Cyberbullying is now a crime in Michigan punishable by jail time
On Thursday, Gov. Rick Snyder signed into law a bill sponsored by Rep. Pete Lucido, R-Shelby Township that formally defines cyberbullying as a misdemeanor. Public Act 457 of 2018 will take effect in March.
The law states cyberbullying is a crime punishable by 93 days in jail and a $500 fine. A "pattern of repeated harassment" is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Meanwhile, cyberbullying that is found to cause a victim's death is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
According to Lucido's bill, "cyberbullying" is defined by "posting a message or statement in a public media forum about any other person" if both "the message or statement is intended to place a person in fear of bodily harm or death and expresses an intent to commit violence against the person" and "the message or statement is posted with the intent to communicate a threat or with knowledge that it will be viewed as a threat."
A "pattern of harassing or intimidating behavior" means a series of two or more separate noncontinuous acts of harassing or intimidating behavior. And a "public media forum" refers to "the internet or any other medium designed or intended to be used to convey information to other individuals, regardless of whether a membership or password is required to view the information."
ENROLLED HOUSE BILL No. 5017 (other docs).
Related: Twitter Launches Trust And Safety Council To Help Put End To Trolling
'One in Two' Young Online Gamers Bullied, Report Finds
Aussie Parents Fear Social Media More Than Drugs, Alcohol or Smoking
Related Stories
Twitter has announced a new trust and safety council to stamp out bullying and trolling on the microblogging site. The Twitter Trust & Safety Council will initially be formed of around 40 bodies, including the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, ICT Watch, NetSafe, and Samaritans. These organisations, along with safety experts, academics and security researchers, will work to ensure a safe and secure platform for users to express themselves freely and safely. The Council's main focus will be to protect minors, encourage 'greater compassion and empathy on the internet,' and promote efforts in media literacy and digital citizenship. Community groups will also participate to help prevent online 'abuse, harassment, and bullying,' as well as mental health problems and suicide.
A study carried out by an anti-bullying charity found that 57% of the young people it surveyed had experienced bullying online when playing games.
In addition, 22% said they had stopped playing a game as a result.
Ditch the Label surveyed around 2,500 young members of the virtual hotel platform Habbo, aged between 12 and 25.
One 16-year-old gamer, Bailey Mitchell, told the BBC he had experienced bullying while playing online games since the age of 10.
"If you're going to school every day and you're being bullied in school you want to go home to your computer to escape," he said.
"So if you're getting more abuse thrown at you it's going to put you off doing anything social - it has for a lot of people I know, me included.
"It's regular, every other game you're in, there's always someone who has a mic or types in chat. They'll call you some random abusive thing they can think of."
Indeed, young gamers should stop bullying old people in online games.
The Australian Broadcast Corporation reports:
Australian parents are more worried about their children using social media and technology than drugs, alcohol or smoking, according to new research.
The youth mental health support service ReachOut surveyed parents of 12 to 18-year-olds about their concerns and found that 45 per cent were worried about their children's use of social media.
Technology closely followed at 42 per cent.
In comparison, 25 per cent were worried about their children using drugs, alcohol or smoking. [...] ReachOut surveyed 890 parents in December 2017, a month before the suicide of 14-year-old Amy "Dolly" Everett put cyberbullying on the national agenda.
Mr Nicholas said parents were concerned about the anonymity of social media. "They're really concerned about the nature of bullying that may happen on social media sites and how easy it is given that this is a product that young people are likely to use every day," he said. "That the harm and particularly the psychological harm can be really significant."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @12:07AM (4 children)
Communicating threats is already illegal and if a means of communication which involves Interstate phone lines ( or cable or fiber ) was used to communicate threats, there is a Federal law which has existed for over 30 years which applies to such situations directly. The Federal law provides for MUCH harsher penalties than this stupid "political posturing" bullshit Michigan law.
.
The Federal law allows for FIVE YEARS in prison and a $250,000 fine. The conviction will be a felony. And that will basically destroy your life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @12:10AM
And a solid case can be made for threats which are made from within Michigan toward a person also in Michigan still falling under Fed jusrisdiction, because the signals used to convey the threats almost certainly crossed state lines when those signals were sent to and from the remove server that will be involved in most any internet communication.
.
So forget the "intra-Michigan threats won't fall under Fed jurisdiction" because that's false.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Thursday January 03 2019, @12:12AM (2 children)
But if the Feds aren't choosing to enforce their law, Michigan can enforce theirs...unless it's challenged as being preempted.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by insanumingenium on Thursday January 03 2019, @12:26AM (1 child)
The weird part is the language about causing the persons death could be interpreted as targeting swatting or suicides, but in neither case is it usually a result of a public threat against a person's life.
Swatting is the direct result of a false police report, by definition not a public threat against their life (even if it is likely to result in such), that one is easy. Suicide is much more complex, but all the cases I am aware of aren't people who killed themselves in response to a threat against their life, seems kind of like suspending kids as punishment for truancy to me...
Perhaps my perception is skewed, but I don't view cyber bullying as being in the form of threats to ones life, which are pretty well covered in existing laws where I come from. Seems to me like this law doesn't address what I would call cyber bullying at all, and doesn't provide much more than an alternate name for the existing criminal threat statutes.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 03 2019, @05:23PM
This is about protecting people from their feelings getting hurt. Hurt feelings might be the cause of their (self inflicted) death due to insufficiently thick skin and/or desire for sympathy.
Maybe a new government office could be created, sufficiently staffed and funded, to quantify the economic costs of hurt feelings in Michigan?
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 03 2019, @12:22AM (14 children)
Intimidation, lacking already criminal threats, is protected speech, chuckleheads. This is either poor reporting or easily overturned law.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Virindi on Thursday January 03 2019, @12:49AM (9 children)
"Intimidation" is not protected speech. The purpose of freedom of speech is to allow the free discourse of ideas, not for one person to be able to harm another. The key difference between intimidation and heated discourse is that intimidation causes the victim to reasonably believe the attacker is about to go beyond words. In essence, it is not speech because it is about an imminent action.
Which, conveniently, is exactly what is mentioned as a requirement of the law in TFS.
What they are describing is essentially similar to assault, a crime which has not been found by anyone sane to violate freedom of speech.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 03 2019, @01:24AM (7 children)
You're using an extremely narrow definition of intimidation. That's not how it will be used.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @01:56AM
Hahahahahahahahahha
So NOW you don't like narrow definitions? If I wait long enough you troll yourself!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Virindi on Thursday January 03 2019, @02:05AM (5 children)
I am using the definition from the summary.
The highlighted portion indicates, as I mentioned, a requirement that the criminal speech be related to the anticipation of physical violence. Just like assault.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 03 2019, @02:35PM (4 children)
No, you're conflating cyberbullying's with intimidation's, just like either the journalist or lawmakers did. One of the two left intimidation undefined.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Thursday January 03 2019, @08:01PM (3 children)
It seemed reasonable to me to assume you were talking about the story at hand. If you are talking about something different, perhaps it would be helpful to be more specific?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 03 2019, @08:51PM (2 children)
The story is exactly what I'm talking about. Read it again and pay attention. Cyberbullying is defined but intimidation is not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Virindi on Thursday January 03 2019, @11:18PM (1 child)
Sure, let's look at the law then.
So "cyberbully" requires the intent to cause fear of harm.
Okay, let's ctrl-f for 'intimidation':
Both of these require a violation of (1), which once again, requires the intent to cause fear of harm. So "intimidating behavior" in this context is an add on to the main crime which increases its severity. But merely 'intimidating' someone without the threat of taking it beyond words is not a crime under this law, because (4) and (5) require a violation of (1).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 04 2019, @01:08AM
Fair nuff. Bad reporting rather than legislation then.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @06:00AM
because it is about an imminent action.
Which is bogus without proof, pre-crime, it needs to be about requiring immediate action in defense. A bomb threat would fit the description of something "beyond" free speech.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday January 03 2019, @01:57AM
In California as well as I expect most other states, I expect Intimidating as considered stalking.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:20AM (1 child)
I will fucking cut your fucking fuck out of you, you fucking Buzzard of no fucking sense! I know where you perch!! I know where you soar! Careful on the winds aloft, you despicable carrion feeder! Has this been enough of a threat? Do I need to include GPS coordinates, or fishing holes to make the point to you, you pitiful cayuse?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 03 2019, @02:41PM
Dude, anyone who can read knows I live in Humboldt TN and fish more often than not at Davey Crockett lake, five miles away. It's not a huge secret or something. Gibson county lake is my favorite but it's a bit farther of a drive.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 03 2019, @05:17PM
This law is trying to fix a real problem. One that we're all dancing around.
We already have laws about transmitting threats.
What we need is a New Improved law that could be construed to cover someone's feelings getting hurt. Who could be against that? I can't imagine anything that could possibly go wrong. Nope. Nosiree.
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Thursday January 03 2019, @12:45AM (1 child)
This is cruel and unusual, and likely disproportionate. The penalties should be more along the lines of the government posting on your wall about how you showed up at their party in a totally lame outfit, increasing to describing how you drool too much when you kiss, with a maximum penalty of telling everyone how each of your multiple crushes shot you down in different but equally devastating ways when you asked them out.
Legal reform now!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @12:48AM
Hmm.... the NSA would have that data, so this is feasible. I like it!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by EJ on Thursday January 03 2019, @12:55PM
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I am quite happy to find zero results in Google when I search on all variations of my name. I feel like that is the ideal case for the majority of people in the world. However, we have the case of convicted criminals. At some point, after they get out of jail, should we no longer have the ability to talk about what they did? From the victim's point of view, it seems like they should get to keep telling their story. However, if we aren't ever going to forgive people and let them get on with their lives after punishment, then we should just execute them.
I feel like public officials should be open to ridicule without restriction, though their families should be off-limits. I think the biggest problem comes with kids. Maybe it should be illegal to post anything derogatory about anyone under the age of 18 (yeah, even Justin Beaver should have gotten a pass).
At the end of the day, anything that gives any hope of killing all forms of social media is a good thing in my book.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @05:12PM
the parents that whined for this are stupid fucks. try doing your jobs you dumb ass motherfuckers. too busy worrying about your own fat asses to teach your kids to respect themselves. the gov is all too happy to coddle you pathetic slaves.