- The House Subcommittee hearing today on two "anti-cyberbullying"
bills went very poorly for the Anti-Defamation League, architect of these
bills, and their two primary sponsors, Rep. Linda Sanchez and Rep. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz. Sanchez sponsored the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention
Act, HR 1966, and Wasserman Schultz the AWARE Act (Adolescent Web Awareness
Requires Education), HR 3630. AWARE is meant to facilitate the cyberbullying
act's pro-homosexual educational program in America's public school system.
-
- The hearing began with a strong statement by Rep. Louis
Gohmert (the only Republican Judiciary member present) that he endured
much bullying as an undersized boy and has only empathy for any young person
bullied on the schoolyard or in cyberspace. Yet, he said, cyberbullying
is a symptom of a larger problem of lack of values among America's youth.
Such moral deficiency, he said, should be addressed on the local levels
-- not by federalizing an already "overcriminalized" justice
system. Gohmert said the cyberbullying bill encroaches on protected speech.
"Do we need $125 million of Chinese money" (the five-year cost
of AWARE) for the federal government to attempt to solve what should be
dealt with through education on the grassroots level?
-
- Sanchez and Wassermann Schultz argued that cyberbullying
of teens is a national crisis that can only be solved through federal criminalization
and educational funding through the Department of Justice. They were followed
by Professor Robert O'Neill, veteran of 47 years of teaching Constitutional
law. He thought it "worth a try," considering the seriousness
of the cyberbullying problem, to broaden unprotected speech under HR 1966
to include "intentional infliction of emotional distress" through
internet communication. But he felt a very high bar of truth (higher than
the bill provides) should be required, to establish that real, demonstrable
trauma had occurred. O'Neill was followed by Judi Westberg Warren, director
of Web Wise Kids, an internet advocacy group. She supports federal funding
through AWARE, plus massive private funding.
-
- Trial lawyer and free speech authority Harvey Silverglate
spoke next. In powerful and compelling language, he said the cyberbullying
bill is extremely vague, impinging on free speech. In his book The Shadow
University he documents how thousands of college students are already harassed
and intimidated by college "speech crime" codes. He said such
hate law terms as "intimidation," "emotional distress,"
and "harassment" are so vague they will criminalize annoying
speech and deter speech which should be protected. He said true harassment
is already amply protected under state and common law. The cyberbullying
bill, he asserted, would criminalize existing torte law and federalize
state law and so confuse citizens that they would be reluctant to say anything
risky on the internet or anywhere else.
-
- Silverglate's excellent objections were followed by commonsense
reasoning from Nancy Willard, director of The Center for Safe and Responsible
Internet Use, another internet advocacy organization. She said every author
of a book about cyberbullying opposes HR 1966. She described the cyberbullying
bill as epitomizing the "techno panic" of liberal politicians
who want to pass more speech-threatening legislation before the actual
problem is fully elucidated. Like Gohmert and Silverglate, she encouraged
local private educational solutions. The majority of teens, she stressed,
use the internet responsibly.
-
- The last witness was John Palfrey of Harvard Law School,
chair of the Internet Safety Task Force and co-author of Born Digital:
Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. He also said the
solution is not in federal criminalization of cyberbullying but lies with
local educational programs, teachers and parents.
-
- A very lively question-and-answer period ensued between
Chairman Bobby Scott and these authorities. The effect of their high-level
intellectual objections and agreement was to virtually exclude from the
discussion Reps. Sanchez and Wassermann Schultz, sponsors of the bills.
Even federal hate bill supporter Scott expressed repeated concern that
the cyberbullying bill, in its present configuration, falls short of passing
Constitutional muster.
-
- In fact, Professor O'Neill-who initially favored the
bill-by the end clearly agreed that the Megan Meier cyberbullying bill,
HR 1966, lacks legislative viability.
-
- We Changed History!
-
-
- Today's hearing was clearly a victory for free speech,
made possible by divine intervention and YOUR phone calls this week, which
lit a fire under Judiciary Republicans. Especially important were your
last-minute warnings against AWARE and its danger as the educational "enforcer"
of the cyberbullying bill throughout America's public education over the
next five years. Calls were heavy against all four new hate bills on Monday.
Such calling has continued, especially against AWARE; it has saturated
offices such as that of Rep. Judiciary minority head Lamar Smith.
-
- Without your intense activism in response to my weekend
emergency alert, this hearing might have ended as dismally as the ENDA
hearing last week in the Committee on Education and Labor, with only one
Republican speaking out against it. But several days of vigorous encouragement
undoubtedly stimulated Gohmert and the Republicans to marshal opposition
and summon favored expert witnesses. For a change, advocates of free speech
were on the offensive!
-
- This very encouraging development dovetails with possible
abandonment of the previously scheduled Safe Schools Improvement Act, HR
2262, which would criminalize "persistent or persuasive" criticism
of homosexuality in the public schools as "violence." It may
be that ADL concocted AWARE, introduced last Wednesday to deliver pro-homosexual
indoctrination in a less threatening way. But after today, AWARE also may
be in trouble.
-
- Will HR 1966 and HR 3630 continue forward to markup?
Probably. But the precedent established by today's rout of the Democrats
may give Republicans opportunity to demand significant compromises that
could water down or even largely neutralize HR 1966's threat to free speech.
-
-
-
-
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-
-
- Let the Anti-Defamation League teach you how they have
saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians, and
spearhead attempts to pass the federal hate crimes bill: <http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp>http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp.
-
- TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject.
Call (503) 631-3808.
-
- The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the
National Prayer Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and
your financial support. All gifts are tax-deductible.
-
-
-
- NATIONAL PRAYER NETWORK, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR
97015
- <http://www.truthtellers.org>www.truthtellers.org
|