Via Eugene Volokh, the Democratic Congresswoman from California’s 39th, Linda T. Sanchez, has proposed a new law to criminalize all that nasty cyberbullying we’ve heard so much about.  Just so you know. she is a lawyer, so she must have a clue what she’s doing when she proposes a law, right?

The bill is warmly entitled the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, making it yet another Megan’s Law, and has 14 co-sponsors.  It’s brief and to the point:

Sec. 881. Cyberbullying

`(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 behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

`(b) As used in this section–

`(1) the term `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; and

`(2) the term `electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.

Just so we’re clear, this means you.  You see, when you write a blog post, post a comment, write on your facebook wall or even send an IM or email, it’s a communication sent by electronic means.  I’m doing it now, and you do it all the time. We all do.  It’s how we do things these days.  And it’s covered.

So what is cyberbullying?  It’s using electronic means to “support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.”  No, I have no clue what this means either.  The only word that appears to be semi-objective is repeated, meaning that it requires more than one “severe and hostile” transmission, but what constitutes, and who decides what constitutes, “severe and hostile” remains a mystery.

The problem isn’t Rep. Sanchez’s motives, which is to provide a law to prosecute someone who engaged in the conduct committed by Lori Drew, particularly given how poor the fit of the crime for which she stands convicted.  Many believe that it was a wrong that needs to be righted.  The problem is finding a way to fix the problem that doesn’t sweep in about a zillion people who have done nothing more than expressed a view of displeasure, anger or frustration by electronic means.

It’s one thing for an adult to attack and emotionally undermine a teenager, and quite another to criminalize legitimate free speech that some might find unpleasant.  The sweeping breadth of this proposed law, combined with its shocking vagueness, covers it all, and then some.  As for the “intent” section, intent is shown by the act, and merely a matter of permissible inference.  It adds an element but does nothing to limit the application.

It’s hard to imagine that a law this ridiculously poorly written stands a chance of passage.  Even if it were to pass, it seems impossible that it would be held constitutional, given it’s inane overbreadth.  But it does serve to warn how difficult it will be to frame a law that will prevent the wrong without criminalizing just about every other expression of anger, unhappiness or dissatisfaction.

So next time someone feels compelled to post two comments here about how you disagree with me, consider the possibility that you might hurt my feelings, forcing me to complain to the feds that you have cyberbullied me and need a good spanking.  And after all, it’s only two years in prison.  Or in cyber terms, 15 versions of the Iphone.