Stupid Legislator Tricks
Two possibilities here: Legislator Linda Sanchez is a complete idiot, and/or "Democrat" really is another word for "totalitarian." Sanchez is one of 14 legislators behind a bill to criminalize Internet speech -- once again, like in the case of the asinine and damaging CPSIA, "for the children." Here are the relevant excerpts from the law that may turn you into a felon for hurting somebody's feelings:

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....

["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; ...

["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

It's yet another bit of "meaning well" gone bad because the legislators behind it aren't smart enough to think the bill through to its logical conclusion -- or, again, the converse, that they're trying to control every minute detail of every person's life. Constitutional scholar and UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh does their homework for them, giving examples of ways this could backfire:

4. A company delivers me shoddy goods, and refuses to refund my money. I e-mail it several times, threatening to sue if they don't give me a refund, and I use "hostile" language. I am transmitting a communication with the intent to coerce, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: I am a felon, if my behavior is "severe."

5. Several people use blogs or Web-based newspaper articles to organize a boycott of a company, hoping to get it to change some policy they disapprove of. They are transmitting communications with the intent to coerce, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: Those people are a felon. (Isn't threatening a company with possible massive losses "severe"? But again, who knows?)

6. John cheats on Mary. Mary wants John to feel like the scumbag that he is, so she sends him two hostile messages telling him how much he's hurt her, how much she now hates him, and how bad he should feel. She doesn't threaten him with violence (there are separate laws barring that, and this law would apply even in the absence of a threat). She is transmitting communications with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: Mary is a felon, again if her behavior is "severe."

The examples could be multiplied pretty much indefinitely. The law, if enacted, would clearly be facially overbroad (and probably unconstitutionally vague), and would thus be struck down on its face under the First Amendment. But beyond that, surely even the law's supporters don't really want to cover all this speech.

A reader e-mailed me that she's "wondering if I'm a bad person for thinking someone was called ugly in junior high and cannot let it go."

I'm against any chill on free speech -- and we have laws on the books to deal with speech that is criminal, like fomenting violence against another person or using character and likeness of a personality without permission.

Sullum thinks those behind the bill are not censors, just crappy legislators.