Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/19/2014 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB110 | |
| SB128 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 128-ELECTRONIC BULLYING
2:22:34 PM
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the hearing and announced the
consideration of SB 128."An Act relating to the crime of
harassment." This was the first hearing.
2:23:09 PM
EDRA MORLEDGE, Staff, Senator Kevin Meyer, introduced SB 128 on
behalf of the sponsor, speaking to the following sponsor
statement:
With advances in technology and social media, harassment
by electronic means, or "cyberbullying," has become
increasingly prevalent. Our current statutes allow for
some forms of bullying to be handled within the school
system, however not all bullying occurs on or near school
property. In some extreme cases, cyberbullying has led to
suicide. SB 128 will allow for punishment outside of the
school system, and makes harassment of a person under 18
years of age by electronic communication a class B
misdemeanor.
MS. MORLEDGE noted that the bill had two zero fiscal notes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there was a rationale for saying
that it's legal to call or send a letter to a person that is
insulting, taunting, or challenging, but it's illegal if it's
put in an email.
MS. MORLEDGE offered her understanding that this simply adds to
the current harassment laws that already cover written
communication.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed interest in hearing from the
Department of Law.
2:27:42 PM
CHAIR COGHILL offered his understanding that electronic
intimidation could be charged under AS 11.61.120(a)(1).
MS. MORLEDGE responded that was technically her understanding,
but other states have not been able to charge unless the
communication is specifically identified as electronic
harassment.
CHAIR COGHILL opened public testimony.
2:28:31 PM
DAISY MAY BARRARA, representing herself, Bethel, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 128. She explained that her Alaska
Native culture has a belief that language can kill an individual
if used improperly. She said she believes this applies to
electronic communication as well. She thanked the committee for
paying close attention to this critical issue.
2:31:06 PM
ARELENE BRISCOE, Alaska Nurses Association, Anchorage, Alaska,
said she's been a nurse for 35 years and a board certified
mental health nurse in Alaska since 1987. She reported that she
works at an Anchorage hospital and daily sees the torment caused
by cyberbullying through Facebook, Twitter, and now Snapchat.
Children are the hardest hit population and suicides, suicide
attempts, and suicide ideations are a daily occurrence and she
sees the fallout at the hospital.
She highlighted that the bill doesn't address this, but bullies
need to be treated too because they are just as affected by
mental health issues as the victims. Both are suffering and need
help.
2:34:43 PM
CHAIR COGHILL expressed interest in knowing how a juvenile bully
might be treated as opposed to a bully who is older than 18
years of age.
MS. BRISCOL discussed the importance of early intervention for
kids who have been identified through the school system as
having problems because they are doing some of the bullying.
They need help before they get into the juvenile justice system,
she said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the age limitation should be
removed, like in Illinois, so the application is much broader.
MS. BRISCOL said yes; women are bullied by their spouses. She
added that this is different from a letter because once a
communication is on Facebook it doesn't go away.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed doubt that this would apply to
Facebook because it says "sends."
SENATOR DYSON expressed concern about how people with
significant disabilities would be affected if age 18 is left in
the bill.
CHAIR COGHILL said his research shows that most states don't
have an age restriction, but it appears that the sponsor is most
concerned about youth bullying.
2:39:44 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, discussed drafting concerns with SB 128. She
stressed in this draft the importance of not making conduct a
class B misdemeanor that might, under certain circumstances, be
more serious. For example, fear assault is assault in the fourth
degree, which is a class A misdemeanor, or even a class C felony
if it's assault in the third degree.
She suggested modifying the language to say: "sends an
electronic communication to a person under 19 years of age." She
explained that to make it a crime to send this material, the
culpable mental state for harassment in the second degree is
with intent to harass or annoy another person. She said she
assumes the other person is the child, so it needs to be clear
that the electronic communication is being sent to that person.
CHAIR COGHILL said he didn't believe that was the issue, because
these communications sometimes are sent to a wide audience with
the idea of denigrating a person's reputation. That person may
not even see the communication.
MS. CARPENETI restated that the prosecution has to prove the
culpable mental state of intending to annoy or harass another
person and it would be easier to prove if the communication was
to that person.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI observed that it's not clear whether the
phrase "sends an electronic communication" includes telephone
calls and Facebook and Twitter posts. He suggested the committee
have a philosophical discussion about the question that the
Chair raised because a person can do a lot of damage to another
person by harassing them on their own Facebook page.
MS. CARPENETI said that's the problem with electronic
communication; it's difficult to forbid in a way that doesn't
impose on a person's First Amendment rights.
CHAIR COGHILL asked the principle of law for slander and how it
might apply to cyberbullying.
2:44:22 PM
MS. CARPENETI explained that a person can claim damages for
slander in a civil action; it wouldn't be a crime.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI added that challenging someone to a fight
or threatening to kill them or their family would be harassment.
MS. CARPENETI said depending on the circumstances it could be a
fear assault. She also suggested repeating the word "fear" to
clarify that the person is in fear or physical injury, in fear
of severe mental or emotional injury, or fear of damage to the
person's property. This will keep it from being mixed with other
crimes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked her to talk about state of mind and
whether it's objective or subjective and whether you know the
person is fragile or not.
MS. CARPENETI said her assumption is it means reasonable fear,
which is an objective standard, but she'd like to think about
it.
CHAIR COGHILL questioned whether it ought to be explicit that it
means reasonable fear.
MS. CARPENETI commented that it's difficult to draft in a way
that captures the potential harm of the conduct while also
protecting the constitutional right to expression.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked her to talk about the timeline for
reasonable fear, because AS 11.61.120(a)(1) says the insults,
taunts, or challenges have to provoke an immediate violent
response.
MS. CARPENETI suggested he pose the question to the sponsor. She
said she assumes it means an immediate reaction but it doesn't
say that, and the other provisions do.
CHAIR COGHILL suggested the sponsor bring information about what
other states have done in this area.
2:48:48 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration (DOA), Anchorage, Alaska, stated agreement with
Ms. Carpeneti's suggestion that it would help the bill to
clarify that the electronic communication is to a particular
person. Without clarification of what's been criminalized, it's
too vague and would likely result in different views of what's
covered in different prosecutions. There's also a lack of an
imminent requirement that is seen elsewhere in fear assault
statutes and even earlier in this statute where the insulting,
taunting, or challenges are likely to provoke an immediate
response. There's an immediacy component to it that's important
in terms of defining what ought to be criminalized. Without
that, it could be broadly interpreted to apply to many things,
he said.
MR. STEINER expressed concern with the suggestion to include the
idea of fear of severe mental or emotional injury and instead
suggested requiring some level of an imminent threat or imminent
fear of physical injury. This would narrow the bill and
eliminate risk an over broad application that unintentionally
criminalizes certain conduct.
CHAIR COGHILL asked his perspective of limiting the application
of this law to people under age 18 versus applying it broadly to
all ages.
MR. STEINER replied his understanding is that the bill intends
to target cyberbullying of juveniles, and that limitation
eliminates the risk of prosecutions in areas where it doesn't
make sense.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the phrase "damage to the person's
property" is overly broad.
MR. STEINER agreed it is fairly broad and suggested amending the
language to ensure that sending an email threatening to break
another person's pencil wouldn't be criminal conduct. Juvenile
conduct that you might not endorse shouldn't necessarily be
subject to criminal penalties, he said.
Responding to a question, he confirmed that an electronic
communication could be prosecuted under AS 11.61.120(a)(1) if it
was delivered in a manner that was likely to provoke an
immediate violent response. That's why the imminent component is
helpful, he said, because you could theoretically send an email
that's harassing or taunting about something that would happen
far in the future.
2:56:05 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he sees any problems
differentiating between electronic communication and written or
verbal communication.
MR. STEINER opined that differentiating those types of
communication relates to the immediacy of both the impact and
response. For example, it's hard to threaten imminent physical
injury through a letter, he said. Including those runs the risk
of criminalizing things that aren't meant to be criminalized.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he sees any constitutional issues
because threatening to damage a person's property in a letter
inflicts the same amount of fear as making the threat in an
email, but one person hasn't committed a crime and the other
person has.
MR. STEINER replied it's a policy question. As currently
drafted, it's fairly broad and opens the potential for
prosecutions of cases that might not otherwise be prosecuted.
2:59:04 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked the sponsor, the public defender, and the
Department of Law to think about whether implementing this law
might inadvertently cause further damage to a victim who has
already been traumatized by bullying.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said it's a good point and it appears that
many other states require school districts to adopt policies. He
questioned whether that might be a better approach.
CHAIR COGHILL held SB 128 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 128 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Cyberbullying Fact Sheet.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Letter of Support Briscoe.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Louisian HB 1259.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB1259 SB 128 |
| Letter of Support - NFIB.PDF |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| Letter of Support - Office of Victims' Rights.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB 110 Court System Memo - June 2012.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB 110 Dept of Law Report - March 2013.PDF |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB 110 Section Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB 110 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB 110-LAW-CRIM-02-14-14.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB 110-DOA-OPA-02-14-14.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB 110-DOA-PDA-02-14-14.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |