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?

On the other hand, it does seem to specify that the bullying must be accompanied by a threat to be considered a felony. I can agree with that idea. Whether you are talking in person or over cyber media, a threat of bodily harm should not be taken lightly. Nor should calls for someone to kill themselves. But would a religious zealot telling an atheist that she is going to hell for her disbelief be considered a threat?

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.

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.