---

The Value of Cyberbullying Articles.

---

Have you read any cyberbullying articles or editorials?

Many appeared following the death of Megan Meier, the 13 year-old girl who committed suicide after repeated episodes of cyberbullying on MySpace.

Since her death, the adult woman who perpetrated the hateful acts against her has been charged with several crimes.

But, the entire episode has opened up a virtual Pandora’s Box of problems.

Not only do people now question such things as the regulation of social networking sites, like MySpace, but also the very exchange of thoughts, ideas and opinions on the Internet as a whole.

The thousands of cyberbullying articles that were once focused on a single child are now looking towards the attack on the freedom of speech that is building quite a following in Congress.

Rather than considering the root source of bullying and cyberbullying, legislators are instead gearing up to place restrictions on what we say altogether.

One woman’s total lack of honor and morality is being used as a flash point to burn up a fundamental freedom.

---

---

Rights and Freedoms

Few of the cyberbullying articles point out that Megan Meier had no Constitutional protection from verbal abuse.

No one is protected from malicious language; yes, we have hate crime laws and regulations, but these are not easily misinterpreted rules.

H.R. 1966, however, is another story altogether.

---

H.R. 1966

This is legislation proposed by Democratic representative Linda Sanchez of California, and it is quite disturbing.

This Act is the direct result of the Meier case and it would make dissent and even strong opinions felony crimes.

That’s right; abortion activists on both sides, gay marriage activists on both sides, and even political commentators to the left, right and center could be wide-open to felony charges.

The primary language of the Act focuses on electronic communication.

The wording leaves the interpretation of any single comment, statement or communication open to serious misinterpretation.

For example, words like “coerce” and “cause emotional distress” are so incredibly flexible as to make even the most mild-mannered commentator open to prosecution.

---

A Question of Morals

Though none of the cyberbullying articles wanted to defend the adult who drove Megan Meier to suicide, they realistically should have pointed out that the woman’s language was constitutionally protected.

Though her morality is obviously in the toilet, her offensive language had First Amendment protection.

Does this mean that cyberbullying is non-existent?

No, it exists, but people can take all kinds of actions to protect themselves from it.

It is not an issue that the government should try to regulate it.

---

---