[Infowarrior] - Felony Proposal: Blogs as a weapon?

[Richard Forno]

(Yes I see this coming into law easily........--rf)

Federal Felony To Use Blogs, the Web, Etc. To Cause Substantial  
Emotional Distress Through "Severe, Repeated, and Hostile" Speech?

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_26-2009_05_02.shtml#1241122059

That's what a House of Representatives bill, proposed by Rep. Linda T.  
Sanchez and 14 others, would do. Here's the relevant text:

     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.

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."

The examples could be multiplied pretty much indefinitely. The law, if  
enacted, would clearly be facially overbroad (and probably  
unconstitutionally vague), and would thus be struck down on its face  
under the First Amendment. But beyond that, surely even the law's  
supporters don't really want to cover all this speech.

What are Rep. Linda Sanchez and the others thinking here? Are they  
just taking the view that "criminalize it all, let the prosecutors  
sort it out"? Even if that's so, won't their work amount to nothing,  
if the law is struck down as facially overbroad -- as I'm pretty  
certain it would be? Or are they just trying to score political points  
here with their constituents, with little regard to whether the law  
will actually do any good? I try to focus my posts mostly on what  
people do, not on their motives, but here the drafting is so shoddy  
that I just wonder why this happened.