Federal Felony To Use Blogs, the Web, Etc. To Cause Substantial Emotional Distress?

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://volokh.com/posts/1241122059.shtml

Federal Felony To Use Blogs, the Web, Etc. To Cause Substantial Emotional Distress Through "Severe, Repeated, and Hostile" Speech?

Eugene Volokh, April 30, 2009 at 4:07pm


That's what a House of Representatives bill, proposed by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others, would do. Here's the relevant text:

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....

<"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; ...

<"Electronic means"> means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

1. I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite / campaign promise breaker / fool / etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior" -- unless, of course, my statements aren't seen as "severe," a term that is entirely undefined and unclear. Result: I am a felon, unless somehow my "behavior" isn't "severe."

2. A newspaper reporter or editorialist tries to do the same, in columns that are posted on the newspaper's Web site. Result: Felony, unless somehow my "behavior" isn't severe.

3. The politician votes the wrong way. I think that's an evil, tyrannical vote, so I repeatedly and harshly condemn the politician on my blog, hoping that he'll get very upset (and rightly so, since I think he deserves to feel ashamed of himself, and loathed by others). I am transmitting a communication with the the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means (a blog) "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." (I might also be said to be intending to "harass" -- who knows, given how vague the term is? -- but the result is the same even if we set that aside.) Result: I am a felon, subject to the usual utter uncertainty about what "severe" means....

Landslide Linda sponsored this?

Link to bill added on edit:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1966:

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

2. i've been following this law over at volokh

nice cite.

imo, it is unconstitutional, and like most kneejerk "do it for the children" legislation, is poorly written, overbroad, etc.

statists on the left are just as dangerous as those on the right, that's clear.

doesn't surprise me at all that sanchez is behind it

[leveymg]

3. Add Harman's internet bill, and you get a prohibition against all strong political speech online

In loco parentis, indeed. :eyes: