Freedom of speech isn’t subjective

In 2006, a 13-year-old from Missouri named Megan Meier committed suicide after the flirtatious MySpace messages she received became abrasive. The messages were from an alleged 16-year-old boy named Josh Evans.

Here’s the creepy part- Josh Evans was actually 47-year-old Lori Drew. Drew was the mother of a girl whose friendship with Meier had turned sour, so it appears as if the creation of the fictitious Josh Evans was an odd attempt at revenge.

On Nov. 26 Drew was convicted in federal court. She was charged with a misdemeanor for accessing a computer without authorization, a crime that previously applied only to instances in which the computer was used to obtain information.

Though Drew received a reasonably light sentence, the way in which the law was applied has the potential to set an important precedent for future cyberbullying cases.

Meier’s suicide also prompted the introduction of the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, which has yet to be passed. The act would guarantee penalization of “any communication with an intent to coerce, intimidate, harass or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.”

Specifically, that communication would need to “[use] electronic means to support severe, repeated and hostile behavior.” The penalization would include some combination of a fine and a minimum of two years in prison.

Meier’s death was certainly tragic and the process of a spiteful 40-something luring a teenager into a romantic friendship via MySpace is unsettling, to say the least, but I worry that cyberbullying legislation might be a slippery slope.

For instance, what exactly constitutes “severe, repeated and hostile behavior?” Does a scathing response to a personal blog entry constitute that kind of behavior? Perhaps a heated argument in a chat room could be interpreted as cyberbullying as well, especially if someone involved was emotionally unstable and killed him- or herself afterwards.

And what about all of those heated comments Rebel Yell writers have become so accustomed to receiving on the online versions of our articles? Watch out, dissenting flamers – you might be considered cyberbullies.

The First Amendment Center and the American Civil Liberties Union expressed similar concerns. In an article for the First Amendment Center, Courtney Holliday writes that whether cyberbullying legislation is constitutional remains questionable.

In his blog for the ACLU, James Tucker writes, “As reprehensible as some online speech may be, the First Amendment protects the bad with the good.” I would have to agree.

Even when the speech in question is vile, the First Amendment shouldn’t be applied subjectively. Tucker cites an instance when the ACLU was lambasted for supporting a Nazi group’s right to protest, illustrating that yes, even the most vile forms of speech deserve protection.

As the editor of The Rebel Yell’s Opinion section, a section where the ultra-conservative is at times juxtaposed with radically liberal arguments (despite constant decries that we are either too liberal, too conservative, both or neither), it would be dangerous for me to pick and choose which opinions deserved to be published.

If I were to do so, I would effectively silence those whose voices I did not agree with. At its core, America is all about facilitating intellectual freedom and the right to dissent. Silencing others on the basis of our own opinions, then, is wrong.

So I’m concerned with legislation that draws the line between what is and is not okay for one to say, illustrate or type. This kind of legislation necessitates judgment on someone else’s right to free speech; that is, you can say whatever you want, until it crosses some arbitrary line into the territory of cyberbullying.

Because the Internet provides an exceptionally anonymous medium through which people can communicate, it has developed into an altogether different kind of environment. People feel much less inhibited, comforted by the knowledge that their identities are hidden behind their glowing computer screens.

Therefore, harassment such as “cyberbullying” is almost to be expected. It might be more effective to teach youth to avoid taking things like cruel MySpace messages seriously.

Admittedly, it is hard for me to argue that Drew deserves little more than a harsh reprimand for her ludicrously inappropriate behavior. At the same time, however, I don’t believe that federal legislation should be able to limit free cyber speech under the guise of cyberbullying.

If we allow these types of limitations on our right to speak (or type), more severe limitations on our freedom of expression may loom ahead.