths

Posting videos of real life rape (for putting up Pictures, get permission or go to jail.)

Personalized bullying (You are xyz and everybody hates you and so on..)