---

The Newest Cyberbullying and Internet Safety Bill is Not What it Pretends to be, so be Aware of Political Agenda Hiding in The Midst of it.

---

Recapping a little, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act was established after a teen killed herself after a former schoolmate’s mother unleashed a psychological attack on her via a social network site, MySpace.

Rep. Linda Sanchez introduced the bill the year before and it has subsequently been referred to the House Judiciary Committee to be considered.

Many have thought that the bill could easily attract political dissent.

In clause Sec 881(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 behaviour, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both”.

Put simply, these terms are vague and can be easily changed for all purposes.

If an unknown blogger posts criticism after criticism of Donald Trump and published his photos that would be suitable under the description of cyberbullying and internet safety, in theory at least.

The hundreds of critics of Meghan McCain who, of all responsibilities, focus arrogantly on her appearance should be sued for causing “substantial emotional stress”.

Thus, in all sense, bloggers all over the world should be worried of getting prosecuted under the stated Act.

The truth is that Congress does not even need to concern itself with this issue in the first place.

The Megan Meier case is without a doubt a tragic story, and the woman who appropriated her actions towards the girl should be punished and scorned.

On the other hand, we are not exactly facing an onslaught of such cyberbullying and internet safety related deaths, and related laws such as in the case for fraud, libel, slander and harassment should apply.

Additionally, Megan Meier was known to be taking psychotropic drugs, being known to be an emotionally fragile person.

In other words, her case was an anomaly and rare one, and should not be the cause of a new law in the United States.

---

---

The Cyberbullying Act Has Nothing to Do with Protection!

The last thing that the Act has to do is protecting children.

It has a secret agenda of bringing down the power of the First Amendment and lying cleverly to Democrats and their “progressives” into creating support for tyranny.

Obama’s move to pack the FCC with “diverse” activists has little to do with ensuring that the minorities have power in speaking up in local media which are ruled by large corporations which are the least curious about real diversity.

The entire bill is concerned with alternative, or “second” media being greatly fearful and attacked, under punishments of the law, of bullying the feelings of minorities who are protected or school students on social networking sites such as MySpace without the care of adult supervision.

It is about closing down all opposition.

---

The First Amendment as the Basis of all Speech-Related Laws

When in hindering doubts, the Congress should always refer to the First Amendment, which forbids the group from passing related laws that restricts the basic right of free speech.

The recent act relating to cyberbullying and internet safety is not excluded.

A note should be also seen, that the Constitution is greatly silent on any right to be supposedly free from “distress”, nor does it allow the current government to behave as a judge on what contributes “substantial emotional distress” or “hostile behaviour” that does not break the common laws on fraud, assault, trespass and battery.

We do not, and should not, need the State to behave like our nanny in treating us like children, and if we allow them to fulfil the role, we should be mentally prepared when those who are in positions of power abuse it as a weapon against those lesser challengers who threaten to provoke them.

---

In Conclusion

Sanchez’s bill is not only unconstitutional, but with our current laws in practice, the term “criminal harassment” is not well defined, as opposed to “sexual harassment”.

Definitions may vary from state to state, but it is generally a means of threatening and persistent communication.

There is no absolutely anti-mind-game-harassment laws out in the country protect solely from cyberbullying and internet safety.

The prevention act is certainly the “Censorship Act of 2009”.

The language is simply too broad to be useful enough on a niche area such as cyberbullying and internet safety and it would have to act as both jury and judge to finalize if there is enough evidence to prove that one person indeed “cyberbullied” another person.

---

---