It's another step in the goal to muzzle America! There is an amendment, introduced in the House on April 2, 2009, that is not just another attempt to control what we say, but to imprison us if we have the intent to "... coerce, intimidate, harass or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." This is another case of legislation that is so vague and poorly written that in and of itself, it could be used to coerce, intimidate, harass or cause emotional distress to any of us who communicate for pleasure or purpose.

The bill, HR 1966 IH, referred to as The Megan Meier CyberBullying Prevention Act, would amend Title 18 of the United States code and refers to any communication transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce using electronic means — and get this — including e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, web sites, telephones and text messages.

This amendment if passed, will curtail American's use of the Internet, cell phones and telephones for communication, if for no other reason than because of the fear of unknown consequences. Hard to believe? Read the amendment for yourself. And while you are there, check related bills. The wording of this amendment leaves it wide open to almost any interpretation and certainly, allows any person to complain about another using the "emotional distress" ploy.

HR 1966 is a lame, knee-jerk response to a terrible hoax perpetrated on teenager Megan Meier by another teen's mother. Megan committed suicide in October 2006. Since then, the girl's parents have taken up the cause of Internet safety.

What could this proposed legislation lead to?  Use your imagination. Under this law, anyone could complain about almost anything and say that there was intent to cause emotional distress. Anyone promoting an idea or philosophy could be accused of coercion. And where would it end?

We have to sympathize with the parents of Megan Meier or anyone who is the victim of evil harassment with or without the Internet. Lori Drew, the woman who perpetrated the hoax was convicted under the federal anti-hacking law regarding the terms of service for the use of My Space. The judge in the case later overturned the verdicts.  This however, is no excuse to inhibit free speech with a law that is either useless because of its looseness or so broad that it inhibits every form of digital and electronic free speech.

Let's stop this amendment now. I urge you to contact your Representatives and Senators as soon as possible. The amendment is in preliminary stages and may not go any farther, but do you really want to take the chance?

How much time does author of poorly drafted HR1966, Linda Sanchez (D-CA), think we should serve behind bars for communicating? No more than two years with perhaps a fine as well, seems fair to her and to the co-sponsors including

Timothy Bishop [D-NY1]
Bruce Braley [D-IA1]
Lois Capps [D-CA23]
William Clay [D-MO1]
Joe Courtney [D-CT2]
Danny Davis [D-IL7]
Raul Grijalva [D-AZ7]
Phil Hare [D-IL17]
Brian Higgins [D-NY27]
Marcy Kaptur [D-OH9]
Mark Kirk [R-IL10]
Blaine Luetkemeyer [R-MO9]
Lucille Roybal-Allard [D-CA34]
John Sarbanes [D-MD3]
Zachary Space [D-OH18]
Dina Titus [D-NV3]
John Yarmuth [D-KY3]

Another article you might like, "Is Twitter "Twacking" Your Tweets?