In the good old days, bullies distinguished themselves among a school’s student body by their dress, gang of misfit followers and, most of all, attitude.

The bullies haunted school yards at all levels – elementary schools, junior highs and high schools. They struck fear into the hearts of littler or weaker kids by pushing them around and taking their lunch money. They fought on the school grounds and were suspended. They dropped out of school when they could. Some of them tasted juvenile hall and later jail, as they deserved. Their prey survived by avoiding them in the hallways and scurrying from class to class.

A new generation of bullies has emerged with the 21st Century – individuals who strike with camera phones, laptops and the Internet. They can attack at any time, anywhere, posting nasty messages on the personal Web diaries of targeted schoolmates, sending threatening e-mails to them, or using camera phones to circulate embarrassing photos of others. They can do so anonymously under a pseudonym or the name of another classmate.

The impact of online bullying is unnerving and deeply personal.

Now, Washington state Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, is pushing a bill that would crack down on cyber-bullying in Washington schools. Her goal is noble. The problem is growing, especially as younger and younger children become knowledgeable about computers, particularly how to abuse cyberspace. Citizens, however, should be concerned whenever lawmakers propose to dump another mandate onto public schools that takes them away from their main purpose of education. And, despite the emotional issue involved here, online users should be wary of lawmakers tinkering with the Internet’s freedom.

Senate Bill 5849 would add electronic means to written, verbal or physical acts as ways children can bully, harass or intimidate one another. The policy would require “that parents be given information or that information be made available via the district’s Web site regarding the seriousness of cyberbullying and what options are available if a student is being bullied via electronic means.” An earlier version of the bill required schools to be responsible for cyberbullying 24/7, an untenable obligation on the surface. The current bill targets cyberbullying at school.

In her column in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Susan Paynter makes a good argument for the legislation, telling of a Web posting by Woodinville High School girls who’d made a New Year’s resolution to see a humanities classmate dead. The cyberbullies were transferred to another class after the victim’s mother contacted the school and police. In other words, the matter was resolved without new legislation.

Unquestionably, there’s a problem. In a 1-Safe America study mentioned by Paynter, 42 percent of 1,500 grade-school children said they’d been harassed online; 48 percent hadn’t told their parents. Schools should make an effort to inform parents about the problem of cyberbullying. But school districts shouldn’t be obligated to police cyberspace or to produce a one-size-fits-all remedy for a high-tech problem. The districts have been known to overreact. Small children with 2-inch plastic toy guns, after all, have been snagged by well-meaning zero-tolerance laws designed to keep dangerous weapons off school grounds.