Rep. Steve Hartgen's bill to ban Internet harassment ran into a blizzard of questions in the House Judiciary Committee today, which finally voted near-unanimously to hold the bill until next Thursday. Rep. Bill Killen, an attorney, asked Hartgen if the bill would cover his accessing a blog from Indiana that proved to contain material he found offensive. Hartgen said, "I think that would be a matter for the prosecutor to decide." Rep. Raul Labrador, also an attorney, then said, "If it depends, I'm voting no. ... If it depends, I have a real problem with this statute." Hartgen said, "I think it would depend on what the prosecutor's interpretation is. ... That doesn't really change, whether it's Internet or telephone." Responded Labrador, "But there is a huge difference, because the telephone message is directed at me," while the blog is just posted in cyberspace.

Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol, posed a hypothetical about a 17-year-old girl and a 19-year-old boy who have consensual sex, take explicit photos, then break up, and then one sends the other the photos. "In this committee we deal with the real world, and the real world can be strange," Hart said. "Where's the line between a crime and consensual behavior?" Hart also asked how many people would end up in Idaho's prison system if Hartgen's bill became law. Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, an attorney, asked Hartgen for a definition of profane language. After an hour of testimony, the panel put the bill off.

---

---