Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
While I haven't actually read the bill, I would guess that the definition of bullying in there will be far too ambiguous. Would someone who criticized another's writings be bullying? Does disagreement constitute bullying? Who gets to decide what is harassment and what is justified criticism?
That I do not see as a problem. Criticism is not worded as bullying, which is designed to make people feel bad.

But would a religious zealot telling an atheist that she is going to hell for her disbelief be considered a threat?

I do not think so. A threat would be something that the threatening person wants to do him or herself.

In general, though, I dislike zero-tolerance laws and mandatory sentencing laws. I think they are an attempt by legislators to control the judiciary, denying judges and DA's the ability to use discretion and mitigating circumstances to show leniency. On the other hand, they do prevent those judges and DA's from misusing their discretion to free career criminals.
Hm. I thought zero tolerance simply meant that you had to react, not how -?

So it's a complicated topic. And yes, if handled haphazardly it will harm free speech. Even now we see bigots claiming that their ability to bully others should be protected, while at the same time they want to restrict those they bully from retaliating. I don't know where you can draw the line, but I do think that threats of physical harm is well over that line.
Yes, it is complicated, and ties in with the photograph under people's skirt (if posted online) and revenge porn. Where do you draw the line?

But a line would have to be drawn somewhere, even if carefully and with some cases going unpunished, rather than impairing free speech. Plenty of people want to do that already.