'Say what?!?' lunacy of the left...It's Friday after all

In today’s installment of the Dems are truly insane in the membrane, we have Linda Sanchez (D-CA).

Linda is living in la-la land with the bill she just introduced, H.R. 1966.

It’s called the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. This act is in reaction to a horrific case out of California, where a mother of a former friend of Megan Meier created a fake account on myspace to learn what Meier was saying about her daughter. It led to some pretty nasty exchanges over the Internet and unfortunately Megan commited suicide.

While the intentions of this act I’m sure are noble, the consequences will be frightening if they don’t change the language in the bill as it stands now.

Here’s how it currently reads:

'Sec. 881. Cyberbullying'(a) 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.

(emphasis mine)

If you link out to the bill you will see that Sec. 2 includes legislaltive findings that discusses the purpose behind Cyberbullying. That's all fine and well. But where in this bill do they define "person"? Shouldn't they indicate that this is designed to include young boys and girls, minors, juveniles or teenagers? Would it really be hard to include that language? I would argue as a defense one only need to look at the purpose of those findings. After than, it should be clear what a person is meant to be. However, we live in a day when Justices on the short-list for the United States Supreme Court giggle about how the court makes policy. Tee heee hee...I know we're supposed to and all...tee heee.....but that's what we do! As it stands both anyone could be charged under this bill if they repeatedly “harass” or “cause substantial emotional distress to a person”. Any blogger should be reading this and thinking to themselves, Watchu talkin' 'bout Linda Sanchez?

Should we give the benefit of the doubt to Ms. Sanchez that this is not what she (or her staffers) positioned with this language? Mmmm, I'm going with 'no'. I think this goes well beyond being intentionally vague. On it's face, this bill is overbroad and would never pass constitutional muster. I would say that I haven’t seen such poorly worded language in any pending bill in some time. Then again, this Congressional session has been a boondoggle of shoddy and purposely vague legislation. I guess I shouldn't expect anything less out of the Dems at this point.

Honest to God, every day with the Dems in control gets worse than the last. Has it only been four months? When I think about it, it seems like this.

Serenity Now!