---

A New Law in the Cyberbullying Books Will Terminate Freedom by Quoting a Rare Case of Internet Death to Distort the Need to Further Crush the First Amendment.

---

Looking back, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act was inserted into the legal cyberbullying books in reaction to a bizarre case.

A teen killed herself in reaction to a former classmate’s mother’s attempt to attack her psychologically.

The mother used hurtful comments via a fake account on a popular social networking website, MySpace.

Rep. Linda Sanchez supported the introduction of the bill and it has been successfully referred to the House Judiciary Committee to be seriously positioned for the next stage.

A large number of observers have commented that the bill could easily attract political disagreements.

As quoted from 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.”

For the understanding of the layman, these legal terms are unclear about which specific parties they are referring to and can easily be misappropriated for all kinds of purposes.

For example, if a specific unknown person posted negative comments one after another about Barack Obama and published his pictures repeatedly, that would easily qualify as an entry into the cyberbullying books, at least in theory.

Another example could be that the many critics against Meghan McCain, who decided to focus on her appearance instead of more important duties, should be sued by lawyers all over for causing “substantial emotional stress.”

Therefore, no blogger throughout the world is spared the probability of getting persecuted under the Act in question.

The real hidden truth is Congress does not actually need to worry about the whole issue within the cyberbullying books at all.

The recent case of Megan Meier is indeed a sad story, and the guilty party of one woman should be punished and be made an example of as an irresponsible and cruel mother.

Looking from an alternative view, Ms Meier was actually known to be to be taking drugs for her mental condition as she was known to be an emotionally fragile person.

To put it simply, her case was an anomaly, and it does not automatically get qualified to be used as a basis for a new law in the United States.

---

---

Protection isn’t the Purpose

The Act was never meant to protect minorities like children.

Inserted into the legal cyberbullying books there is a secret agenda to weaken the pillars of the First Amendment and bluff Democrats and Republicans into supporting tyranny.

The Obama administration’s strategic move to pack the FCC like a can of sardines with “varying” activists has got nothing to do with making sure that minorities have real power to speak up.

The local media is ruled by huge corporations with little interest in spreading real diversity.

---

Refer to the First Amendment

When unsure of what to do, Congress should, without hesitation, refer to the First Amendment which states that Congress is forbidden from passing laws that directly limit the right of free speech.

Therefore the recent entry into the cyberbullying books is not legal.

An important rule to be observed is that the Constitution is quiet about any right to be free from certain “distress,” and it does not allow the administration to judge what constitutes “substantial emotional stress” or “hostile behavior” that does not break the common laws of assault, battery or trespassing.

---

Being Aware and Retaking Control

The entire bill is actually concerned with the “second” media gaining more control then conventional media.

The Act is not concerned with compromising the feelings of minorities or students on popular social networking websites like MySpace and FaceBook without the supervision of adults.

It is ultimately about closing down the opposition.

We cannot allow the state to behave like a caretaker in treating us like children, and if we let them behave as such, then we better be prepared mentally when those who are in positions of great power abuse what they have against those lesser innocents who happen to provoke their agenda.

---

---