“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.”

That is the text of HR 1966, a bill proposed by Congresswoman Linda Sanchez of California.

This is not a bill about mere cyberbullying. We have heard of many instances where people have been ridiculed and harassed to the point of violent provocation or suicide. The most prominent being Megan Meier, a 13-year-old harassed into suicide by a friend’s mother. Because of a lack of laws to deal with horrible tragedies as this, Sanchez wrote the bill, also known as the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act.

Sanchez may have had cyberbullying in mind, but the threat to First Amendment rights with her bill is profound.

Sanchez defines “electronic means” in her bill as “any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, Web sites, telephones, and text messages.”

What blogger hasn’t harassed a politician?

If this bill becomes law, it will face a court challenge.

Eugene Volokh at the UCLA College of Law gave six examples of how this law could affect free speech:

1. A blogger trying to coerce a politician to vote a certain way.
2. A newspaper editorial posted on a website attempting the same pressure on a politician.
3. A blogger who ridicules a politician for his or her vote.
4. Using hostile language in an email to a company that provided a shoddy product.
5. Use of the internet for a boycott intimidating a company,
6. John cheats on Mary. Mary sends emails with the intent to cause John emotional distress.

The problem with HR 1966 is that it is constitutionally vague to the point where individual court cases will have to decide how broad a net it casts over free speech. Sanchez thinks her language will pass muster because current standards treat speech between public and private figures differently. Her bill begins to muddle those standards, however.

Fortunately, the broad powers of HR 1966 are likely to be too broad for any fair-minded judge. The chances of the entire law being tossed out are great. The alternative is to turn bloggers and emailers into felons.