New bill: Jail for cyber bullying

[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]

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.

Perhaps - though most seem to be urban legends - but there are far more cases where judges hand out ludicrously lenient sentences.

The fears about this law seem valid though: just three months ago, a teenager was arrested here in Scotland - for posting a bad-taste joke on Twitter. IMO, when a bad joke is a "crime", the law is defective.

[Thorne]

Perhaps - though most seem to be urban legends - but there are far more cases where judges hand out ludicrously lenient sentences.

True as well! Which points to the need for judicial reform. Make judges, and prosecutors, much more accountable for their actions. If they are able to break the law with no fear of repercussions, then the law is broken.

The fears about this law seem valid though: just three months ago, a teenager was arrested here in Scotland - for posting a bad-taste joke on Twitter. IMO, when a bad joke is a "crime", the law is defective.

Absolutely! Which enhances my comment about legislating "feelings". You simply cannot legislate speech just because it might hurt someone's feelings. Hell, I'm offended by 90% of the things politicians say every day. Who do I see about getting them imprisoned for hurting MY feelings?