another one!! this thread has brought you boys outta the closet

I dont like to reveal my location anymore because this crazy chick was calling all around my town asking about me and telling lies about me. It was really freaky because I live in a small town The people that really know me know my actual location

I would be scared if a man was doing that to me.

My location.You know where I really am.Don't say it in the threads please or tell anyone that asks you

just goes to show that for adults this IS an issue. and we are 'mature' and stuff.

We give our children access to the networld and they can be in a whole land of dangers.

and actually all the my spacers do have to lie about their age to even get their account. SO if any case regarding a teeny bopper being prey ever went to court...whos to say what would happen.

i know honey ....and currently my profile is quite factual itsself. maybe, lol.

Yeah, it felt pretty weird and was a pain in the butt

Yes, it would feel that way.

Im sure it would have been frightening if I was a woman.I didn't feel in danger but it was extremely annoying

There are no "victimless" crimes. Children, women, elderly, disabled, they are all subject to predators more than most.

We have had 200+ years of realizing potential for harm, have created laws, and adapted them by amendment, this is true, and accepted. But there are laws, most being enforced "after the fact"! We are not going to stop the "potential" for crime by creating more, when the act occurs regardless of those already in place.

Suicide is a choice of desperation, mental illness, or lack of positive communication or reinforcement being available. I have witnessed it, and I would state that the "choice" to end your life by such means, is not the responsibility of another. It is sad, it is not an answer, and could be avoided by "reaching out" in most cases. When there is no one to reach out to, a calming alternative, a friend, a parent, a group, desperation can create that choice, but it is a choice.

There are laws as the article shows, but laws and penalties are ineffective until after the fact.

We need better communicatiion, parental supervision, education, maybe stiffer penalties, but NOT MORE LAW! Laws are hard to remove once they are in place, and such a law as this article implies limits 1st amendment rights, on any scale, it is BAD!

jmo

It's sad but it's a fact of life. A few bad apples spoil it for the whole bunch.

I went to get something at the store but it wasn't on the shelf. It's now locked up and I have to ask for it. Why? People were stealing it off the shelf. If people didn't steal, there wouldn't be the need for any laws regarding such a thing.

Btw, SojourningSoul, more parental involvement won't stop someone from committing suicide.

More parental involvement might not stop it, but I'd be willing to bet it would curb the numbers significantly.

Show me 2 parents barely making ends meet and I'll show you an angst ridden teenager with far too much free time on their hands.

The idea the a few bad apples, works with apples, but in the creation of law?

Has anyone else noticed the orwellian tactics employed? We want to shred civil liberties... lets create a clever acronym that allows us to call it the "PATRIOT" act. You are a Patriot, aren't you?

Hmmm... how do I get some legislation, thats against the bill of rights, to pass? I know, we'll attach some teenage girls name to it, one that involves sadness, treachery and suicide in her story. Then we can say: "You're not for teenage girls killing themselves are you?"

That'll work, yea!

Cyberbullying Bill Not About Protecting Kids, It is About Shutting Down the Opposition

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 7, 2009

Arianna Huffington, the liberal darling in bed with the globalist George Soros by way of the Bermuda-based Atlantic Philanthropies, has posted an article on her website penned by Rep. Linda Sánchez, the Democrat congress critter from California. Sánchez is behind the so-called Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, an effort to impose draconian regulations on the internet.

Megan Meier, a thirteen year old from Dardenne Prairie, Missouri, killed herself in response to “cyberbullying” on MySpace. It later came out that Megan was harassed by Lori Drew, the mother of a former friend. A federal grand jury indicted Drew on May 15, 2008, on three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress, and one count of criminal conspiracy. She was found guilty on three lesser charges.

For Sánchez and the co-sponsors of this bill the conviction is not enough. They want the full coercive weight of the government behind a law that will punish people for the crime of “cyberbullying” on the internet.

“When so-called child’s play turns hostile and a child becomes a victim, it is time to act,” writes Sánchez on Huffpo. “When so-called free speech leads to bullies having free-reign to threaten kids, it is time to act. The Supreme Court recognizes that in some instances words can be harmful. For example, you cannot falsely yell ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater. If you say it even once you can be held liable. Yet, you can repeatedly emotionally abuse someone with words, pictures, and false impressions online and get away scot-free.”

On April 30, law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh addressed the draconian nature of Sánchez’s bill. Volokh underscores the following language contained in the bill:

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.

Volokh proposes a couple hypothetical situations in regard to the language in the bill:

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.”

(…)

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.

“The examples could be multiplied pretty much indefinitely,” writes Volokh. “The law, if enacted, would clearly be facially overboard (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.”

It is less than clear supporters of the bill “don’t really want to cover all this speech.”

Obama Democrats are busy at work formulating “diversity of ownership” rules at the Federal Communications Commission, considered by opponents to be a back-door effort to revive the so-called Fairness Doctrine. “The left has reached the conclusion that the political price to pay for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is too high, so now they’re looking at these new means,” Seton Motley, director of communications for the Media Research Center, told Fox News earlier this week. The current chairman of the committee, Henry Rivera, has been singled out for his past support of the measure when he was a commissioner of the FCC from 1981-1985. The doctrine died in 1987, only after Rivera left the FCC.

Democrats and their liberal partisans have repeatedly called for their opponents to be silenced by the government. A rather blatant example of this occurred after Richard Poplawski killed Pittsburgh police officers in April. Daily Kos, Media Matters, and other liberal partisan outlets, orchestrated by the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center, launched a virulent campaign attempting to link Alex Jones to the deranged killer. They argued that “rightwing conspiracy theories” led directly to violence and the murder of cops.

Steve Rendall, FAIR’s senior analyst, notes “that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion” and declares “broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.” FAIR, short for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, is funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund, the MacArthur Foundation, the Schumann Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, so we can assume they influence the sort of “diversity of ownership” pushed by FAIR.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act has nothing to do with protecting children. It is all about whittling away the First Amendment and tricking Democrats and so-called “progressives” into supporting tyranny. Obama’s packing of the FCC with “diversity” activists has nothing to do with making sure minorities have a say in local media dominated by mega-corporations certainly not interested in genuine diversity. It is about making sure alternative media is not only hobbled and fearful — under penalty of law — of hurting the feelings of protected minorities or school children on MySpace without adult supervision. It is about shutting down all opposition.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me get this straight, a hand wringing Democrat from California, wants to adopt the name of a girl from MO, to title her 1st amendment opposing legislation?

Just wanted to check and make sure I hadn't missed anything.