Government Regulation Of Cyberbullying

Every day millions of people log on to the internet. There has been much discussion on whether or not individuals should be prosecuted for statements made on social networks. Individuals should not be arraigned for statements made on social media. Although prosecution may limit cyberbullying, it will also expand government regulation, discourage personal responsibility, and violate constitutional rights.

Initially, prosecuting individuals for cyberbullying causes the government to expand their rule over the internet. In "Sacrificing the First Amendment to Catch 'Cyberbullies'", the article says, "It is patently offensive that these Senators wish to essentially regulate the Internet. [In my opinion], regulation of the Internet to 'protect'

According to "The Dangers of Cyberbullying," the article states "Technology has become an essential part of our society and our homes. Use of technology has extended beyond simple entertainment. For example, teens often use their cell phones to contact their parents in emergency situations, not just to send texts with their friends or play games." In other words, technology is apart of most people's daily lives. A plethora of people make hurtful comments on the internet, but in the end, the victim chooses to act for his or her self. Their response is completely out of the hands of the "cyberbully." Prosecuting people for hurting juveniles' feelings with a few mean messages, which was mentioned in "The Ophelia Project," would heavily burden the court system, when there are much more important issues to be dealt with. Although some skeptics may feel obligated to bother the workers of the legislative branch, the idea that hurt feelings justify criminal prosecution is preposterous and is ultimately wasting judicial time and taxpayer resources. Obviously, taking legal actions against cyberbullies burden the court system and heavily decreases personal

"Indeed, the First Amendment is regularly limited by legislation in various ways, but this does not make it some sort of nebulous “privilege” such that hurt feelings justify its abridgement. The last time I checked, hurting someone’s feelings—even in real life—never justified criminal prosecution. It usually doesn’t justify civil litigation without constituting outright slander or libel. Like it or not, implicit with in the text of the First Amendment is the right to be as cruel as one wants, right up to the point of libel or slander, " In other words, the congress is prohibited from making any law that abridges the freedom of speech. Also, the article "The Dangers of Cyberbullying" states, "Congresswoman Linda Sanchez is sponsoring the Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Prevention Act. The bill would make bullying through an electronic means a federal crime." In other words, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez is planning to pass a bill that infringes the first amendment and to pass this bill would be a major crime that violates the Constitution. Although some critics may feel the constitution is not important, interfering in someone's freedom comes with a hefty price that is punishable by criminal prosecution. Clearly, these volatile actions contravene citizen's constitutional