Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1222
Act 129
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…E STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1222 Dalby CONCERNING THE POSITIONS AND SALARIES OF SUPREME COUR…”
|
CONCERNING THE POSITIONS AND SALARIES OF SUPREME COURT LAW CLERKS AND COURT OF APPEALS LAW … | Dalby | Notification that HB1222 is now Act 129 |
|
HB1058
Act 219
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1058 Dalby TO PERMIT A JUROR TO DONATE HIS OR HER PER DIEM COMPE…”
|
TO PERMIT A JUROR TO DONATE HIS OR HER PER DIEM COMPENSATION AND MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT … | Dalby | Notification that HB1058 is now Act 219 |
|
HB1100
Act 556
· 3 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised on 2/2/21 at 12:17 PM - Added HB1100) Senate Committee on Judiciary Wednesday, February 3, 2021…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INDIVIDUALS LISTED AS MANDATED REPORTERS UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT. | Evans | Notification that HB1100 is now Act 556 |
|
HB1119
Act 87
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1119 Lundstrum CONCERNING THE FIRST AND SECOND DISTRICTS OF THE…”
|
CONCERNING THE FIRST AND SECOND DISTRICTS OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM; AND TO DECLARE … | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1119 is now Act 87 |
|
SB170
Act 375
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…l see if they can do that. In the meantime, Senator Garner, Senate Bill 170.”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE UNLAWFUL DOXXING OF A MINOR ON SOCIAL MEDIA. | T. Garner | Notification that SB170 is now Act 375 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
0:00
Okay, let's call this meeting to order. We have an amendment for House Bill 1100, and we have the amendment for House Bill 1058 that are not here yet. We're waiting on them. Representative Lundstrom is not in the room. Are you here, Senator Eads, to run that? So, Senator Eads, to run Representative Lundstrom's bill.
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
0:30
House Bill 1119. Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee. House Bill 1119 is a cleanup bill for the district courts. some of you may or may not know but in the last year there was a an election held by the city of
springdale and the city of bethel heights to merge to dissolve the city of bethel heights into the city of springdale and it creates a unique opportunity partly because springdale is not only in washington county but runs up into benton county as well and so that creates has created some challenges with involving the district courts so what this does it just cleans up the language in there takes the actual number of district courts in benton county from 14 to 13 by removing the listing for bethel heights and then it already says in the second
section on page three i believe it is that this the second district will be composed of washington county in the city limits of springdale including it did say including but it said also that extends into Benton County so that this part of the city of Springdale that goes into Benton County will be covered by the same district court that's actually in Washington County and that just clarifies that language. And I have a gentleman from the Administrative Office of the Courts here if somebody has any specific questions
Chair
Unverified
2:08
for this. Question from Senator Flowers, you're recognized.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:11
Okay. Senator Eades, I don't know, but the way I read it, you're eliminating the division because Bethel Heights was annexed or merged with Springdale and no longer exists. But you're not deleting a district
court. You're just deleting that division for Bethel Heights. Is that correct? That's actually correct. Okay. so are we eliminating
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:41
a court no we're actually just eliminating that it's broken up into divisions
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
2:46
those courts are it's the same court that will be
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:52
utilized still okay any other questions from the committee anybody to speak for or against
seeing none is there a motion motion do pass from Senator Garner. Second from Senator Johnson. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations,
Senator Eage. You have passed Representative Lundstrom's bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee.
Chairman Dalby, House Bill 1222. or
chairwoman if you prefer you'll have to excuse my gender i'm country matters not
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
3:41
mr chair thank you members of the committee house bill 1222 is the bill that came out of several of you may have remembered this summer there was an issue that arose on payment of the court's clerks out of the court of appeals
and ALC had to handle that matter and at that particular time there was promises made that this would be taken care of cleaned up and this is what this bill is this bill came a number of us had a committee not a committee meeting but had a meeting late summer. Chairman Clark was there. I think Vice Chairman Flowers was there by telephone, and we met with the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. We met with Court of Appeals
Court Justice, and we began working on cleaning up what had happened in the law. So this is the result of that all this bill does someone has asked did we increase their law clerks no they've had two law clerks for years and years and years and years this is just bringing the law into what has been practiced so there's not an increase in the number of people and then section f is approved both of the courts have agreed to this language or working will work via this language in section
two where they're going to be the same grade unless the general assembly pays a pay grade and you'll notice over on the back it will say that the supreme court and the court of appeals are going to give timely notice to each other before requesting a pay grade section two that part was struck because from the time that the original law was passed the state didn't have the pay grade and salary schedules that it now has. So those employees will be treated just like
all the other employees in the state. And with that, I'll be happy to
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
5:45
take any questions. Senator Garner, you're working on us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a question of bill. I just wanted to make a note how we're running all these House bills before Senate bills over here in Senate Judiciary. And that's a great thing. I think I love it when we let the House members
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
6:01
come here and speak first. I think that's a good use of their time. Well, and I certainly appreciate that. Thank you very much. I will, for clearness of the record, say this is actually Senator Hickey's bill. Evidently, I am
Speaker 30
6:13
his also his secretary. Yes, ma'am. I'm just messing with
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
6:16
you. I know you are, Senator. I appreciate that. I am closed for my bill if there are no questions and I would request a motion to
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
6:26
do pass. Are there any other questions from the committee? We have a due pass from Senator Rice, second from Senator Garner. I would note that on the second page, lines two through four, I had asked for that so that we never have this problem again,
the disparity between the two and the legislature having to fix it. And I did ask whether the courts thought the legislature had the authority to actually do this, but we won't ask for testimony on that today. Probably wise on
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
7:05
our part. I will say that any time you deal with Supreme Court justices in court of appeals, I can assure you every word was looked at, every comma and every period.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
7:17
I appreciate you and Senator Hickey bringing this bill. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion to signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations. Representative Dahlbe, you have passed your bill. Thank
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
7:34
you, Chairman Clark. Thank you, members of the committee. And hopefully y'all won't see me again this session. We'll see. Thank you.
Speaker 40
7:48
OKAY. WE STILL DON'T HAVE THE AMENDMENTS?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
8:11
Thank you. Okay, we're still waiting on the amendments on 10-58 and 11-100.
Representative Evans, there's a little bit of confusion on yours. That it was originally sent as members on the House end. They believe they can get it over to us. So if you want to wait, we'll see if they can do that. In the meantime, Senator Garner, Senate Bill 170.
Senator Garner, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Give
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
9:35
me one second to pull up my notes. On January 18th of 2019, a group of Catholic high school students from Kentucky were at the National Capitol to take part in a celebrated event for many young Christians, the March for Life. They were at the Blinken Memorial when a racist and extremist group known as the Black Hebrew Israelites stood in front of them, jostling and taunting them.
That group was antagonizing and taunting pro-life people across the board. they say
saw a group of 15 to 16 year old kids as an easy target and started to shout disgusting and racist slurs toward them the young boys in response to the taunts from grown adults started to perform school spirit uh chance that they do during sport like many of you probably did when you were in school and that's when the trouble really started you see the same day there
was a march for the indigenous people at the same location. One of the participants of
that march, Nathan Phillips, a known activist, misinterpreted the boy's chants and went to confront them. He walked into the group, loudly playing his drum and confronted the boys. He stood in front of them. One of the other people in that group happened to have a camera. He filmed a young boy smiling
in a red MAGA hat who chose not to retreat. Mr. Phillips playing the drum in front of him lasted about 10 minutes. There were words said by both
sides. Some of the children acted immaturely when confronted by grown adults. And some of the things said by the indigenous people that day were antagonistic
as well. That would have been the end of it. But the video went viral. Many of the wonderful national news media such as CNN, New York Times, and Vox exploded the video, painting a false narrative about what happened in order to paint the boys as racist, evil Trump supporters. They also
did it to diminish the March for Life and the work that it does.
Of course, the news media omitted key details. It was not long after this bill, the boys started to receive death threats.
Worse than that, people started to post their vital information online, their addresses, their names, telling people to go to their houses. this. It got so bad, they actually
had to shut down the school. Many of you probably remember this viral video and how it went for Nicholas Sandman. The release of that
information is known as doxing. If you need to know kind of a easy definition, it's searching for and publishing private and identifying information about a particular individual injury on the internet, typically with malice intent. It got so bad that the wonderful human being known as Kathy Griffin, a terrible comedian, said that they should actually dox those kids and put their information so people can do something about it. What a wonderful and great human being she turned out to
be. So doxing has become more and more a problem across
the United States as minors get on the internet and others are doing this to harm them in different ways. There's an extreme form of this known as SWATing where a person will actually take that vital information, call a police station to do a false report on somebody and have the police, the SWAT team show up their house guns drawn, which has led to deadly confrontations including a 28-year-old man who was killed in California. So going to what this bill does,
In order to violate the contents of the bill, you have to meet three elements. First, you have to have personally identifying information. You can read the specific examples of this on the bottom of page one and the top of page two. Second, you have to post that personal information on a social media site. We define what a social media site is. Three, and
most importantly, you have to meet these last two elements in order to be charged
with the crime of doxing. You have to post that information on a social media site with the purpose to intimidate, abuse, threaten, harass, or frighten the minor. And, and, not or, the minor has to have a reasonable fear for their physical safety. If
found guilty, this will be a Class C felony. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll take any questions. Senator Johnson you recognize
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
14:21
Senator Garner it was well defined in your explanation but
Speaker 55
14:28
that's social media and this was done by media and there's not there's a If you don't include that, that same penalty wouldn't, you're precluding part of that genre.
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
14:55
I think you're running into three issues if you include traditional media sites like that. First, as happened in this case, the court actually came through for Mr. Nicholas Sanderson. If you didn't know, there was a settlement of millions of dollars for the Catholic boys and the harassment they received for the
false reporting. Secondly, news organizations themselves are treated a little bit different under law. If you try to make it a criminal offense in that nature for a news media, I think you'd run into a much bigger problem. The issue isn't so much that they post information.
Whenever the news media in that case gave the okay and painted the false narrative, people on the internet trolled these kids, found out where they lived and was posting that like, go get them. That's the problem that is more narrowly focused and more of a danger, in my opinion, because the news media themselves still has, unless they're just completely bad actors, which can happen, they still have different regulations and criteria to fall under. So while your point's well taken, if I tried to craft that in this lull, it would become
much more broader in its powers, and I believe have a lot more issues moving forward, if that makes sense.
Speaker 55
16:08
Not that I disagree with your sentiment. So you
Speaker 59
16:14
think there's federal coverage under the media? There are additional laws
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
16:19
dealing with doxing, cyberbullying, rape, when you, what's it called, revenge porn, which is basically you post something like
that. There are federal laws that cover that.
Senator Cotton and Senator Bozeman actually have a bill that would expand this to federal employees and some things as well. I would argue that the standard for news media is different than an individual. And if you're going to try to do a criminal enterprise, a criminal charge against them, you'd run into a whole host of issues. This to me is so narrowly focused that it's really that bad actor who posts about a kid saying this is his
address, go there and do something about it. Senator Bellinger, you're recognized.
Senator Bob Ballinger
Unverified
17:03
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this would apply to a news media reporter or whatever who then goes on Twitter or Facebook and takes and, I mean, even if it shares information, but if it falls in the category of malice and so forth, they're just like any other person. They'd be subject to it. But if it's in their print, their main page, and it isn't, you would assume, now I would say there's definitely media outlets that maybe even print with malice intent. But in general, what we're talking about here, where this becomes effective, the doxing becomes effective, is when it's shared and becomes pretty much viral online, right?
So you're pointing out what the biggest problem is right here. Yeah, and I mean, I've
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
17:47
talked to some folks who are concerned about even this bill being a First Amendment issue. I would push back on that. But if you expand it too far, say just all Internet sites, I think you run into more of a constitutional issue. You're right, if a news reporter or anybody
else met the elements of this crime on their social media, they would be held liable just like anybody else. So even if they shared an
article that they are written and then put that information with the malice intent and all the other elements, they could be found criminal liable under this.
Speaker 59
18:19
Senator Johnson. So, Class C felony, that's pretty tough there. Yes, sir, it is.
Speaker 55
18:36
I mean, not to say that I know a lot about that. I know there's a Class D, and why would you choose the Class C? And what would that equate with? I'd have to look
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
18:49
up at the class C felony, the conditions for it.
I mean, I think it's 10 years, but I don't want to hold it. I can look that up for you real quick. The reason why is because this is so narrowly focused that one, such as swatting, this can actually lead to people dying. Two, the amount of harassment and vitriol these children, minors, we don't put adults in here, receive is of the consequence that I believe that they should rise to this level of a felony. I think that in this case, since it's such an egregious offense against a child, that it should be used at the Harshal penalty.
I can look up at what a Class C felony is if you need me to,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
19:28
Senator Johnson. Yeah, if you would, just out of ignorance on my part, I'm sorry.
Speaker 49
19:36
This is a quick Google search, so take that with a big grain of salt. It's punishable by three to ten years
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
19:41
in prison and a fine up to $10,000. is what this said, just an initial Google search. That sounds right off the top of my head. Senator Garner? Yes, sir.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
19:56
There's in spirit, I support this very
much. You know, as somebody who has received hundreds of phone calls from something going viral, thousands of emails and Facebook messages. People cannot imagine what happened to this teenager. You know, I could play some of those voicemails for them
because I saved them just for that purpose. That should never happen to a teenager or their family. It shouldn't happen to anybody, actually. But at the same time, we have to be very careful. You know, I wrote down a couple other names, David Hall, Greta Thurne, that's from the Parkland school shooting, who was on the news as a spokesman for probably at least a year and a half, Greta Thurne Byrd. And I may be misinterpreting, so help me.
line 28 here on the first page? Yes, sir. Let me look it up real quick. I mean, I definitely, if you're sharing somebody's residential address or telephone number, social security number, I think people are doing that for the purpose of harassment, whether it be an adult or it be a child. But A, first and last name. I mean, if I was writing an essay and people know I'm prone to do that, I'm very likely to mention Greta Thunberg by name, which would not be harassing.
But I have to tell you, in today's climate, what people consider harassing, because I was actually, you know, I've shared a video of David Hogg in California on the news a year or so before the Parkland shooting. And I said, before I knew anything about him, I said, this is quite a coincidence. And it was quite a coincidence that a teenager is on the news in California and on the news in Florida.
And for that, I was almost virtually lynched. people calling for my removal including the arkansas times uh the and didn't say anything or share anything uh but i mean we're looking right now where we've got congress members
congress members who are accusing each other of being racist and being on part of plots to get them. Um, so at the same time, I want to protect teenagers. I want to be careful. Again, I especially have a problem with that first and last name. Um, uh, because, I mean, cause I would probably have shared that teenagers first and last name. Uh, again, it doesn't
fit your your bill you know if you come down to the elements but does it mean that somebody does somebody zealous doesn't come up and say well he talked about him
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
23:38
or her you so you understand my concerns yes sir
i understand that um i would say a couple of different things one the last two elements are rather strong protection for your kind of post First, to prove that you had the intention to harass, intimidate that person in that way on your post that I've read of yours would be a very high bar.
But more importantly, it's the second part where the minor, one, has to know about it, and two, have a reasonable fear. Now, from your social media posts and many posts in here, I don't think there's a jury or judge in the world to find that as a reasonable fear that the minor, that you would actually meet the other element as well. I think it's an extremely high bar. I understand your point about putting the names in there. The only hesitation I would have with that is, taking it out is, somebody could put the name,
you know, my son Lincoln Garner, go get him, get him right now, or something like that, and cover that would come underneath this. Let me give you kind of an example, I think that's similar to this in our law already. Identity theft. If you write all your information down on a piece of paper and hand it to me, I put it on my desk, I can have it there all day long and not commit identity theft. It's until I take that action to use that information to open a bank account
or hurt somebody else, even though in the law it covers many of the same exact qualifications
that we see in the personally identifiable information. I think until that action
takes where you have that malicious intent and the minor has that reasonable fear on the second element, you'll never have that come up to be an issue. Other states are doing this. It's in multiple different fashions. We'll see how the courts will interpret it, but this language is
very similar to what other states have done as well. And we already have a cyberbulleting on the law. We already
have an Internet stalking of children on the law. That is similar, but not the same, I will admit.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
25:36
Senator Garner, I think this is important legislation, and I appreciate you bringing it. As a former youth pastor, and all of us are former teenagers, You know, having being shunned in the lunchroom is is life shattering. People cannot imagine what this is like and people just purposefully being hateful, trying to hurt someone. It's one thing for an elected official. It's something else for a 16 year old or 14 year old or 12 year old. So I think it's needed. And I think I just want to be sure that we get it right and that we don't accidentally.
get somebody in a net That shouldn't be
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
26:18
there. Senator Clark if that one element the first name and last name is a sticking factor I'd be more than happy to strike that we can either do it through a voice amendment or sit on minutes waiting on others I'd be fine with that. I think it's needed But it's that's not a sticking point for me as long as the intent of the bill gets through.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
26:35
I just again want to To bring it up. Yes, sir Other questions from the committee Senator Hendrick.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
26:49
well. I do think that Senator Clark's suggestion there about the first and last name is something that ought to be considered because it could be so easily included, not even realizing the person might have been a minor, and then you're left with the situation. I do think your safeguards are pretty good, but nevertheless, unless you get somebody in a position who repeats somebody's first and last name, potentially subject to a Class C felony,
I think that might ought to be looked at at least pulling that out or making it a
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
27:26
higher level or something. Senator, I know our rules allow for voice amendments. If you want to strike that through voice amendment, if the
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
27:35
committee allowed, I'd be more than willing to do that right now. Let's hear. We've got some people, I think, I have
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
27:43
a question. For and against, so we'll wait. I have a question. Senator Flowers, you're recognized. Thank you. So, Senator Garner, in this subsection A on the first page, where you define what personally identifying information means,
Are you trying to say that all of these items The date of birth, the first and last name, residential address Telephone number, so security and on and on Through K on the second page, line two Have to be included in this social media post Or
just one of these items Ma'am, since I believe that J, it
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
28:24
has or, I think it's or, so it'd be one of, either one of those
Speaker 60
28:30
could potentially be one of the elements used.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
28:34
So if any one of these personally identifying information, a telephone number, if that's posted, then that would qualify for that element, personally identifying information. Is that what you're saying? Yes, ma'am. And a residential address. Yes, ma'am.
So even if it could be someone else's shared residential address, have you considered that?
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
29:14
Yes, ma'am. I believe you're putting somebody's name out there and address. No, address. And address. Yes, ma'am. I'm saying if you put somebody's address out there, if you get the address incorrect, but you still have the malice intent and the viral storm happens, then you have an issue. There has been cases of misidentifying people online. You know, if you look, there's usually big cases. say like john smith had a racist incident well people will go look up a john smith on social
media and attack them even though it's their own john smith
Speaker 98
29:44
that's a hypothetical i'm talking about the residential address that's my point let me
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
29:49
finish my point address is shared yes ma'am so how would you uh distinguish that that is personally identifying information uh of a minor if adults live at the residential address as well. Yes, ma'am. You still have
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
30:03
to have the minor information be shared. So if you shared an address without it that isn't a minor there,
you would not qualify as a minor living there. But back to my point, you can give out the wrong information on an attack
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
30:21
of somebody, and that is a terrible thing that happens in society. No, I don't think I'm making myself clear to you, But I'm saying if someone posts a residential address and there are multiple persons residing at the address, including adults, how would you even determine whether they are making a reference and
intending or knowingly intending to harass, intimidate, abuse, threaten a minor?
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
30:55
Because of the overall context and nature of the post that is made. I don't understand what you're saying. If you post my address, which is public information online, and that's all you post, that would not qualify as harassing behavior, nor would my son have a reasonable fear that he would be hurt. If you post my address with go get Senator Garner's child and harm him, then you would meet the additional elements. Simply putting an address on social media isn't enough to qualify for the rest of the elements of the crime.
So it doesn't matter if a person lives there. Imagine if 100 adults live there. If you're targeting that minor, which would be part of this, that's when this
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
31:39
would qualify. Otherwise, it wouldn't be applicable to that person. I don't see that connection. It seems like the first element has to be, and the only qualifier to making this a crime, really is personally identifying the information, which could be any one of these things, including that residential address.
And so I don't see where you have what the content has to be. All you say here on the second page is starting with six, if you knowingly disseminate the personally identifying information with the purpose of. Of a minor, ma'am, of a minor. I understand that. So it would have to qualify back to the
Speaker 103
32:21
minor. My question, Mr. Garner. It would have to qualify back to
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
32:32
a minor, ma'am. I understand that point. And that's why I'm trying to make you understand my question is as far as the distinction between adults living at the residential address and a minor.
So if someone is engaged on social media and there is a thread and questions are going back and forth or statements are going back and forth and an address is posted, does that mean that somebody can be charged with this crime that you've created here under this bill? If they meet the
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
33:03
additional requirements of the law and the content and nature of the post is one of a threatened and harassing nature and the child has a known reasonable fear of it, then you couldn't meet the elements.
That's a very high standard. And in your example, I rarely doubt
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
33:21
that would come up. Well, if an adult is in the home or residence, and they are subject to threatening, harassing, and all these
other things you have in B1 on the second page starting at 8, how do you figure
it's going to be determined whether they're talking about the adult or the minor? Because it says
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
33:45
of a minor, you'd have to identify the minor.
That's why I think the first name and last name is important as well. Easy context reading of any kind of social media posts by any reasonable legal mind would clearly distinguish those
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
34:02
two factors. Well, if you're going to take the first and last name out, and if all you need is a residential address, I don't think you are reasoning, your reasoning is sound. Okay, Senator Flowers. That's just my opinion. Thank you. Thank
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
34:16
you. I think the question's been answered and your point's been made.
Senator Garner, you use social media quite a bit. Yes, sir. To address that question, have you had the
reason, ever had a reason to post an address on social media? of a person's location
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
34:43
as far as i'm concerned no i posted addresses for like i'll be at x event and this is the address you can come to or other things like that i think businesses but not
a personal address that i can recall 10 years
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
34:58
on social media i can say the only time i've ever posted addresses is when
somebody is in search of if they're interested in a seafood restaurant or if they're interested in where to buy a wallpaper or whatever. Other than that, I cannot imagine putting an address on social media. Senator Raper could probably tell you a
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
35:19
little bit more about that. He had a blogger who put his personal information out there in a way that,
while not directly probably intimidating harassment, was done in a way to intimidate and harass him. Sure. No, that's what,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
35:35
but I said, I haven't, seen any way that would be innocent other than sharing business information, etc. But, of course, this applies to minors. Yes, sir. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, we have Jeff Rosen-Swag, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, signed up to testify against.
Speaker 109
36:01
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of problems with this bill. Senator
Speaker 111
36:07
Garner referred to what apparently is an extreme anecdote. But as a general rule, who's going to be doing this? It's going to be other teenagers having the feuds and what have you that other teenagers do. Do we really want to felonize the type of thing that is wrong in a strictly moral sense,
but people who simply don't have the judgment? One way this bill could be improved is to provide that a minor cannot, in fact, violate this law, that the perpetrator of this needs to be an adult. That way we don't felonize a bunch of teenagers. That's the first thing. Second, of course, is that making it a felony under every circumstance.
Senator Garner referred to Kentucky, the kids from Kentucky. Well, I looked up what Kentucky was doing about this. There is a bill knocking around the Kentucky legislature, Senate Bill number 96. Now, what does Senate Bill number 96 do? It's essentially the same language, but it's a misdemeanor unless actual injury occurs. This would make it a felony even though no injury has occurred,
but merely someone purports to be in fear of something. So, I mean, even the Kentucky legislature, at least with the bill that's going through there right now, doesn't go as far as this bill does. I will also point out that there are a number of statutes that deal with this problem already. harassment, harassing communication, stalking, cyberbullying, that type of thing. It's really
not needed. I'll also point out another problem with it. The number of things of personally identifying information is phrased in the disjunctive. In other words, any of these things can be, you know, can be an element of defense. Not only first and last thing, but also school or employment locations. I mean, you could commit this offense, apparently, the way I read it,
if you just posted that some person who's a student at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas did X or Y. Well, you know, the location of a school is obviously a matter of public information. It can't possibly, shouldn't be a crime to, you know, to disclose the location of a school that is attended by several thousand people. Anyway, so for all these reasons,
this bill goes, even if there is a problem that this deals with that's not already handled by half a dozen other statutes, it goes way too far by essentially felonizing a bunch of teenagers and felonizing when there is no actual injury. And I would, at the very least, this needs to be amended to make it to exclude teenagers from being a defendant and make it no more than a misdemeanor if no injury has actually occurred.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
40:05
And I'm happy to answer any questions you
might have. Senator Hendren, then Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had not thought about that, and having raised four teenagers, you're telling me that if a kid says something disparaging about another kid and tags in their Facebook account or Twitter account, they could be subject to a three to ten
Speaker 111
40:33
year prison felony sentence? That's what this says. That's what this says. And, I mean, it doesn't, it, you know, you could have two high school students who are, there are a lot of students, for instance, who are 18 years old, and they're adults, they can't even be sent to juvenile court, but they're still in high school, and who are having some sort of Facebook war, Twitter war, that type of thing.
Speaker 118
40:57
Obviously, it's not something you want to encourage, but do you
Speaker 119
41:04
really want to make this a felony for these kids? You said we have some
Representative David Ray
Unverified
41:10
other statutes, bullying or anti-bullying or whatever. So what
Speaker 120
41:13
is the penalty now for a teenager doing that to another teenager? Generally speaking, these
Speaker 111
41:20
are misdemeanors. But is it a misdemeanor now to do that? Harassment, harassing communications are misdemeanors. Stalking can be a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on what is happening.
Although the felony stalking involves generally personal presence. Thank you. Senator
Speaker 122
41:48
was followed through and there was injury? Well, if there was
Speaker 125
41:55
physical injury, then you would have a battery
Speaker 111
41:59
or that type of thing, which could be charged as that, and the person could be deemed as an accomplice to a battery,
even if the one didn't do the actual thing, the actual offense, the physical act. But as I say, I wonder, the Kentucky legislation, it's a misdemeanor unless there's an actual injury, and if it's an actual injury, then it would be a felony under those circumstances. So, Chairman, so
Speaker 122
42:31
you would agree if the action was followed through at minor versus minor that the felony would be appropriate at that time?
Speaker 111
42:48
Well, you know, I don't think the bill is necessary at all, but if there is a perceived need to have it, it needs to be more tightly focused as to what you're trying to get at. And as I say, I don't think, I think minors should be just excluded from the, when I say minor, I think we define this as people under 20.
In other words, so you get everyone, in other words, you exclude everyone who's in high school to do this. But if a person is actually hurt, that's going to be, I mean, suffers a physical injury. That's already punishable by various battery assault, attempted murder, and other statutes like that.
Speaker 122
43:51
Can I follow? So you were saying minor.
is there any other code section that would define a minor as under 20? Because, I
Speaker 111
44:06
mean, those, at 18, they can go to war. But that is correct. But, for instance, in some of the sex statutes, for instance, A number of years ago, there were changes to the law to make age 20 the dividing line in those cases specifically so you wouldn't have the situation of catching high school students who are 18 or maybe 19.
And so it's not unprecedented. Obviously, if you're 18 years old, you can go to war, but you can't buy a drink legally. In the same light, what
Speaker 122
45:06
charges can bring a person less than 18 under adult charges in the state of Arkansas?
Speaker 111
45:21
person and, you know, in the juveniles, how old the alleged perpetrator is, precisely what the charges are. And then, of course, there is the extended juvenile jurisdiction statute where someone is treated as a juvenile, but nonetheless, if hasn't been fully rehabilitated, has an adult sentence.
So you'd have to take a look at any particular thing. And 17-year-olds generally are prosecutable as adults for most anything. Thank you. Senator Ross, you're
Chair
Unverified
46:09
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
46:15
do appreciate the points that you bring up, and I listened
to this, I was thinking about the bill we had in a previous session that had good intentions, but it had a fishing pole listed as a weapon and had consequences of making young people a felon. And I pushed back on that, and it concerned me, and there are some concerns here, too. I do see the point of we have a lot of immature young people going up to higher age and adulthood.
I feel like more than we have before. You mentioned that you felt there was a need to change, and something you said struck in my mind about the current law, minor versus minor. Are the prosecuting attorneys, will they even look at any of that stuff
Speaker 125
47:31
on social media, minor versus minor?
It depends on the particular prosecutor.
Speaker 111
47:38
I mean, we've got 28, I think it's 28 separate judicial districts, 28 elected prosecutors. And just like with pretty much every other offense, they have different attitudes toward things. They have deputies who may have more or less free reign on making decisions.
And so what happens in Pulaski County may not be what happens in Randolph County, that type of thing. But we're making a law for the whole state and we need to deal with what what the law, what the letter of the law says, in addition to rather than just trusting what we trust, we trust the prosecutor. There are any number of cases where, you know, cases are reversed by the appellate courts because the prosecutor and or the court misinterpreted the law about this or that or used poor judgment.
I mean, so many things are subject to debate, but it strikes me as currently written as
Speaker 109
48:59
running the risk of having an effect that you don't want to have. I mean, similar to,
Speaker 111
49:10
of course, every kid's phone now has a camera and someone takes a picture of himself or herself that's not polite company and they send it to their buddy.
You don't want that to be child pornography, technically, you know, it might be. So you just, you don't want to write a statute like that. You don't want to run the risk of having a misinterpretation or a misapplication of the
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
49:45
statute. But as you said, you know, if the bill is going to proceed, that you feel like some changes are needed. That's correct. But, you know, we need to do something to get some people's attention,
and normally we do that by ratcheting up penalties and trying not to go
too far. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
50:13
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rosenzweig, I guess my first
question is, do you have specific amendments for Senator Garner? I don't
Speaker 143
50:25
have them. I could write something out for him.
Speaker 111
50:30
What I would suggest is that the easily writable out and I could send it to him within a couple of hours, But one would be to establish that this can only be committed by someone over a certain age, and I would suggest 20 or 21, so you get everyone who's out of high school, or you don't have anyone who's stuck in high school.
Secondly, I would follow, at least follow the Kentucky proposed legislation, which would make the reasonable fear a misdemeanor and felonize it only if there were an actual co-8 injury and not just merely
Speaker 109
51:21
a fear. And I'm, I think you've made some good points. On the
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
51:30
other hand, I also think Senator Garner is ahead of the curve.
The, and that's possibly a generational thing. I think this is worse than possibly some realize. I think it's going to get worse. And the, and while it's terrible when it comes from adults, I think he's got of a minor with a purpose to intimidate, abuse, threaten, harass, or frighten. As former youth pastor who's always working to protect young people,
there's some really mean young people. And there's other ways to be hurt than physically. A lot of times, in fact, that we'll find that the people who school shootings, when we come back and ask the questions later, it's somebody who's been bullied and intimidated and harassed and the school didn't do anything. Law enforcement didn't do anything because these things are not, and it was one thing when it was just in person.
Now you can spread it like wildfire and there's no running from it. So while I don't want to accidentally send a teenager, put a class C felony on a teenager where one should not exist, I also don't think I want to exempt teenagers completely either. I think that's where a huge part of your problem is in doxing, et cetera. Yes? Well, one way
Speaker 111
53:20
to split the difference on that is make it a misdemeanor if the defendant is under the age of 20 in a felony
or if the person is over the age of 20 or over the age of 20 and an actual injury occurs. And, of course, if you make it a misdemeanor, the juvenile court can deal with it and you won't have the, you know, or it's not going to felonize that person.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
53:51
Because I don't know that some of us understand how devastating some of this can be and just how mean some people can be.
and like I said your points are taken as Senator Henry's and mine that we don't want to catch we don't want to catch people on the net that we didn't mean to but at the same time I do think Senator Garner, because I remember I had a friend that tried to get law enforcement's attention on those who were going after children via the internet and they threatened to put him in prison.
He actually did a sting of his own and ended up, there's people in prison today with life sentences because of it, and the help he got was the FBI said, because what's on your computer, we're going to put you in prison. Now, you know, you see all these stings and all this stuff going on everywhere, but he was ahead of the curve because he saw what was happening before it was happening, and I think that's where Senator Garner is on this, and again, we don't want to do it wrong, but I think he's really
on point on something that I think you're wrong on the fact that it doesn't need to be done so I respect you and if you've got if you want to offer him language I'm happy
Speaker 118
55:16
to do so I can send it to him later today I assume his email is on the website and I
Speaker 122
55:30
Sir we you know Well, with due consideration of the chair, you know, we've discussed the first name
and last name. What's not on the list is image or photograph. And that's pretty descriptive of a person, and would that and should that be included in that list rather than first name and last name? You know, I
Speaker 143
56:01
hadn't thought directly about that, and of course the problem is when you
Speaker 111
56:08
photograph, you have a question of what level of clarity the photograph has to be. Is it the back of the person's head or the side view, or is the person wearing a mask? You have all sorts of definitional issues, you know, on that point. I'd have to think about that further, but that's, you know, you have, there are photographs that clearly identify a particular person and others that simply do not.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
56:54
that. Thank you, sir. Other questions from the committee? Hearing none, we have one more
to speak against the bill. John Toll from
Speaker 148
57:09
Quattlebaum, Grooms and Toll. Ms. Chairman, committee members, I appreciate you letting me speak.
I've brought up a lot of points that I would
Speaker 150
57:19
please identify yourself. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I'm John Tull. I'm a lawyer
Speaker 148
57:25
focusing on First Amendment. I've been practicing for 35 plus years and a large part of my practice has been First Amendment in various forms. And I'm a strong believer in our First Amendment rights. I talked to Senator Garner yesterday. I appreciate him giving me the opportunity to talk to him on the telephone.
And I told him, as many of you have noted, that I laud his intent. Anybody who has children or grandchildren understands the impact of social media and the repercussions. And I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. Kids can be mean. I've got two older kids and I've got a 16-year-old daughter. And my observation is 16-year-old girls are darn mean in social media. So I laud Senator Garner for trying to think about a solution.
But I think, as you all have mentioned, I think you're going to encapture a lot of things that you don't intend to. And like most things, when you attempt to curb the First Amendment, I think it's a slippery slope and you have consequences that you don't intend. Mr. Chairman, you brought up Greta Thornburg, and that's instantly what came to my
Speaker 151
58:41
mind yesterday when I started thinking about when I looked at the bill. You have situations,
Speaker 148
58:49
you have some minors who do seek the attention, who have a platform to become a public figure who want to engage in a discourse, and under this bill, you are exactly right. If you say something in an essay, in a letter to the editor, you post something on your personal feed, you violate this bill by mentioning her name. You also violate the bill so many times we get
emails from people. And if you forward that email from the person and say, you know, look what this person said, and it's a minor, they may have initiated the conversation, but by forwarding that email, you again violate this statute. Now, I think what Senator Garner attempts to do, and I again laud him, you know, he says it's for the intention of inciting that, but it's a chicken and egg thing. The person who sends, who forwards the message or even identifies by name, they're
always going to say, with not my intent, I just wanted to express my opinion, my public First Amendment right to have an opinion that I'm against what this person is saying. But it's the people who read it who might become incited by it whether they intend it or not. So how are you going to stop that? I think as Mr. Rosenzweig said, what you run the risk of is in capturing having people going to their prosecuting and saying this person identified by name or
forwarded the email or they forwarded a tweet that someone said so they identified them which meets these criteria for this legislation. And I don't. I think that's a bad thing. I think you're going to capture a lot more than you want. I also don't think it's necessary. You've got two statutes, the cyber bully statute 571-217 and the stalking statute 571-229 that answers it. If there is
someone who is being a cyber bully, and that's, I think it fits the definition, then you already have statutes that are more narrowly defined, and so you don't run the risk of capturing so much. Also, as you have noted, I don't think it accomplishes it, because it first doesn't have an image, it doesn't have a photograph, and it doesn't have the video which led to the Sandman situation. Now, as I understand from Senator Garner, this statute was modeled after
the Kentucky anti-doxing bill, which is Senate Bill 182, and that's failed twice in the legislature of Kentucky. And the reason is, is because of concerns that it's too broad and also First Amendment concerns, because it was noted that if a parent, if the parents of that child had gone on social media to express outrage,
they're violating it themselves. Or if you as a parent, if your child is on Snapchat or Facebook or whatever is being made fun of, and you go on and you post that that child is bullying your child, you have violated that statute. So in sticking up for your child, you yourself have violated that statute. For all those reasons and for the reasons, Mr. Rosenzweig, I laud the intent of Senator Garner.
Again, I have a 16-year-old teenage girl, and I understand it, But I don't think this bill is narrowly enough drafted to avoid unintended consequences and cause First Amendment issues for anybody who's active on social media. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Senator Hendrick, you're recognized.
Chair
Unverified
1:03:06
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what is the penalty now
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:03:14
for cyberbullying? That's what I was trying to understand is if we already have penalties for that, what are they?
Chair
Unverified
1:03:22
i haven't i haven't looked it up i understand it it's a misdemeanor although i understand again depending on
Speaker 150
1:03:37
was trying to show that i'm not technically capable of receiving it from him
It's a class B misdemeanor, and it's a class A misdemeanor. The victim is
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:04:02
a school employee. Okay, which is no prison time. What is the penalty for that for us novices? The class B
Speaker 169
1:04:11
misdemeanor is up to 90 days in jail. Class A is up to
Speaker 158
1:04:17
one year. Senator Henry, obviously I'm not a criminal lawyer. Okay. Apologize.
Chair
Unverified
1:04:22
And I think that's a point that a misdemeanor is a more
Speaker 148
1:04:31
appropriate penalty, particularly considering if, as Senator Clark, you noted, if we want to discourage that sort of behavior by teenagers, you certainly don't want to impose a three- to ten-year sentence on a young person who's made a stupid mistake or got over-enthused in piling on.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:04:54
So the Kentucky law, you mentioned that a bill similar to this has failed. But I also heard they do have a law which makes it a misdemeanor or a felony unless there's harm or damage or whatever, somebody
Speaker 124
1:05:11
hurt. Is that what they have in Kentucky right now? That's
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:05:14
my, that's. No, it's a proposal. It's proposed.
Speaker 151
1:05:19
But they haven't passed any of it yet?
Speaker 150
1:05:23
Yes. Okay. All right. And, and Senator, with your, with that, with
Speaker 148
1:05:28
your thought on that, I would, I would also note a concern of what exactly is the intimidation.
I mean, how far are you going to with, with the intent to intimidate? Does that cover, for instance, ghosting somebody? Because that's what kids do nowadays to really isolate somebody is they're going to ghost them, and they're going to have all their friends ghost them, meaning they're going to quit communicating with them at all. I mean, that is an effort, arguably, at
Speaker 176
1:05:52
intimidation. And, again, I don't know that you want to go that far. Don't know that I don't.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:06:05
Again, maybe I work with young people more
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:06:09
than you. Senator Carter. Thank you. So you mentioned cyberbullying being enough to cover this. Have you looked at the actual elements of what
Speaker 177
1:06:17
that covers as far as communication goes? I have. I have, Senator. Because if
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:06:23
I'm reading this correct, a person commits the offense of cyberbullying if he or she sends or posts a communication by electronic means. So actually you saying that that is more narrow is apparently false since the communication could be any type
of information sent, not the specific defined elements I have in this. I don't
Speaker 158
1:06:40
think it's, I don't, I disagree with you, Senator.
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:06:44
So you're disagreeing that seven or eight specifically listed elements of what a personal identifiable information is less narrow than communications, which is defined as basically two people talking to each other by electronic means. I think it's the intent that you
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:07:01
exact same kind of intent to purpose, to frighten, cohere, intimidate, threaten abuse or harass other people, actually the exact same language that we find in my bill.
Chair
Unverified
1:07:14
The purpose of citing that, Mr. Garner, is simply that I don't think your
Speaker 148
1:07:19
bill is necessary. I think that your bill expands it beyond more than cyberbullying, and I think that's a concern that both Mr. Rosenzweig and I had with it. Thank you, sir.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:07:38
Mr. Toll, you said specifically, I was listening and paying attention and thought you made some good points,
but you said specifically that parents on media, TV, who were dismayed at their children having been harassed, such as the Sandman child, would be violating the statute? How? Two things first. With respect to Sandman,
Speaker 148
1:08:13
again, I think the system worked in that there was a recovery against the news organizations.
And what I specifically meant with that, Mr. Chairman, is that if a parent's child is getting bullied or harassed for a photograph or whatever, If they go on their Facebook account or they go on Twitter or Snapchat or whatever and say, you know, John Tull is, you know, spreading falsehoods about my child and I want it to stop and I ask that everybody ask him to stop.
Speaker 151
1:08:57
You have violated that statute because you've identified me by name or if you have forwarded an email that
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:09:08
tweet. Okay, so you're saying not that they come out and say that my child's been abused, harassed, intimidated, and it's not fair, it should stop. You're saying that they come out and name another teenager. Yes, sir. Okay, well,
Speaker 176
1:09:23
that's... Well, they're trying to stop the abuse of their child by
Speaker 148
1:09:28
identifying the person that is abusing their child who is intimidating them, who is harassing them through social media.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:09:36
That's what I'm saying. I'm not their attorney, but I know you and I would both advise them not to do that without this law. I would, but people don't always listen to me. There are other laws already on the books that would make that unwise. So, but there's nothing specifically here, because they'd have to have the purpose with their own child of intimidating, abusing, threatening. But you brought up also the ghosting.
And while I don't think that's here, you know, one of
my first experiences in this building was being in a small group where they try to remove every type
of social, spiritual network contact that you have and isolate you for weeks
to get you to do what they want you to do. And as other bright new freshmen came in and we're going to stand and I began to tell them, I'm not going to be unhappy with you if
you don't, because not everybody can do this. But I'm a grown adult.
And so this idea, back to school shootings, as somebody who works with teenagers, I think a lot of times that we endorse harassment in schools.
We will allow the bullies to harass, you know, well, there's nothing we can do, until the child who's being harassed and bullied reacts, well, you can't actually hit somebody. Although you've been threatened that you're going to be hit, or you've been threatened you're going to be beat up. And, you know, I've watched this all my life. And that we
actually, and so that's what I'm hearing here, is that while I want to protect free speech, and I want to be careful we don't catch the wrong people, that we
come back and we say, well, well, we've got to allow actions that we know, because you talked about the ghosting. That is intended to harass and hurt. And not just one or two. I mean, you were describing
Speaker 38
1:12:04
a big group socially isolating a teenager who probably, and I guess, you know, my
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:12:14
other experience has been a pastor's kid
befriending the kid who didn't have any friends, who was the one more likely to commit suicide, who was the one, you know, and that we as adults, well, they're just teenagers. I don't want a teenager hung with a class C felony. I'm with y'all on that. But on the other hand, just
to say these behaviors and that we've now got a way that they just, they've exploded and they're going to continue to explode
and just say, well, that's just, we're just going
to wink at it and let it go. When, when, I mean, that's like winking at drug abuse or and other type of
Speaker 148
1:13:07
behaviors, is it not? Mr. Chairman, I think you and I could totally agree on the ills of social media and how much more difficult it is being a teenager in this environment of social media. I mean, it is so harmful and so difficult, but the question is the difficulty of legislating it and how you're going to capture those situations that you and I are both concerned about versus something that is unintended while still providing for free speech.
And I think a lot of the difficulty, a lot of the problems are with the platforms not enforcing policies. And I suspect there's going to be federal legislation trying to address that. But without it, it's very difficult. Because
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:13:58
this does have in it with the purpose. I mean, I can see room for amendments, but with the purpose to intimidate, abuse, threaten, harass or frighten.
And I guess, too, you know, so many things go back to high school, but I lived two different lives. I was, I lived a
life of being threatened and bullied, and then worked at a lumber yard, became much stronger than I realized, and became football captain, and I lived two different lives. And I can tell you
that side over there where you're pushed around and threatened and so on, that's not any fun.
And for us just to ignore that and say, well, they're just being kids, because you have to get to the purpose that you're sharing information for the purpose. of hurting someone. And while I heard all this about tightening it up, I'm with you, but I don't get the, well, kids are going to be kids,
which is what I was hearing. I don't get that. If
Speaker 148
1:15:26
did a poor job of explaining. I'm not saying kids are going to be kids. I'm saying that you're going to have to get into the middle of social media legislation for all teenagers because that is how they communicate. And you have a very difficult job day to day in trying to legislate that where teenagers are concerned
because no one uses social media more. No one uses social media more to intimidate, to harass, et cetera. And I'm not sure that... But it looks
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:16:01
to me like under this bill that I can tell Jim that he is a four-letter, four-letter, four-letter jerk. And as long as I'm not telling everybody where he lives,
where he lives, you know, et cetera, et cetera, I'm okay. Am
Speaker 148
1:16:31
I wrong? Well, you're getting into lots of free speech issues here, Senator. I mean, you are correct that this bill does not address verbal abuse, verbal intimidation. That is not captured by this bill.
It is about doxing. It is not doxing. so again because that's
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:16:56
what we talk about teenagers going back and forth on on
social media it's one thing you know they're having conversations they're saying things they shouldn't say but that's not what this is about i mean this seems to be pretty clear again there there seems to be some more language that may need to be here but it seems to be pretty clear you're sharing information we know what people are doing
We're sharing information particularly so that other people can go after them. That's what this is about, and we're saying that's what, if we pass this, we would be saying it's not permissible to share people's private information so that other people can go after them viciously is what really, and you're saying we don't want them accidentally because they're mad at each other and they're saying terrible things to each other. And I don't see how that's even accidentally here.
Speaker 148
1:17:58
Well, it all, again, goes down to the intent. And whether someone is intending to just give somebody a bad time, whether someone is acting out of anger or whatnot, I think you could fall under that bill. I mean, the knowingly disseminate for the purpose to intimidate, abuse, threaten, harass, or frighten the minor. I mean, harassment is pretty broad. I mean, anytime you're going to call a person by name in a minor by name, if you're another minor
in a social media posting, then you arguably have violated this, how I read this. And that's That's my concern. Could you repeat that, please? Sure. If I think, again, my focus is that you're capturing more than you intend to. And I think the biggest perpetrator. What did you just say? I'm getting to it. One of the biggest perpetrators of the social media abuse are teenagers who use that platform.
And what I'm saying is that if a person does post because they're mad, because they do intend to harass, then they fall under this. And I don't know that you want to begin trying to legislate and control all social media
Speaker 151
1:19:24
posts. That may be what, Mr. Chairman, what you want, but I don't, I think you unintentionally or that you capture that kind of action by this bill.
Chair
Unverified
1:19:39
And I don't know that that is the doxing that Senator Garner wanted to address.
Speaker 49
1:19:44
Senator Garner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the sake of time, I'm going to pull this bill down, but I'll make a
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:19:51
couple of comments if it's appropriate for the chair. Yes. First, I agree the felony is too much without the additional charges. I asked staff to draft this off to Kentucky, and they have multiple distinguishing factors on what could escalate it to a different felony. So I'll probably copy that language where it's a class A, then it goes with class D. I think that's a good job.
Just missed it in the drafting phase. That's my fault for not catching it. I will strongly push back on this as a First Amendment issue. If that's true, our identity of theft and our cyberbullying law right now are unconstitutional because that language is more broad, and I will not disclude minors. Part of the reason I brought this is I heard a story about an 18-year-old girl who was paraplegic, who at 18 years old inherited a big truss because of the injury she had. Her mother found her hanging in her closet by a USB cord
because girls in her school said she should be pushed off a mountain and kicked to death, and how she's a vegetable, and that drove her to kill herself. So, with all due respect for young kids making dumb mistakes, I think we all understand that. I
Speaker 90
1:20:57
will not pull them out because they can be just
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:21:01
as harmful as anything else. With that said, I'll pull this bill down and work on an amendment. Senator Garner, we appreciate you pulling it down. I would appreciate you. I know you've already visited with Mr. Toll. I would appreciate you visiting with Mr. Roosevelt with amendments that would be helpful to the bill, not to things that that you completely disagree with, including possibly a difference between minors and others.
Again, not pulling them out. I've expressed the same thing, but possibly a difference. And but again, we appreciate you pulling. First, we appreciate you bringing the bill. We appreciate you taking it down to work on it because I know you're as impatient as I am about getting things done. Thank you. Do we have Representative Evans amendment? Representative Evans?
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:22:03
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. In respect of your time,
I'll try to be brief today. I bring to you for your approval House Bill 1100. I want to thank my colleagues on the other end of the building who, through House, Judiciary, and on the House floor, passed this unanimously. The simple purpose of this bill is to expand and provide clarity as to who shall be included as mandated reporters in our public and private schools. Victims of child maltreatment should not be
subject to ambiguity. Representative Edwards, hold on just a moment. Senator
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:22:36
Garner? Do you want us to adopt the amendment or do you want to continue to just explain it? I mean, it's up to you. I don't care
Speaker 197
1:22:44
either way. Whatever your procedure is here on this end. We
Speaker 198
1:22:47
need to adopt the amendment. Staff says we should adopt the amendment first. That's what I thought.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:22:53
I'll second that. We've got a motion and a second to adopt the amendment. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion is signified by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Representative Evans, you're recognized to present your bill as amended.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:23:05
Thank you. Bringing back to you House Bill 1100 as amended, thank you for that vote. Victims of child maltreatment should not be subject to ambiguity and left unprotected due to the uncertainty in an adult's responsibility to report. I believe through consultation with legal counsel in the field of education along with members of state agencies that are charged with protecting and protection of child services is that the expansion of this definition will help further protect our children and prevent the potential delay in getting assistance when these cases happen.
All we are doing in this is expanding the definition of a mandated reporter in our public and private schools. With that, I'll be happy to answer
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:24:00
any questions. Questions from the committee? Senator Ross, you're recognized. Thank you, Representative Avin. I appreciate the legislation. Do we have anybody signed up to speak on this?
Speaker 201
1:24:12
No. Did you have any input from the educators on
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:24:19
this? Yes, sir. We started out with legal counsel from our own district and then spread it out through superintendents and had them seek their legal counsel as well. That really is what steamrolled us into the language that is provided because there was so much uncertainty as to who a school official was,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:24:46
Okay. And I've had some educators that shared with me, you know, we, because of the society we're in now and all
their, their definition of their job has changed and we put more and more on them. And that's, again,
I agree with what you're doing, but I want to make sure that there's been sufficient discussion there. Thank you. Yes, sir.
Speaker 133
1:25:16
Senator Johnson. In the amendment, is your stricken teacher in the second amendment? Is there a
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:25:36
that also kind of was part of the original confusion. For instance, if you have a district that has an athletic trainer on site, they're not actually a teacher.
So what we try to do is to clarify in the original
Speaker 194
1:25:55
draft on line 24 and 25 that it would be a full-time or part-time employee of
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:26:09
a public school or private school. Representative Evans the
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:26:15
purpose of this is clarification yes so in the original statute it was left that
it was noted that as a school official so when we started talking to administrators across the state and asking them what their opinion was of a school official. It was a very broad range of what they thought a school official was. Most importantly, what we found out was that administrators felt like a school official was
someone that carried a title, whether they were a principal or a superintendent or assistant superintendent. What we found out, though, was that the actual intent was
to include people such as bus drivers, custodians, cafeteria workers, school nurses. They're not actually a school official, but yet they're the ones that typically are on the front line of those relationships with the students. And quite often the ones that
students feel most comfortable talking to rather than going to the principal's office. That's generally not a good thing if you had called in for that. okay so we're clarifying and not adding
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:27:21
that is correct okay other questions from the committee
hearing none center johnson were you finished okay uh hearing none uh representative evans would you like to close
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:27:48
for your bill Yes, sir. Again, committee, I appreciate the time being here today and close for the bill
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:27:57
and ask for a good vote as amended. Motion. Motion do pass from Senator Garner. Second from Senator Ballinger. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations. Representative Evans, you have passed your bill as amended.
it. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Senator Hendren, I have an amendment for Representative Dalby's House Bill 1058. If I can find all of it. Yeah. Well, I'm going to run the amendment.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:29:14
Senator Clark, you're recognized to explain
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:29:26
the amendment to the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's walk through the amendment, if you don't mind. The
bill was well received, but on the floor we had lots of questions and suggestions. So, the amendment, page 1, delete lines 30 through 36.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:30:06
a list. Okay. And page 2, delete lines 1 through 4. It's making the bill much simpler and substitute the following eligible nonprofit entity. So beginning at the bill on page one, line 29, compensation or mileage reimbursement or both that he or she receives to an eligible statewide nonprofit entity.
Okay. Then it will read from that point, the administrative office of the court shall compile a list of eligible nonprofit entities to which a person receiving per diem compensation or mileage reimbursement or both under this chapter may make his or her donation under this section and compiling the list of eligible nonprofit entities described under subdivision of this section. the office shall consult with the Supreme Court and the Arkansas Judicial Council Inc. to determine the eligible nonprofit entities under this section. The office is encouraged to seek input through
public comment while compiling the list of eligible nonprofit entities. An eligible nonprofit entity should have as one of its primary goals the providing of and then we go back to the bill Bill, page two, line five, and it lists the A through E. The bill is intact. So it takes out the five. That was one of the reservations that it be limited to five. And I wanted to
be sure that at least this committee is happy with the amendment. I want to get Representative Dalby's bill done and passed but I want to be sure that we've got the correct amendment so any questions on the amendment Senator Clark you moved to adopt the amendment I move to
Speaker 87
1:32:01
adopt the amendment if y'all are happy with it all in
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:32:06
favor say aye amendments adopted you want to go over
Speaker 87
1:32:09
the bill I know we've been over it once but yeah I think you pretty much understand the bill this
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:32:16
pretty much says it in the title an act to permit a juror to donate his or her per diem compensation mileage reimbursement to an eligible non-profit entity it now allows will instruct the administrative office of the courts to compile a list of eligible non-profit entities it's no longer limited to five they will be looking for non-profit entities that on the second page whose primary goals are the providing of crime victim assistance
in counseling or counseling services for abused or neglected children, shelter for victims of domestic violence, services for veterans, or legal education for students seeking a Juris Doctorate degree. And they are to seek public comment as they compile that list. I'd be happy to take any questions. Okay, you've heard an explanation. Any
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:33:08
questions? Anybody here to speak for or against? All right. You want to close or have you closed? I'm
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:33:16
closed. I would make a motion do pass again if y'all are happy because I want everybody on the floor to be happy, too.
If there's anything anybody's unhappy with, we're happy to
Speaker 87
1:33:28
fix it. Motion do pass as amended. You got a question there, Senator
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:33:33
Stubbuffel? It's not a question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. It's just one of the main arguments
was that allowing these entities to arbitrarily pick these five. This is about as fair as you can get when you agree to choosing these five recipients. Yeah, and it's no longer five.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:33:54
It can be more than five. Right. And, yes, somebody has to do something. And I'll just, you know,
try not to open a can of worms, but trying to, you know, talk about our conversations. One of the things that was mentioned was being able to donate to just anyone. You know, and I thought about that as a businessman. I knew the clerks were not, they're not happy about it being more than five. But being able to donate to just anyone, I like that, is what happens when people put down a nonprofit that's not a nonprofit?
What do they do when it's clear? How do you find those people and get them their money back or find out who they were? So it's nothing's perfect, but I think taking public comment, compiling a list, because you can always just take your money yourself. and donate it to whoever you want to donate it to. This is just a way, in fact, I had one gentleman conservative who I think a lot of who said this is not, told me since I'm the Senate sponsor, this is not a conservative bill.
And because we've got the government doing something that people can do on their own. And I thought about it and I disagree because we as conservatives believe in people doing things privately whenever possible versus the government doing it and so just taking the money and doing it yourself I agree with that but in that vein making it easy for people to do to take it to the non-profit is conservative so I would like it to be probably myself more
wide open but you also have to realize how difficult it is for those actually handling it And I think this is probably a pretty good compromise. Go ahead, Senator. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:35:52
I totally agree because not every nonprofit that applies is a nonprofit. And to go through this process would certainly make sure that those are verified. Thank you. And it could always be amended in
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:36:04
the future. People saw things that needed to be added to it because I think it's a good thing.
Speaker 87
1:36:11
Was that also a second to the motion there, Senator Stofield? Okay. Any
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:36:17
other discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion is
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:36:22
carried. Senator Hendren, Mr. Chair, I do not see us meeting again before next Wednesday. And if you want to gavel us out, I think we're done. All right, we'll adjourn until next Wednesday.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1058 Dalby TO PERMIT A JUROR TO DONATE HIS OR HER PER DIEM COMPENSATION AND MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT TO AN ELIGIBLE NONPROFIT ENTITY.
HB1119 Lundstrum CONCERNING THE FIRST AND SECOND DISTRICTS OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1222 Dalby CONCERNING THE POSITIONS AND SALARIES OF SUPREME COURT LAW CLERKS AND COURT OF APPEALS LAW CLERKS.
HB1100 Evans TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INDIVIDUALS LISTED AS MANDATED REPORTERS UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT.
SB170 T. Garner TO PROHIBIT THE UNLAWFUL DISSEMINATION OF PERSONALLY-IDENTIFYING INFORMATION CONCERNING A MINOR VIA A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM.
Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Feb 3, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Speaker 19
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
Speaker 30
Speaker 40
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 55
Speaker 59
Senator Bob Ballinger
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 87
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Speaker 60
Speaker 98
Speaker 103
Speaker 109
Speaker 111
Speaker 118
Speaker 119
Speaker 120
Speaker 113
Speaker 72
Speaker 122
Speaker 125
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 143
Speaker 126
Speaker 23
Speaker 148
Speaker 150
Speaker 151
Speaker 164
Speaker 169
Speaker 158
Speaker 124
Speaker 176
Speaker 177
Speaker 38
Speaker 90
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
Speaker 197
Speaker 198
Speaker 201
Speaker 133
Speaker 128
Speaker 194
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified