Good god. It will probably pass on a simple "think of the children" plea, despite it's blatant impracticality.

Which idiot came up with this bill?

Please don't cyber bully American congress.

Hahahaha.

Can we cyber assault American congress?

You'd have to ask them

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Like the article said, there are already laws in place for this sort of thing. I hope it's just Congressmen being vote-hungry demagogues as usual and not something more ominous.

Who wants to say that they voted against banning cyber bullying during an election?

That's the most logical explanation. They can't really expect to police internet communication.

Ok, this is just ridiculous. I know this isn't the place to rant, but I don't know where else to take it. The aggression is some of what gives the internet its charming flavor! Despite how angry they can get me, I enjoy dealing with cyber bullies. It lets me keep the anger in in real life. As well as, what defines a cyber bully? Stealing someone's cyber lunchmoney? There's already a law against that. ITS CALLED THEFT. Anything short is covered by freedom of speech! Another wonderful thing about the internet, IS IT TURNS OFF! You want to get away from cyber bullying? Turn off your computer, go read a book or go outside! The bully won't follow you, I guarantee.

but think of all the jobs it would create. there would be millions of people trawling through myspace and facebook looking for cybercrimes.
think of the people we could employ!!!

/endsarcasm

I for one would support a bill that deals with the issue of cyber bullying effectively. Society is judged by how we protect the most vunerable and allowing grown women to bully a 13 year old child without any fear of prosecution, just shouldn't be an option.

It may be impractical to police, but (a) lots of things are, terrorism, piracy, etc, but that doesn't mean we should allow it to happen and (b) it seems that the offender was identified it this instance and I suspect people are not as anonymous as they would like to think. People can be traced if the crime warrants it.

I am a strong supporter of freedom of speech, but why do people use this arguement to 'trump' any other freedoms? People should use their right to freedom of speech responsibly and not as an excuse to cause harm to others. If I used my freedom of speech to stand up in a crowded cinema and shout 'FIRE ,FIRE, FIRE! I could cause a panic and people could get injured or killed. I have the right to say it, but I must also accept the consquences for my actions.

I agree that victims can turn the computer off, but why should they? Do you think black people should just walk away from racist comments, women should accept sexual discrimination, gay people should turn the other check when they are being beaten up? The internat is a powerful tool and vunerable people shouldn't be denied access out of fear.

I realise that I will be in the minority on this one, but that's probable nothing new.

The thing that bothers me most is how the law will be applied, in the UK anti-terrorism laws have been used to target people whose dogs foul the footpath (sidewalk). I think any law has to be tightly worded so that it deals with the problem and doesn't become an unwanted tool of the state.

Over here, Jackboot Jacqui wants to not just track who sends whom an email or which web pages we visit or what keywords we search for or what we say on internet forums (Hello JJ), she (allegedly) wants to be able to log every key-press and mouse-click we make.

Partly its because they keep screwing up and somebody leaks it to the press (where is your main residence JJ?), so they want to be able to find out who it was in order to stop the leaks/embarrassment and partly its because our government wants to control every waking thought we have.

Guard your freedoms people, while you still have them.

While I do see your point, Maniac, i don't think cyber bullying is a major enough issue to start spying on what people say on the internet. While there is bound to be the odd case where something serious results, such as the suicide mentioned in the article, these are very extreme outcomes of cyberbullying. Outlawing cyberbullying may save one or two lives a year, at the cost of thousands of peoples privacy. If they're really bothered about going to extremes to save lives, they'd be better off fitting every car with an inflatable bumper.

I don't understand this privacy arguement. If you don't want people to see what you post, don't post!

The state won't spend hours trawling through forums like this trying to see if someone is being cyber-bullied, they will presumably be referred by someone who has a concern. I think this is a very small infringement of our rights for something that could save lives.

I think that if the bill was worded to make it clear that harm needs to have occured (as in the example case) then this is perfectly acceptable. You guys aren't going to be prosecuted unless its an extreme case, but the people on the extremes will, nothing wrong with that.

Define harm. "OMG, she just called me a bitch. That hurt me mentally now I want her to pay for all my psychotherapy" is bullshit. Sorry, but cyberbullying is not the same as real bullying. There is no threat of harm when the person doesn't know you or where you live and you can turn off the computer and walk away.

And anyone who commits suicide over someone else's electronics words has more problems than just a cyberbully. I may not agree with saying "do the world a favor and die already" but I don't believe the person who says it should be held liable if the idiot it was directed towards decides to commit suicide.

"its because our government wants to control every waking thought we have."

Yeah, I can imagine Gordon sitting there rubbing his hands with glee over how he's going to 'control' everything about the 60 million people in the UK. This is sheer fearmongering. Laws are applied creatively and often wrongly, but that doesn't mean there's a governmental conspiracy to control everything. There are far better ways of doing that if you really wanted to than twisting existing laws. Hell, if they really wanted to 'control' everything they could do away with Democracy altogether and just tell us they're doing it and there's nothing we can do about it.

I really don't think this is part of a nefarious scheme to spy on our internet activity. It strikes me as a bill to curry votes. After all, a vote against this bill is a vote against children!

Draugnar, I disagree that cyberbullying is not as serious as "real" bullying. They're one and the same. Cyberbullying is just a stupid term invented to that the media could tout it around as if this was some magnificent new phenomenon. It's not, it's just bullying through a different medium. It's like when they talk of this new drug cocktail kids are doing called cheese! Oh my god! They just call it cheese so it seems newer... it's just heroin and Tylenol... so just heroin. I would say that the physical harm aspect of bullying is far less damaging than the psychological trauma. Very rarely will a bully cause any serious amount of physical harm, it's much more often the psychological damage that causes trouble.

As a side tangent, I really think the "think of the children" idea carries too much sway in politics. No offence to any of you who have at one time or another been children, because this is going to come out as pretty insensitive... but I'll try to get my point across anyway. Some kids (and adults) are more emotionally unstable and psychologically vulnerable than others. I don't think it's worth it to go out of our way to cushion them if it infringes upon the freedoms of others... I'm not talking about bullying anymore because it's clear that nobody has the right to bully someone... I'm talking about the kids who apparently commit suicide or acts of violence because of video games, movies, music, etc. I think it was Bill Maher who said it, but Dark Side of The Moon is worth at least ten dead kids.

Dark Side of the Moon is clearly worth more than that. It ranks in my top 10 albums of all time list.

However, the number of times I got beat up as a kid by bullies makes me disagree about cyber bullying (which has no physical component) and bullying through physical intimidation. I'm sorry but words ont he screen aren't the same as swirlies or being hung on the back of a door or just getting the crap beat out of you. Clearly you weren't bullied as a kid or you'd know it's not the psychological trauma of the words, it's the inhernet threat of the physical assault if you don't do what they want.

Ten dead kids? I'll have to start saving up. Got four so far.

"If you don't want people to see what you post, don't post!"

I will reply to this comment by quoting you again, Maniac: "I agree that victims can turn the computer off, but why should they? Do you think black people should just walk away from racist comments, women should accept sexual discrimination, gay people should turn the other check when they are being beaten up? The internat is a powerful tool and vunerable people shouldn't be denied access out of fear."

'nuff said.

think it was bill hicks but i could be wrong

Draugnar, I have been bullied, though not since elementary school. I still say the feelings of helplessness, insecurity, and social alienation were the real lasting effects. The bruises would go away soon enough, but it was always the mental pain that lasted. There was a time where I would almost be grateful for physical harm because it meant he would leave soon enough and I wouldn't have to deal with him anymore. Maybe you were bullied worse than I was, but I remember the lasting effects were definitely confidence issues and not any physical damage. If it helps to get the point across, there is no reason cyberbullying cannot be done with threat of violence, or as a supplement to classic bullying. They're the same phenomenon, except now you're not even really safe at home from their taunts. They can still beat you up at school.

you are all poopy-faces an stupid heads


since when is more laws a good thing?
bulling is a problem yes, and cyber bulling is still bulling. but a law?
not a good idea

It's much better to let bullying get sorted out on a smaller scale, parents and schoolteachers, than to dish out fines and even prison sentences for the bullys.

Most definitely. As if it's the federal government's job to ensure that that Johnson kid isn't bullying people anymore.

Chrisp, if you are being cyberbullied by someone you know, then it is just bullying and no different. No law required. My thoughts on cyberbullying is when you bully someone in another country or state and anyone who takes that to heart has other issues they need to see a therapist about.

So I guess we are agreeing in a sense. I don't view cyberbullying between two people who know each other, know where they live/got to school/work/whatever, as cyberbullying. It's just bullying in the electrocic media.

By the way, I got beat up in my own front yard by a bully. He went to JD for a couple months. While he was away, I took Tae Kwon Do and when he got out, he tried it again but got his ass kicked. I never got picked on again, by anyone.

This isn't the federal government's job.

I was bullied too, and you know what, it''s horrible to say but bullying builds character. In the bullied. It sucks during, but after it you learn to deal with hard situations effectively, or at least most do.

Kids shouldn't be so sheltered that they never have something devastating happen to them till they're adults. Bullying is bad and at the time it feels like everything is going wrong, but in the end you learn how to be funny or fight or both and become a better person. This law is part of a wider trend to protect children from everything unpleasant, and that will be really damaging for the future.

Draugnar, I suppose we actually do agree. I assumed cyberbullying was between people who knew each other, because I really don't think it really happens between people who don't know each other. Yes, people are dicks on the internet, but I can't conceive of being psychologically damaged by it.

Good on you. Taking Tae Kwon Do was also one of my better decisions. I've never had to use it seriously, but sparring a few times a week and on the competitive level and playfighting with friends makes me feel far more confident in my self defense capabilities. I haven't really been bullied since I entered high school, probably thanks to a healthy retinue of friends, a well developed and cynical verbal bite, and no enemies.

It's a different day and age from 30 years ago when I was in Jr High (graduated from HS in 84) and now. Back then teachers and principals turned a blind eye to bullying until a kid got hurt. Now they are a little more aware and try to curb it BEFORE it gets out of hand. I was tortured through my freshman year when the incident occured.

But back on topic, the problem with the law is that it makes any abusive/threatening kind of communication a crime even if the participants are completely anonymous to each other. That's just plain messed up.

Invictus, I wholeheartedly agree. I don't think I'd go back and change anything. Getting bullied teaches you how to deal with bullies. I definitely evolved a lot of my wit and bite to dance verbal circles around bullies. Definitely valuable experience.

The period that I definitely consider to be my real childhood was in Newfoundland between the ages of 8-12, because living in Toronto before that was relatively sheltered, with Fisher Price plastic playgrounds, no snowball fights allowed on school property, and whatnot. In Newfoundland I was free to roam around with the neighbourhood kids, climbing trees, fighting and hitting each other with sticks, going fishing, setting up traps to catch birds and squirrels, and generally being less safe but much freer and independent. I got tons of bruises, splinters, and I had perpetually scraped knees, but I was outside a lot, and it was fantastic fun.

Well, teachers and principals certainly don't turn a blind eye to bullying nowadays. However, I don't think it made a huge difference in my case because there was a huge pressure to not go to a teacher, parent, or principal and not "squeal", and just handle the situation on your own. I didn't tell any adults I was being bullied, and eventually overcame the situation.

I really think there is an over emphasis on safety. I mean, even here at McGill University sometimes I feel we're being babied. For example, in a biology lab, we were warned to be careful around 100W lightbulbs because they got hot and if any water got on them they'd implode. Reasonable enough, but people in my lab were genuinely scared to handle the lightbulbs because of that warning! As if they'd never handled a lightbulb in their life! I also feel like they still invent stories or people to show us what not to do. For example, my chemistry lab T.A. would tell us almost every week about how the same guy in a previous lab section had screwed up this and this and gotten acid on this and this... how can one guy screw up that much?! Or when we first moved into residence, every residence got the horror story about how the sprinklers were set off by a frisbee or soccer ball in the hall and dirty mucky water caused $12000 worth of damage... the stories changed and varied in location, timing, and damage done so much that I'm inclined to believe that it's never happened. But let me tell you... it was certainly extremely effective in curbing people playing sports in the hallways... any time you started, someone would come out and go, "watch out for the sprinklers!"

Related to the topic, I just really don't think bullying is a problem that should be dealt with on the federal level. That's just absurd. I mean, in Canada, not even education and healthcare is significantly dealt with on the federal level... bullying is something that should be solved by the local community by the people involved...

I've always found Canadian federalism interesting. No, really. From what I understand, the Prime Minister has near total control of the federal government, but the wide authority the provinces get are what keeps Canada from being a dictatorship.

I'm so glad I'm out of non-college school now. There's really a sissy-fication program going on. Oh well, I can't fix it so why worry?

Well, Canadian federalism was in large part because the Fathers of Confederation wanted to avoid a civil war like the Americans had had, especially with the divide between francophones and anglophones. Over time, it's become increasingly decentralized, with more and more power delegated to the provinces. The Prime Minister is really powerful... I'm not sure there's any institutions that would protect us if one of them went batshit crazy dictator on us... other than perhaps that to change the Constitution requires the permission of all the Premiers of the Province. In addition, perhaps the Governor General, or even the Crown, Queen Elizabeth herself busted out some reserve powers in an attempt to save us. =)