Being able to hold politicians, companies, and individuals accountable for their actions by publicly calling them out for their misbehavior is what makes the internet a powerful tool for the consumer and the voter, what gives the silent majority a voice against tyranny and oppression.

So naturally, such a voice should be oppressed. But how?

Introducing The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would make it a felony punishable by up to two years in prison to transmit an electronic communication (”including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages”) “with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person…to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.”

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….

["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; …

["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

Now the death of Megan Meier was a tragedy, I have no disagreement with that. There is something absolutely psychologically wrong with any adult who colludes with teenagers to systematically torment and psychologically torture a teenager with a well-known history of mental instability. It is morally wrong and in some states illegal to put a loaded handgun in the hand of a suicidal person and tell them, oh I don’t know, how about, “Everybody in O’Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.”_[1]

However, while free speech is not protected if it is with the intent to provoke or promote harm (can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre if there’s no fire, for example), the broad message of the new law is far greater that that. It goes farther than what your mother always said, “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all,” and actually gets into the Orwellian territory of “If you say bad things, you’ll go to jail.” We’re not just protecting the Megan Meiers of the world any more. We’re now dancing in the territory of censorship.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh outlines six ways that this law could punish Citizen Journalists (like yours truly), newspaper reporters, personal bloggers, and posters on social networking sites:

1. I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite / campaign promise breaker / fool / etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior” — unless, of course, my statements aren’t seen as “severe,” a term that is entirely undefined and unclear. Result: I am a felon, unless somehow my “behavior” isn’t “severe.”

2. A newspaper reporter or editorialist tries to do the same, in columns that are posted on the newspaper’s Web site. Result: Felony, unless somehow my “behavior” isn’t severe.

3. The politician votes the wrong way. I think that’s an evil, tyrannical vote, so I repeatedly and harshly condemn the politician on my blog, hoping that he’ll get very upset (and rightly so, since I think he deserves to feel ashamed of himself, and loathed by others). I am transmitting a communication with the the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means (a blog) “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” (I might also be said to be intending to “harass” — who knows, given how vague the term is? — but the result is the same even if we set that aside.) Result: I am a felon, subject to the usual utter uncertainty about what “severe” means.

4. A company delivers me shoddy goods, and refuses to refund my money. I e-mail it several times, threatening to sue if they don’t give me a refund, and I use “hostile” language. I am transmitting a communication with the intent to coerce, using electronic means “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Result: I am a felon, if my behavior is “severe.”

5. Several people use blogs or Web-based newspaper articles to organize a boycott of a company, hoping to get it to change some policy they disapprove of. They are transmitting communications with the intent to coerce, using electronic means “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Result: Those people are a felon. (Isn’t threatening a company with possible massive losses “severe”? But again, who knows?)

6. John cheats on Mary. Mary wants John to feel like the scumbag that he is, so she sends him two hostile messages telling him how much he’s hurt her, how much she now hates him, and how bad he should feel. She doesn’t threaten him with violence (there are separate laws barring that, and this law would apply even in the absence of a threat). She is transmitting communications with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Result: Mary is a felon, again if her behavior is “severe.”

Cites:

• Everybody’s a Critic—and a ‘Cyberbully,’ Apparently
• Federal Felony To Use Blogs, the Web, Etc. To Cause Substantial Emotional Distress Through “Severe, Repeated, and Hostile” Speech?

Two NPR journalists and a friend were threatened by four officers at Washington DC’s metro station. Once again, they’re told to get out, but this time because it is private property and therefore they’ll be arrested if they don’t leave.

Funny thing is, no one gives the same reason twice, every guard does not get a supervisor as requested, and in the end no one is arrested. Seems to me, if security was the issue, they wouldn’t just threaten arrest, they’d arrest them, or verify the photos were deleted. But no, they just want to be bullies and abuse power, it appears.

Bravo.

Those “we’re watching, are you” signs on my local public transport system have always given me a very creepy feeling, as has the disembodied voice at the station who tells us that “Anyone entering the transit system is subject to random bag inspection by transit police. Thank you for keeping our system safe.” *shivers* It reminds me quite a bit of Chuck Palahniuk’s comments about the “illusion of safety” in Fight Club, which as some of you may know, was a book before it was a movie.

I digress.

The point is that Los Angeles seems to have decided to out 1984 the East Coast in ways that are vastly creepier than a pre-recorded message. Keith, a MySpace user and BoingBoing.net reader, sent in his story of being stopped by security and having a disembodied voice from the subway station address him specifically in regards to his photography, namely to tell him to stop.

Keith posted to his MySpace page

He then proceeded to huddle in the corner and speak into his radio. Next thing I knew, a booming female voice very loudly announced over the loudspeaker “Attention to the gentleman in the plaid shirt: You are not allowed to take photographs in the Subway. You will be arrested if you continue to take photos and harrass the metro worker.”

I was incensed/surprised/embarrassed/horrified/bewildered. People started staring.

Then the voice continued: “The gentleman in the plaid shirt: You must approach the callbox near the escalators and speak to the sheriff.” I didn’t budge. So she said it again, this time louder…

I’m sorry, but I don’t respond well to voices coming out of speakers in the ceiling, voices that can clearly see me but the person of whom I cannot view. It has this very “picture screen behind the painting” vibe, and I can’t help but think Big Brother is watching.

Apparently, however, LA’s Big Brother is not all-knowing:

Once I got home I called the metro security number that I saw on a “We’re watching, are you?” poster (shiver) inside the train and asked what the law was. The operator said she’d never heard of one, then said she didn’t know for sure, then apologized for the guy cursing at me, and gave me the sheriff station…I called and spoke with a Deputy and told him what had happened and he stated that “there is no such law.”

Hmm, can’t take a photo of the Red Line, eh? That’s funny, because over at Flickr, there are many such photos. Shame on you all for breaking the law.