H.R.1966 - Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying. as introduced.
  • Short: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

  • Ocyris 05/05/2009 10:55am

    Unconstitutional and a blatant violation of the First Amendment. No where is the Congress authorized to regulate my opinion of my fellow citizens.

    I’m reminded of a quote from Ghostbusters 2, “Being miserable and treating other people like dirty is every New Yorkers God given right.”

  • BlatOdea 05/05/2009 11:09am

    First Amendment, This bill would trample all over it. The bill would be abused and misused and Bloggers would have a target squarely on their backs. I would be surprised if this bill delivered at all on it’s supposed intent.

  • Spam Comment

  • ClinicalThinker 05/07/2009 7:41am

    It should be a requirement that people who draft these laws read, understand and are tested on the constitution first.

    This is insanity!

  • evilerac 05/07/2009 12:31pm

    I think the intentions were good, but clearly the language is so nebulous it has the potential to be abused.

    The language should define precisely what actions are considered criminal and there should be more background on why the current laws are not sufficient to address this? Why does the federal government need to intervene? Many states are currently addressing this issue, in fact the home state of the victim has passed a law already.

    I feel for the family this bill is named after, however, the bill is written poorly and reflects poorly on those sponsoring this bill.

  • GROM 05/11/2009 12:04pm

    Flame on!

    This will never pass.

  • carigis 05/11/2009 5:59pm

    How do these people get elected to congress with no common sense.. This bill is BAD BAD BAD…I dont even really need to explain why its so obvious. vote out anyone that votes for or cosponsors this stupid bill.

  • beyondrealms2012 05/12/2009 4:37pm

    Horrible bill. I see no reason why this bill wouldn’t also apply to phone conversations, radio broadcasts, television brodcasts, and even open mic night. After all the bill covers all communication which uses equipment dependent on electrical power.

  • ColoradoPatriot 05/16/2009 5:33am

    The trend I am seeing in the legislation being introduced is communist. Take this bill and shove it.

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaOmega 05/18/2009 9:45pm

    All of it is clearly Communist. It is time to change the government! NOW!

  • RegisteredVoter 05/20/2009 12:33pm

    Politicians should be required to have a working understanding of the Constitution before being allowed (into primaries) to waste the taxpayer’s time and money on useless attempts to pander for votes. Let’s all take a look and remember these sponsors and the author when the next election comes up:

    Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39]
    and 14 Co-Sponsors

    • Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1]
    • Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1]
    • Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23]
    • Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1]
    • Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2]
    • Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7]
    • Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
    • Rep. Phil Hare [D, IL-17]
    • Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27]
    • Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9]
    • Rep. Mark Kirk [R, IL-10]
    • Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34]
    • Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3]
    • Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3]
  • jellofast 05/31/2009 6:53pm

    bye freedom of speech….. if this pass

  • waycoolsnoopy 07/08/2009 2:48pm

    The good news is that at least it seems as though a majority of citizens who actually READ this nonsense are oppossed. 12 out of 12 comments are against and the “up/down” vote is 80 to 1 so far. This unconstitutional Communism is designed to “compliment” another “thought crimes” bill, S.909 and its House equivilant (which has already passed, unfortunately). I have written to several of these treasonous despotic sponsors and advised them that if this insanity passes and becomes law, it will be my intention to file charges against THEM. Taking away my 1st Amendment rights has caused me “severe emotional distress/harm” and since they posted their bill using an electronic means, it qualifies! Write a few of them and see what they think about that idea!

  • Tamara 07/08/2009 6:03pm

    This violates our “First Amendment” right’s. Why don’t these people read and comprehend “The Constitution of the United States”.

  • silverfang77 05/10/2010 5:44am

    Why are laws like this even allowed to pass when it is clear that they are anti First Amendment? Why isn’t the Constitution treated as a proactive document?

  • balncedthought 06/03/2011 12:02pm

    I wrestle with the breadth of the Act. However, the Act addresses repeated, hostile, communication intended to coerce, intimidate… The history of the Act suggests that it was written inresponse to cyber bullying that has resulted in numerous fights, suicides… among teens. Education is a state issue via 10th Amend. As a result, Congress’ ability to address this issue is limited. It is also interesting that among DEVELOPED countries, the U.S> is unique in that it stands alone (to my knowledge) in not providing a fundamental right to education. As a result, each state responds differently to this and other issues impacting education. However, because the issue often involves 1st & 4th Amendment rights for the accused, the cases end up in fed’l court where the rulings are remarkably inconsistent. If interested look at the J.W. Desoto County case and the Layshock v. Hermitage cases. School offcials need CONSISTENT authority, Congress can provide the direction needed.


Vote on This Bill

8% Users Support Bill

11 in favor / 125 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments