We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I hate, hate, hate anybody who would sponsor or support federal criminal legislation with language like this in it:
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.
Just consider what that could entail: in effect, it could make bad internet manners a felony. Atlas has the story.
Draw your own conclusions as to whether that means it was written by crazies. Me stating so would probably be a violation of the law.
It's AFAIK not adopted yet, but with a solid communist majority in both houses and intended to curb conservative blogs and websites by making their content (which is after all disturbing to leftists like the truth always is), draw your own conclusions about how long it will take to get it signed by The One.
Yes, I have. And they haven't worked very well that I've noticed. They certainly didn't help in the recent case of the girl driven to suicide by a cruel internet practical joke. The orcs that committed that walked away scot-free.
Anyway, slander and libel are civil actions, not criminal. Some types of conduct are so vile and perverted that they deserve criminal penalties.
The critical factors in the Megan Meier case were 1) she was a minor and 2) the perpetrator misidentified herself as someone she definitely was not. Where in this bill, created in her name, are these two critical factors mentioned? Please explain why such a sweeping attack on the first amendment should be applied to anyone using electronic media?