Slashdot Mirror
Criminal Libel, Free Speech And The Net
If the youth is so charged, it will mark the first criminal libel case in Utah history involving the Internet, and one of the first anywhere.
His father told reporters his son was fighting back against hostile peers. "For him, it was just a tit-for-tat thing. Everything he has done up to this point was in retaliation for what other kids did, stuff that was just as vulgar and just as hurtful. For me, the question isn't whether [my son] is going to be held accountable. It's whether the others are going to be held to the same standard."
Not likely. In 21st Century America, harassment and cruelty are fine as long as you don't do it on a computer.
The Net is raising new questions not only about copyright, but about the limits of speech and commentary in cyberspace -- a culture in which the First Amendment sometimes seems almost timid, perhaps even inadequate. It also focuses more attention on epidemic Net hostility and cruelty, against which some people may begin to take formal action. Public net postings are frequently vicious, and sometimes anonymous posters traditionally bear no responsibility for the the wantonly stupid things they sometimes say. In the context of all the other conflicts over the movement of intellectual property and speech online, some sort of legal response seems almost inevitable.
In the overall context of personal and commercial Net traffic, assaultive comments are rare. Hardly any result in actual physical harm. But as the Utah incident demonstrates, that doesn't mean they're inconsequential. The anonymous Utah Web site was vulgar and offensive, but compared to many public flames, only tepid. Flaming is obnoxious -- most of it is profoundly inane -- but the idea that it's libelous has lots of implications for life online. And none of them are good.
Questions of online responsibility for words are difficult. Anonymity is easy on the Net, and it's often impossible to know if comments online, no matter how shocking, are true or false. Vicious postings can be more damaging than the face-to-face-kind. They can be rapidly disseminated and accessed by countless numbers of people instantly.
They also occur in an environment of fear and confusion about the power of new information technologies. As with copyright, historic notions of libel and accountability may not realistically apply to this new kind of social geography.
On his Web site, the Utah high teenager allegedly called school personnel "drunks" and some female classmates "sluts." He also cast doubt on the work ethic and competency of several faculty members. He concedes the site -- put up partly in response to taunts and harassments from peers - was a mistake. He never threatened anyone with violence, and his friends and classmates vigorously deny that he was violent or menacing, or was even perceived that way. Some of his classmates told reporters he was "weird." The student said one reason school officials (they suspected him immediately) wanted him gone was that he had dyed his hair pink. He had also, said school officials, had frequent run-ins with the principal of his school and had an altercation during a football game last fall.
The teenager arrived in the small town of Milford five years ago, and had trouble fitting in from the first, said his classmates.
When school officials learned of the site on May 16, the principal notified the police, who seized the boy's computer and took it to the State Crime Laboratory for analysis. That same day, a Juvenile Court Judge ordered the student sent to Cedar City's juvenile detention center where he remained for several days until he was released.
He has left Utah and moved temporarily to his grandparents home in Southern California, pending a decision by county officials whether or not to bring criminal libel charges against him.
The Web site at issue here is, in some ways, the digital equivalent of the taunting and baiting that has always gone on in many American schools. But Net baiting raises new questions. For one thing, we are living in the post-Columbine hysteria, in which anger, alienation and offensive speech online is increasingly equated with danger -- and draws the attention of law enforcement. That makes it a powerful First Amendment issue. If a teenager calls one of his classmates a slut outside of school (but not online), it's hard to imagine he'd be arrested, driven out-of-state, or charged with criminal libel.
When he posts the same message on a Web site, it's almost assumed he could be a potential murderer, and police respond accordingly. This makes offensive speech a crime. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect offensive speech, even when it's obnoxious. When it becomes harmful, erroneous or defamatory, libel has always been the appropriate legal recourse. Libel laws don't, of course, when dealing with most public figures, or in the face of anonymity. But either way, the police aren't supposed to get involved.
The outcome of this case and others like it is critical. Free speech isn't the right to speak for free. The right to free speech in the United States means the right to be free from punishment by the government in retaliation for most speech. (It isn't absolute. You can criticize people, but you can't threaten them.) On the Net, speech has been almost completely free of interference from the government. The Utah case is a serious threat to that freedom, since the police activity isn't the result of threatening but offensive speech.
To grasp the significance, just imagine an Internet on which offensive speech becomes either criminal or libelous.
On our early-generation Internet, users have generally spoken and written (and downloaded) without inhibition or concern for any legal issues (like copyright or libel). If Utah officials and schools in other jurisdictions press ahead with this and other pending legal actions, that could change.
Along with copyright and patent lawsuits, libel actions are likely to become more commonplace online, as viciousness in posts and sites grows along with the number of people accessing the Net. The growing number of corporations and their battalions of lawyers moving online also are eager to curb unrestricted speech, as it creates -- in their minds -- hostile environments that discourage new consumers and thus are bad for business. Online hostility and viciousness could begin to have unpleasant consequences, especially for a free Internet.
Net incidents like this one seem to provoke especially irrational, even hysterical overreactions. People who say offensive things don't generally expect the police to come crashing into their homes, seize their computers, root through their e-mail and files, then toss them in jail for evaluation for a few days. This response seems obviously unconstitutional if applied to the offline, adult world. But post-Columbine, offensive and angry speech -- especially if it's delivered digitally -- is not just being banned but criminalized.
Beyond technology and commerce, the Net has become a bastion of both freedom and individualism. This is, in part, a positive side effect of the lack of inhibitions made possible by anonymity. The Net tradition of freedom has grown and become established at almost precisely the same time conventional media have become corporatized and homogenized.
America presents itself to the world as a free and morally superior culture. But in many respects, it is a bizarre and unconscious civilization. Even as it creates some of the most astonishing technology in the history of the planet, it willfully refuses to consider its implications in a sane way. The balancing of Net freedom against the right of individuals to go online without being assaulted or defamed is complicated, especially for a social system that responds to technology in such a simple-minded way.
Here, when troubled teenages lash out at peers and teachers online, we don't sit down with teachers, counselors, parents and administrators. We don't call Constitutional scholars, technologists and social scientists to ponder rational solutions to unprecedented techno-driven 21st century problems.
We call 911 and turn a kid who has trouble fitting in into both a refugee and a criminal suspect.
Although I'm sure many /.ers are passing this article off as old hat, I can assure you that issues like this must be dealt with. I'm a 16 year old internet junkie, and I've had several problems with my local highschool's policies. But if I post my frustrations about the school on the net I'm liable to get kicked out of school, banned from computers, and labled a criminal. Why? There's no logical or even reasonable justification for this. Now, I'm not saying that I should be allowed to call a member of the faculty a "drunkard" based upon an uninformed opinion- that does happen to constitute as libel. However, I, just as the student in this article, should be allowed to vent my frustrations about the school system and my peers without fear of the police. Last time I checked my American History books that's one of the main reasons the United States was formed. The ability to publish without fear of legal reprecussions is a liberty that should be enjoyed by all. This student did not make threatening comments, so he is not guilty of any conspiracy charges, yet he is still labled a "dangerous element of society." Why?! So a kid gets frustrated with his peers- big deal. If he had told his frustrations to an adult using the same language would he be sent off to jail? HELL NO What everyone seems to not take into account here is that this was just a way for one kid to vent his frustrations when no other recourse was offered or possible. Why should his computer be taken away from him? Why should he be sent to another state? Do you take away the printing presses of a newspaper simply because that paper calls president Clinton an "idiot"? No! Taking this child's computer was extremely unjustified. What did the police have to gain by taking the computer? The material was already published, and it wasn't even on this kid's computer!! So the taking of his computer was simply gratuidous. Schools have been trying to force students to conform to their standards outside of school for decades. This isn't really all that different. This student should not have had such a hard penality imposed upon him. He should be charged with libel, but for two reasons; he unjustly called faculty drunkards, and he didn't post a legal disclaimer on his page saying "these are only my personal opinions and may or may not have any basis for truth in reality." But then again, why should he have to? The article he wrote wasn't in a public forum (that being, a major newspaper or major newsite.) It was on his personal homepage; undoubtedly only accessable if you knew the exact hyperlink. Thus, it wasn't even intended to reach a vast audience. If I publish a flyer saying "Clinton is a moron!!" should I get charged with libel? Should I go to jail? NO! The first amendment was made to protect speech of that sort, and thus it must be applied in this case. Yes, this student's article was offensive, but it wasn't threatening in any way. It seems to me that the only reason he was punished in such a harsh manner was because when he did offend one of the faculty of that school, he/she took it upon himself/herself to strike back. I wonder what the American Civil Liberties Union would have to say about this... /. password :P
-Sean Hicks
Superjoker@mailroom.com
Posting under anonymous coward only because I can't remember my
Congratulations UC-1D39CF7X, you're performing almost as well we designed you to. However, your use of the word "damn" disturbs us, as it was not in your original programmed vocabulary. Please report to your local service center, we can't have our citizens going rebel.
in fact, there may be no difference between libel in print or on the web; but there's more than one issue here. whether or not this child committed punishable libel is one, but, in my opinion, a minor one; there exists perfectly well-established legislation to deal with libel. i think the more important issue is whether or not the charge of libel was handled the way other libel charges are, and if not, why not, and whether or not the lack of legislation regarding offensive language on the internet puts all who use the net as a forum for discussion and expression at risk.
most people who are accused of libel are not incarcerated and held, even after charges have been made; and no charges were pending against this boy when they sent him to juvenile detention.
when you break the law, and are charged with same, your property may be seized with a warrant for purposes of gathering evidence; but it disturbs me very much that they seized his property before they had charged him with anything. if you suspect someone of dealing drugs, you might seize paraphenalia or drugs to enable you to charge that individual with possession; but if you suspect someone of libel, what practical warrant is there for seizing his or her property?
seizure of property and incarceration without due process are serious infringements on the rights that most americans have come to expect from this government. i don't feel that Ian Lake's case was treated like other kinds of libel; i am not an alarmist, but i think that internet users are right to feel alarmed at what's happened here. some of the comments below argue that small towns are not the place for web-site flames; and some mention that flaming is painful and wrong; and these things are, of course, worth talking about. but i haven't seen as much posted about whether or not the community should be alarmed by what's happened, and that worries me a bit too. i think everyone should be a little worried about the legal infringements made on Ian's civil liberties.
pax amos fidelis, sharla
post-script: im awfully glad that this is receiving so much press. at least there is safety in having the public's attention focused on an area where no fair and established legislation exists.
NOTE: IANAL This is just my opinion
Here is his chance!
He (Being the defendant) has his chance. The
state says it is liable and they will have to prove it!
That means his lawyer can request a virginity test
on every one he called a slut. They can be called to
the stand and questioned about there sexual relations.
All those 12-18 year old girls. Criminal records of the
school staff he called drunks can be pulled. Do they have
a DWI? Maybe a public intox? Just the thought of this should
be enough to get most to want it stopped. Would you want your
sexual history added to the public record? Do the
administrators want the public knowing about there
life's? How about the humiliation of being put on the stand
and asked "How many boys or men have you dated in the last year?"
"How many have you had sexual relations with?" "Would you please
explain to the court with whom you lost your virginity." All this
knowing that there parents are watching.
Man What I would give to go back to JHS or HS and
pull this one!
God damn! I dated Etta Arch (quoted in the linked article) 4 years ago when I was a freshman. She just randomly disappeared one day and I heard she had moved to Utah. What a small world.
They should. At the very least, they should kill those assholes who run the state's school system and the judicial system.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Well people rember that this did happen in Utah.
Utah was the same one that was going to limit net access in Librarys due to all the people there fearing porn.
Utah brough us Senator Orin Hatch.
He has imposed numerous bills that are so broad they could be used to close down any website on the net in USA.
Utah is a whole different world from the one we're used to. Many Utahns have a viewpoint that is radically different from the rest of the world. Let me explain...
:) ).
First, the usual disclaimer: I am LDS. I've known plenty of "Utah Mormons." I am, in fact, related to some. And to those who will ask, yes, I am active. Now for the explanation...
Utah was settled by LDS people who were fleeing persecution in the midwest in the 1800's. The people who first arrived there set up a government to protect their religious freedoms. As with most places run by a disproportionately high number of people from the same religion, tolerance of outsiders was almost non-existant. As long as you didn't deviate from the accepted norm, you were OK, whether you were LDS or not. If you did, though, you were labeled a heathen, and life became quite uncomfortable. Unfortunately this also resulted in a lot of false rumors of sedition, and so on...
Utah's society experienced something of a shock when Johnston's army arrived. The soldiers, who were definitely not up to LDS standards of morality, enjoyed such pastimes as getting drunk and seducing the local girls. To a person from that environment, the effect is the same as introducing a serpent into the Garden of Eden...he feels insulted, violted, and angry about the treatment he is being accorded by outsiders who have invaded his refuge. He also (usually) thinks of himself as morally and spiritually superior. This is evident from an incident during the conflict between the LDS people and Johnston's army.
Lot Smith, a leader of LDS troops attacked a mule train belonging to Johnston. As his troops lit torches, one of the mule team leaders shouted, "For God's sake, don't burn the train!" and Lot replied, "For God's sake, I WILL burn the train" (different emphasis
This mentality is still there, and there is a good deal of polarization between the LDS people in Utah and the non-LDS people in Utah. This is one reason why a lot of anti-Mormon groups operate out of Utah (aside from the fact that many of them are also ex-Mormons who got kicked out and neither want to move nor remain silent...but I digress...) Anyhow, the result is that anyone who doesn't fit in is (usually) perceived as bad, and ostracized. Standing out from the crowd is not encouraged, more so than in any of the High Schools we went too.
Since the 16-year old is in southern Utah (where the ratio of LDS peope to non-LDS people is extremely large), this attitude is only magnified. It's no wonder that he stuck out, and the large number of people there who disagreed with his behavior, and were doubly upset by what they perceivd as the flaunting actions of an outsider, made his life miserable.
I'm not saying I agree with what they did to him or his response; I'm just trying to give you their point of view. Much of this attitude is sub-concious. Many Utahns who move to areas where they become the minority (e.g., the East coast) carry this attitude with them. To people who are from these other areas (especially LDS people who are native to, say, the East coast), this attitude of "I'm from Zion and you're from Babylon" (and yes, they DO think that way) is especially egregious.
I don't approve of the way they treated him, although I can understand some of the reasons why they did (and it didn't help that he then provoked them). Much of their "holier-than-thou" attitude needs re-adjustment. And as far as I can tell from the situation, this is a civil matter, not a legal matter. Nevertheless, prudence says that you don't poke a hornets' nest with a stick, and that's exactly what this kid did.
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?
I'm not arguing that it is ultimately his fault. I AM arguing that he exacerbated the situation. The other kids are to blame for the abuse inflicted on him, but he made it worse on himself by being so flagrant.
Maybe I need to repeat that. They started it. He pissed them off by retalliating (both in his choice of clothing/dress and by making his web site). It struck a nerve and they hit back even harder.
I said before that I disagree with actions on both sides. I've been in his position (albeit, not in Utah), but I didn't go in for making potentially libelous or slanderous remarks about people, especially over the web (OK, so nobody knew what the web was back in 1992, but that's another issue).
Both parties contributed to it. I understand from reading the article that his father says his behavior was calculated at getting him sent back to California (I'd want to go back to southern California too, in his position). Well and good. nevertheless, he did exacerbate the situation to the point that the law (right or wrong) became involved.
I hope that things are resolved in his favor, since he is most definitely the agrieved party in this instance; however, he does need to learn that there are times when it is better not to respond.
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?
Allowing the police/school to do this would absolutely crush free speech on the net.
There is a very blurry line between what this kid did, and just simple criticism. Throwing someone in jail for criticizing government officials is downright scary. I think we should always err on the side of freedom in these cases.
Something like this is especially troubling for me, because I run a website(Free PHS) criticizing my own school administration, and at times I get downright vitriolic. And yet, I don't think anything I'm doing is illegal. If criticizing the government is not protected by the First Amendment, then what is?
Anyway, I think that there are a lot of people who don't understand the internet and are therefore much more scared of sites on the net than they would be of other forms of speech. It's important to ask yourself, in all these cases, whether you'd treat the student any differently if, instead of publishing on the net, he had said the same thing to some friends(or put it in an underground newspaper)
BTW, a good book on this topic is "Sex, Laws and Cyberspace", by Jonathan Wallace(who also runs The Ethical Spectacle)
Nude ones! He said I have killer legs. And that he wanted to photograph them. Waaaah!
...
Slut! Slut! Slut! Slut! Slut!
:)
Kids learn from the reactions their actions receive. By continually relaxing the threshold at which we begin to enforce the rules, we don't make happy children, we make irresponsible children.
So in essence you're saying "don't spare the rod, beat the child to within an inch of his life so he knows where the lines are"?
Yes I'm blowing your statement out of proportion. That's exactly what the school did with this kid. Calling in the cops, siezeing equipment, whaddafuck?!!? When I was in grade school I got in a pretty decent fight with another kid. He started it (isn't that always the way?), but nevertheless it turned into a big old tumbling brawl and in the end we were both sent home for a day or so. Why didn't they call the cops and haul us off to jail, search our desks for signs of violent nature and generally pull an all-out witch-hunt? Because the administration knew how to dole out punishment appropriate to the infraction.
(perhaps also because things made a little more sense when I was a kid, or that the Internet wasn't around to inspire the media into fightening parents into believing that every fast temper, desire to play with toy guns and "not our kind of person" look was a sign of a psychopath.)
Discipline is very necessary. So is the ability to fit the punishment to the incorrect (re)action. This was not the case with this kid.
Saying 'Bill Clinton is a woman' is not libellous, because no reasonable person is going to believe it. Libel is not simply a true/untrue thing. There's a lot more to it than that, and it's generally considered to be a Good Thing when it's difficult to find some communication slander or libel b/c it preserves a lot of additional speech.
Any attempt to restrict freedom of speech must be examined *very* carefully and still kept to an absolute minimum.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
It reminds me of the movie Salt Lake City Punk. The main character spent most of his younger ages being a "punk," that is, a thorn in the side of anyone in position of authority, as well as anyone who disagreed with his views. Him and his punk friends beat the shit out of kids from other "groups" (if you live in America you know how highschool is) that they didn't like, and in general, glorified the fact that they were different. At the end of the movie, a love interest of the main character points out to him that the way he dresses isnt "different" because he "looks like a punk." The movie ends with the main character having shaved off all his blue hair, deciding to attend Harvard Law (granted, not all of us have these kinds of opportunities, but in this movie the main character was supposedly an intelligent person) and even ended saying (paraphrase) "you can do a lot more damage to the system from the inside than you can from the outside." There comes a point in life where you realize society is the way it is for a reason, and that you can only bash your head and your fists against it for so long before you realize, hey, things _really_ aren't going to change unless YOU change the way you do things. It's highschool. Kids are stupid. Yeah it fucking sucks, but everyone goes through it, and (hopefully) everyone eventually grows up. In any event, anyone seeking some insight to teenage angst and social clique system oughtta check SLC: Punk out at your local video store... It is a fairly well done film.
Freedom of speech allows you to say the truth, not lies. Now of course if you stated that it is your opinion, you could say almost anything.
Slander and Libel to be successfully persued in court must include intentions of malice. An intent to harm the person/organizations reputation/credability. These of course are all civil violations.
Threats of course are completely different thing and are criminal.
The thing most disturbing here, is that if there were no threats on the site, why was he arrested.
Troy
Don't forget when the poor, defenseless, innocent, respectable RCMP officers pepper spray the mean, brutal hippie scum protesters with absolutely no communication between them and the PM's office.
(Sarcasm, for the clue-disabled...)
Honestly, Cretien and his cabinet scare me. I don't know what they're thinking most of the time. No matter what they do, they get off scot-free. And the citizens are no better. Most of us are worse sheep than the Americans public. No offense intended to any southern neighbors who can actually think for themselves. If it weren't for the CRTC's hands-off-the-Internet ruling and medicare, I'd move south in a heartbeat...
Just wait. Cretien will get elected. Again. Because the voters are retards who don't recognize a dictator when they see one.
Sorry for the rant, folks...
Well, this "turn the other cheek" bullshit is hardly acceptable, either. I say let everyone know you're angry. This CAN be accomplished without namecalling or personal attacks. Too bad for those who don't ever want to hear anything nasty that this can't always be done without swearing or mean words.
Tough shit.
(Glad I'm surrendering the privelege to moderate this whole mess...)
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
"Just because not everyone is a good speller and might perhaps be from a public school makes them dumb?"
From the construction of your sentence, I'm guessing that you weren't homeschooled.
Actually, people who are 'in public' eg. anybody who gets written about in the Globe or the Enquirer does not have the same expectation about libel and cannot sue under the same statute. That is a matter of law in the US. It has to do with how 'much' of that person's persona is already in the public's view. By extension, in a small community where more or less everybody knows one another and everybody knows or has a judgment about you, then there is some basis for saying that here too the rules of libel do not apply the same way. If everyone in town 'knows' Becky Sue Anne is the town mattress then printing it or putting it on a website has not legally, materially harmed her. At least to some interpretations. You may not like somebosy calling Principal Skinner a drunk but in a town where everyone knows that that statement is either A) True or B) False it may not make much difference legally what you say.
Ever think how odd it is that any crime committed on school grounds is treated as a school problem and not an indictable offence. How many times have you or your children been the victim of assault, battery, rape, sexual battery, robbery, armed robbery, attempted murder and myriad other offences that if they were committed at the mall or at someone's house or anywhere but school would land someone in jail as a serious felony but because it was committed at school is treated as a 'horeplay' issue and the perpetrators are slapped on the wrist with suspension or something lame like that. That's if you're even lucky enough to get them to do anything at all let alone give you any information.
Why do kids commit violent acts in school??? BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY PLACE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH IT, THAT'S WHY.
The only difference between capitalism and communism today is that the later admits that you have no rights. Source:Your Mother
No, he would be sued. There is a huge difference between the two.
It would have been fair if he had been sued instead of being arrested
If something you say about someone is true then it isn't libel.
Does anyone here know if there are any mirrors of the kid's site?
Yes, but they haven't charged him with it.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Yes, I am aware that Utah has a criminal libel law. However, that law is what is known as 'dead letter', as in, it's 99.999% probably unconstitutional. Aka, other laws like that have been found unconstitutional.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Hell, I'd be pissed even if they had brought charges against him of 'criminal libel', cause that really would just be an excuse to lock him up until trial, because the supreme court traditionally has been striking down criminal libel charges since the mid 60s. It's like arresting someone under the Comstock act for distributing information about abortions. That law is dead letter.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Now, he made have libelled or slandered some people...but that isn't a criminal offense. I can print 'So and So tortures cats' on the front page of a newspaper, and the police can't do anything about it. It's not 'illegal' in that sense. (I'm not sure what the legal defination of illegal is.) But, it's not even a misdemeanor. I can't be arrested, or even fined. However, So and So can sue me.
The 'proper', legally speaking, response to this would have been for some of the 'drunk' teachers to sue him. (The real proper response would be nothing.) Arresting him is a huge abuse of police power.
If I were that kid, I'd sue the daylights out of that school, and that police department. I mean, if they suspended him, he might have just been able to get them for violating 1st amendment rights. (You do have the right, even if you're underaged, to spread libel, BTW. You just shouldn't be surprised why you get sued.) As it is now, he can get them on....1st, 4th, and 5th violations, at the least. You could probably get the 6th in there too.
P.S. It really saddens me when people think slander can get you arrested. It saddens me even more when corrrupt police make them right.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
He wasd arrested. As in, locked up. For a civil offense. If you don't see something wrong with this, you need to go back to civics class.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Yeah, I found the defination of 'illegal' is merely 'prohibited by law', and I know we have statues on libel, so it is illegal. However, it is not, and cannot be, 'criminal'.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I must point out that his friend was libeled in school newspaper's gossip column.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Ah, but the supreme court has been striking down criminal libel cases since the mid 60s.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Yes, heaven forbid we teach our children that people can't call something libel, and get other people arrested for that, despite there being no criminal law against libel.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Hey, wait a minute...he hasn't been charged with anything...
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Libel is a civil crime. You cannot be locked up for it, EVER. You got that? Comprendre?
As an added bonus, the kid has not been sued for libel anyway! The arrticle mentioned he might be sued for libel.
He was locked up for...well...nothing.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Do people take classes on how to not read the articles? The problem here is that the kid was jailed cause of what may or may not be libel. Libel is a civil offense, not criminal, so it doesn't matter if he was libel or not, he technically can't go to jail for it...yet he did.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
A large majority of the
The "real" issue here is the grey area between what is a comment amongst friends (eg. email) and what is public (eg. web pages). Exactly how large does a mailing list have to become before it makes the transition from a private conversation to a public forum?
M@T
'sapientia potestas est'
They will never get it, to them, it is their own little world and nothing can change it. When I was a kid going to elementery school outside LA, you couldn't even touch another student, if you did, you risked getting kicked out of the school. Its been slowly heading this way for a long time. The sorry thing about it is that this kid was exersizing his freedom of speech, something schools value, yet they opress him when they dont like what he is saying. Shame on them.
Perhaps if 70 thousand or so angry internet goers were to decend upon that town, somebody would remember what freedom of speech means. Freedom to publish and freedom to say whatever you like, within reason, no screaming FIRE in a crouded theator. The world needs a wakeup call, well, US schools atleast do. Its to the point that if your on Redilin, most teachers just automaticly give you an A. Schools have weird politics, and are out to brain wash kids.
Schools would love it if kids were mindless zombies, they wouldnt have to do crap.
They're related to the reasons that the Electoral College actually elects the President
Offtopic (like we've been on topic up to this point), do you realise how many people still aren't aware of this?
Finkployd
I came across this post while meta-moderating.
I have had Katz articles permanently filtered (for several months now) on my preferences page, since this is the sort of comment I consistently felt compelled to post. I'm both reassured, and disturbed, that my chioce to filter Kats articles with extreme prejudice remains a good way of improving the quality of my life, and reducing the frustration therein.
FWIW: I deemed the positive moderation to your post most fair indeed.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
libel and all "sueing" is a civil matter (the police and the government don't get involved, just 2 citizens). here the police seemed to have been involved. that's what it's like in britain anyway. also, i think that if you say stuff like this to people in person then it's called slander and you can sue.
stay frosty and alert
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
[snip]
But let's not stop there, let's made damn sure this place is politically correct too. We wouldn't want anyone offended, especially by some outcast kid. Bring in all the lawers, there are potential suits for everyone. We need to make sure this digital land mirrors our real one, and that it inherits all the flaws and problems that it's makers 'forgot' put in.
The net is now closer to the 'real' world in its constituency than it ever was. What you're arguing for is the 'old' net that was made up of University-educated white American males 21-35 and their technology-centric perspectives.
When I first became exposed to the internet in 1991, it was more politically conservative, more polite, and far more erudite than it is now. Back then you had to know how to write _and_ have some technical skills to use the internet -- it wasn't (as much) of a pointy-clicky GUI experience.
Nowadays it attracts a different group of people -- it doesn't take the skills to use it like it used to, and its much easier to get access to it. You're seeing the opinions and the intelligence of a broader aspect of society -- ask yourself, is more openness the answer or is more openness part of the problem?
Nobody wants to be accused of elitism or enganging in anti-democratic values. But there's reasons why people like William F. Buckley have actually argued against universal suffrage.
They're related to the reasons that the Electoral College actually elects the President, and that even US senators weren't directly elected until 1913.
Millions, and that's why they don't elect the President..
[But to be fair to them, the number of times the popular vote has been negated by the electoral college are pretty few, and it may be argued by many that the electoral college has a defacto obligation to rubberstamp the popular vote.]
Lets look at the 1st amendment shall we.
It was invented to allow free political Speach. Might add Anonymous Speach for those that want to fight about Privicy vs Anonimity.
Now free Political Speach mean being able to bitch about your school and teachers that you are FORCED by US law to indure. let ye be Charged As a TRUNET by not going to school so you dont have to deal with the shit.
A revoltion is comming and I've got front row seats.
BTW any bitching about spelling can be directed to i.dont.give.a.fuck.com
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
It occurs to me that the reaction of the 'authorities' in Utah was based on fear and misunderstanding, and was encouraged by the local media machine (which, as with most small towns, is centered over many dinner tables and in one or two coffee shops). Isn't it odd that fear and misunderstanding seem to drive the comments of many posters here, and more odd still that Katz & Co seem to be encouraging just such a response (which will no doubt reverberate thru many more coffee shops, libraries, and bars). Perhaps what we are revealing here is that the terms "Utah" and "the rest of the USA"; "small town" and "big city"; and "Utah school officials" and "slashdotters" are all, in this context, distinctions without differences.
I drink to make other people more interesting
Thanks to BoLean for the timely information on the lawerly meaning of libel.
From the rest of what I read here, nobody commenting has READ what the kid WROTE. So most of you are spouting off on hearsay (a few are actually addressing larger issues, but most are taking Jon's second-hand description of events as gospel) which is a Grand American Tradition but also immoral and unethical (suprising how many GATs are like that - I hear the Puritans used to beat up Quakers for fun).
Let's see the site!! If what the kid wrote was untrue, there's no harm in it, right? This furor reminds me of the kind of flak that results when TRUE allegations of alcoholism & promiscuity are made... what's really being hidden from view here?
MIRROR THE SITE!!
--Charlie
And slander laws exists exist to protect the mute? We need to pass some new laws to protect my grandmother who own neither a printing press, nor a computer, lest she be unable to defend her reputation to her computer using friends.
It's Utah. What do you expect? Utah's practically famous for this sort of twisting and warping of the laws to fit their morals and ideals.
Sad, sad, sad.
BilldaCat
Good idea, I'd hate to see you waste all of that Anonymous Coward karma you've racked up. Bzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong, dumbass.
[]Post Anonymously
Stupid fucker.
Lowmag.net
Yup, slandering on the web is just as bad as slandering anywhere else.
But, did the school officials and police target the paper for slandering his friend, and/or the other websites mentioned that also slandered her? Didn't say anything about, and I doubt it.
He went too far, but a week in jail as a result? Shouldn't happen.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
"The slut thing would be a fun one too."
u t
that's an easy one for him to get out of without offering even one scrap of evidence:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=sl
"1.a.A woman considered sexually promiscuous. "
by this definition, mother teresa could be LEGALLY considered a slut merely by someone supposing that she was sexually promiscuous.
Clearly, retaliation is considered unacceptable. On the other hand, insulting your classmates is fine.
... get out there and insult your classmates on your web pages, so when they do the same, THEY're the criminals.
So, all you HS students
If the students responsible for that are not held to exactly the same standards then I, myself, despite the consequences will fly to Utah, walk into that school, and well...
give everyone a big hug?
subject them to a stern lecture?
dance a little jig?
Read it yerself, the italics tag is fine. The problem is Malda's got the "Extrans" and "Plain Old Text" options swapped, has known about the bug for months, and hasn't fixed it.
I couldn't agree more. While I see and understand the reasoning for 'no exceptions' types of rules, I do not agree with them. In the case of fighting, if I did as the school rules insisted, couldn't run, and basically got the crap kicked out of me, could I not sue the school system for payment of any medical bills?
I hated just about every second of high school. So much in fact, that when I was offered the chance to go to community college in leu of my senior year, I may have actually left vapor trials running out the councellor's door!
Having read the article and Katz's fairly non-commital piece above, the main thing that stuck out was "why". Why did the Columbine shooters do what they did? Why did this guy do what he did? Why is this becoming such a problem?
Did anyone stop to answer these questions by talking to the kids? People said Karos and Kliebold were sort of outsiders like this guy, did anyone bother to find out if anything was bothering them? Not by asking "Why can't you get along with other students?", but rather by asking, "Is there something bothering you?" People generally want to talk about what's bothering them, but they won't talk unless they know you give a shit. I never got the impression that the folks at my HS had any interest in my education/problems beyond making sure I didn't break any rules/laws. Therefore, I basically decided that my HS blew goats, and dreaded going there every day.
Funny thing about high schools. Here is where students really begin learning that not only do they have rights, but what those rights are, how they work, and how they relate to the rights of others. Yet, with all this flag-waiving classroom rhetoric abotu the USA being such a great and free place, we have mentioned in just the above message, supression of free press and supression of free speech. Why? 'Well, we can't offend anybody.'
Has anyone stopped to think that if people were a little more thick-skinned, and able to cope with the fact that HS life is not a John Hughes' movie; things like this wouldn't happen? We all go through our teen-angst-related BS, but I don't remember kids getting shot in school when I was there, and that was about 7 years ago. The Columbine kids said nobody understood them, and they had no friends. Not to rip from Chris Rock, but there WERE about 8 folks in this group they were in. At least 6 other people sort of understood them! That's more than I could say.
I don't agree with the way the Lake boy chose to handle his problems, but I have serious issues with the school systems knee-jerk method of handling it: "Nevermind your problems, the Columbine folks did what you did, therefore you might be planning a school shooting spree, so regardless of what caused the problem, you and your website will be designated as "the problem" and cast aside pending possible legal action. No exceptions."
/Sig/
"My kids are getting homeschooled, fuck this, I'm not putting my kids though this."
a bit OT, but I watched the finals of the American Spelling Bee this last weekend. IIRC, 8 of the 9 finalists at one point were homeschooled. All of the final 4 were.
--
+&x
Bwuahasplarsh
Uh sorry, that was just me spilling coffe on my keyb&£è
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
Had all this happened someplace else, like say DC, Chicago, or San Diego, then nothing would have happened to this kid. He might have been taken aside and given a talking to, or his father might have been asked to do it. But the police would never have gotten involved, and he wouldn't have spent several days in jail. But because he had the misfortune of living in mormon country, redneck mormon country at that, he gets thrown in jail for it.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
If you don't like it, go cry somewhere else, where we don't have to hear you.
Classy. Nice to see the First Amendment still gets the respect it deserves.
-jpowers
-jpowers
Settling out of court never sets legal prescedent, whatever the jurisdiction.
Maybe somebody needs to start a defamation search engine, which links defamation to defenses against same, and lets people compare to see which is more plausible.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
IANAL, but: /false/ information about a person which results in financial or otherwise physical damages (i.e., they get beaten up because of misinformation, or lose their job, etc...)
Firstly, I don't think you can be arrested for libel. Libel is a civil offense, and confiscating his computer and jailing him is completely uncalled for. I think that he might have some legal recourse against the state.
Secondly, however, libel can be a very serious thing. However, cussing someone out, etc... is not libel. Libel has a precise legal definition. AFAIK, you must spread
The school principal said "If you disenfranchise somebody to the point where you become their enemy or their classmates become the enemy, then you want to remove them."
So you keep picking on someone until they fight back, then it's their fault.
Even if others do something wrong, you still shouldn't do it. That just makes you as bad as them.
Remember kiddies! In the land of the free, home of the brave, you:
Can't see movies unless they are banal and without morally objectionable content
Can't drink under any circumstances, even at your own wedding reception.
Can't drop out of school
Can't (apparently) criticize your peers or schoolmasters on the web
Can't buy borrow or steal cigarettes
Can't "play doctor" lest you risk being sued by someone's parents
CAN buy guns
Hmm. Gee, and some people say our priorities are skewed. Wonder why.
- Rev.This is OT, but the your sig was originally from Bill Hicks, a Texas comedian that is damn near required listening material for most /.ers. There are a bunch of MP3s of his stuff floating around; email me if you want a sample (including the one with the above quote.)
I would have emailed this but a cursory investigation turned up no email address.
- Rev.Re:What's the difference? (Score:5)
by Kintanon (sleffer@hotmail.com) on Monday June 05, @09:59AM EST (#69)
(User Info)
I don't agree with him being bugged in school, and there's a lot of cases where nothing is done about that, but responding by posting a web site like this is not the way to deal with it.
Rant Mode: On
So what is the way to deal with it???
The kid did NOT resort to violence. He couldn't go to the authorities, they were part of the problem. Remember, one of the incidents he was responding to was an attack on one of his friends by
the school newspaper. So should he have walked into his school with a machine gun and a backpack full of bombs?
No.
He vented on the web. What's wrong with that? Are we going to take away all mechanisms for dealing with stress that people have and let them explode and commit suicide or mass
homicide?
I'm tired of people saying 'That's not the way to handle it' and not offering a better way.
So either put up or shut the fuck up and get the fuck out. We don't need people pretending they are all holy and don't get angry and rant at people that piss them off.
The kid didn't kill anyone, he relieved his stress and made his point. I think he did the RIGHT thing by defending his friends.
He also complimented some of the teachers he thought deserved it, AND he claims he can prove all of his accusations. If he can do that then it's not Libel.
Rant Mode: Off
absolutly. A long time ago catholic schools used to take kids that were severly not likeing each other down to the boxing ring. There they would fight it out in front of the rest of the school.
Not only did this release a ton of pent up anger/frustration, but there were teachers there to make sure it never got really out of hand. Also they had boxing gloves on so there was less injury.
Now adays there are no ways for kids to release there anger/frustration. psycologists arn't going to help them in a thousand sessions, they nead to beat each other up untill they learn that there are better ways of dealing with anger themselfs.
Ahh, theres my rant of the day!
Chris C.
I wasn't lost... I was only momentaraly confused of my spacial orientation relative to my prime destination.
Kids yelling something in the hall that is offensive an hurtfull should get detention. However, they are probably caught up in the moment and trying to impress others. In other words, the kids opened their mouths and something stupid came out.
Posting your slang on the net, printing it, or otherwise making it semi-permanent alludes to the fact that you thought it out, thought again, and went beyond saying it out loud. You engraved it upon electrons as something you believed to be the truth, and that for some unknown reason holds more implications for the accused than a slip of the tounge. By printing it, your statements jump from an unthinking or unkind slip of the tounge to intentional harm.
The town of Milford over reacted, but then I've driven through Milford - in fact delivered a piano there once that drew a crowd of around 100 people to watch (I think it might have been the whole town). I believe the town passtime is grass growing (and not that kind of grass either) & I also think that a cow getting up early would cause those people to over react...
Ctimes2
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
ths is going to be interesting... the burden of proof here is that the people being libelled must be able to prove that the statements were 2 things
1)false
2)damaged in a material way
historically, this has been really, really really difficult to do... I cant wait to see how they will...
... hi bingo
Here is the best way to make fun of teachers and prove your hatred and their stupidity with impunity. Simply write something fictitious that includes attributes that are obviously those of the teacher/coworker, but include no names, or even false names. If anybody really wants an example, mail me, I still might have one I made about the sysadmins here at eagle point high school. Its pretty good.
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
Read this. The principal sent Ian Lake (the kid in question) home once for having his hair dyed pink because the principal thought it would be "a distraction." So obviously he's not terribly tolerant or interested in even allowing for (let alone promoting) any kind of diversity.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
I think and many of you know, this topic goes a little further than First Amendment & internet. It goes back to the stories of Hellmouth. It goes back to the question why some people go shooting their schoolmates and why some have to put up websites with inflammatory content.
First of all, I don't live in the aforementioned country. But I have spent six months there, which for me was enough to not want to come back for a long time. In short, I was an exchange student in a village of ~2000 people in North-Eastern Ohio (yeah, corn). The idea of the exchange program was to let young people from Eastern Europe see little of the world, of the USA in this case.
I have never thought of myself as the center of the world, neither have I felt like the outcast geek of the school or any other social group applicable. I had my friends at home and I was pretty happy at what I did. Now finding myself in a small American town, I was suddenly clueless as to what was going on. Maybe this sounds familiar: wears all black (I like it), listens to strange punk music, claims to be an anarchist.... (add oddities as you wish). What shocked me to the bone was that I had never ever before though of my views as outcast or even odd. I was a happy teenage punk with several ideas too big for my little head at that time, but always eager to dispute them. The magic word was dispute. I liked talking to people mostly of the way things are and the way they should be.
Now in my new home, new school, I found neither the people nor the time to continue the way I was used to.
It is not easy to point out what exactly it was. But I can try. The first and maybe the strangest of them all is the motorization of USA. If you live in the country, the only way to get somewhere is by car. At a certain point in their lives, young people are totally at the mercy of someone with transportation. Heck, there weren't even proper sideways. How am I supposed to go and "play with other kids" when I can't get there.
Second - the all loving, all caring, all disgusting attitude every person over the age of 25 seemed to have towards youngsters - They are kids, treat them with love and care, shield them from all evil in this world. But when they mess up, punish them with all you have, they have to learn responsibility. Res-fucking-ponsibility is learned from having the freedom to make mistakes. Also, what teenagers think, is important. For them, their thoughts are most important. And when you look back, I am sure you still remember your emotions from that time as very vivid. When you grow up, you get sort of a buffer zone. Instead of covering the walls with pink stickers saying "Kids zone, enter with love", try to listen to them. And take them seriously.
Third - this is the general shortcoming of small palces, and America is full of those - is the small-town-mentality thing. Green hair, yikes! Everybody knows everyone and likes talking about it behind their back. Small places often try to surround them with a barrier where starnge == bad and things are done the way they are. For no other reason.
And this is also a wider problem - pseudo values. Remember who was cool in highschool. And for what reasons. Later things change. Not always, but you definately discover that the values you judged people by back then are pretty worthless now.
I know this is not the most coherent post ever written, but I get a little emotional. To illustrate I will give you a example that left me mouth wide open:
The host family I was living in had three children (+me) - 18 year old girl, 16 year old girl and a few years younger boy. It was New-Years eve or something and the parents wanted to go to a party of some sort. The problem was, that they just COULDN'T leave the children home alone because they might get into trouble...
Back to the beginning - This is just another classical example of the way American educatinal system works on those different. Not evil, not psycho. Just different. They are constantly reminded of it with no chance for the geek in question to fight back by honest means. What is left is frustration with the world, with everything. No wonder guns go off. Luckily, most just start their life totally depressed. Way to go.
Its all the lawyers' fault, you realise. We should put them on a rocket and send it to the sun, really...
I live in Cedar City Utah, about 50 miles from Milford, and trust me, it's a SMALL town. Everyone knows everyone else, and their business. One aspect of life in a small town is that you don't unneccesarily piss off your neighbors. Trust me, if he had said on the street, or in a xeroxed handout, what he said on his site, the same thing would have happened. Actually, he's lucky the principal notified the police instead of the people he said nasty things about. He could have had the s**t kicked out of him. And no-one would have seen anything.
Best Slashdot Co
This is an interesting point. We often comment about the way online communication seems to encourage flaming and other hasty and ill-considered, ott responses. No one, however, has made the connection between that and the ott response of "the real world" to online communications.
wg
I agree. I offer as much in the last line of my previous post. Perhaps even more on point than RAV is ASHTON v. KENTUCKY, 384 U.S. 195 (1966), and findlaw's excellent blurb on the case: .
v by=search&linkurl=<%LINKURL%>&graphurl=< %GRAPHURL%>&court=US&case=/us/384/195.html>
<citation below>
1. Where an accused is convicted under a broad construction of a law which would make it unconstitutional, the conviction cannot be sustained on appeal by a limiting construction which eliminates the unconstitutional features of the law. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87 . P. 198.
2. Because the offense was defined at trial as the publication of a writing calculated to disturb the peace, petitioner was judged by an unconstitutionally vague standard which required calculations as to the reaction of the audience to which the publication was addressed. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 ; Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 . Pp. 198-201.
3. Although vague laws in any setting are impermissible, laws which touch on First Amendment rights must be carefully and narrowly drawn. Pp. 200-201.
FindLaw, Ashton v. Kentucky (last visited June 6, 2000) <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?na
In RAV, the protected speech, a burning cross, is not inherently false, and the prosecution was under a bias motivated crime ordinance. I agree that it would be on point b/c of its overbroad infringement of a constitutionally protected action; however, Ashton does deal directly with criminal libel.
As per my response to milamber, my post was not to justify the Utah action. I find myself agreeing with JK that the law is quick to react in an overbroad fashion on any issue dealing with teens and/or the internet. Moreover, its a slam dunk to defend the teen on any criminal libel action. It would be far more difficult to defend the person on a civil action, and harder still to maintain a cause against the state for fifth (takings) or fourteenth (equal protection) amendment violations.
I would personally like to see the latter move forth. I do not think its an immediate dismissal. In fact, there are many posts that bring forward very good points that could be used in such an argument.
You may want to view my latest reply to milamber on some interesting facts associated with criminal law libel history and prosecutions for the same.
"That maybe what is codified in UTAH's criminal code for 'Criminal Libel' but that is NOT what defines the common law tort of libel. I defined the common the tort of defamation and libel...I said nothing about it being what was defined in Utah's criminal code as 'Criminal Libel'"
v by=search&linkurl=<%LINKURL%>&graphurl=< %GRAPHURL%>&court=US&case=/us/384/195.html>.
The title of the Katz story is "Criminal Libel, Free Speech and the Net." The events take place in Milford, Utah. I would think that Utah's code for criminal liable is on point
"That being said Utah's code shows you an example of how some law makers used a tort concept to define something they wanted to make a criminal offense while totally changing the definition in the process"
Are you implying their is no common law history for criminal libel? Justice Douglas seems to feel otherwise, at least in regard to one (not the forum) states' tradition. See Findlaw, Ashton v. Kentuck, 384 U.S. 195 (1966) <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?na
"Still doesn't change the fact that no judge in his right mind would allow this case to go forward."
Is this a fact or your opinion? Perhaps I need clarification on "right mind"; is that any judge that doesn't think like you.
I would agree that its highly unlikely that anyone would sustain a criminal cause against the teen. As mentioned in the discussion with Mandrake, all "breach of the peace" statutes stand little chance in front of the SC. This does not mean that its entirely impossible.
I tried to dig up relevant statistics for criminal libel prosecution, but I'm nearing the end of my lunch hour. Here is what I have that needs to be confirmed.
-Utah has only had two successful prosecutions both in 1895. There was a cause brought in 1987 under the criminal defamation act:
"76-9-404. Criminal defamation. (1) A person is guilty of criminal defamation if he knowingly communicates to any person orally or in writing any information which he knows to be false and knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
(2) Criminal defamation is a class B misdemeanor. "
I am unsure of its disposition. Information courtesy of converation with Libel Defense Resource Center, and reportedly available in their publication, LDRC 50-State Survey: Media Libel Law, p.410 (unverified)
Might want to look at your legal research class.
2 004.htm>
B 025.htm>.
(1) "Libel" means a malicious defamation, expressed either by printing or by signs or pictures or the like, tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue or reputation, or publish the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule. Utah Code Section 45-2-2 <http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE45/htm/45_0
AND
(1) The definitions in Section 45-3-2 apply to this section.
(2) Any person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor who knowingly or intentionally causes the publication of an advertisement in which the personal identity of an individual is used in a manner which expresses or implies that the individual approves, endorses, has endorsed, or will endorse the specific subject matter of the advertisement without the consent for such use by the individual. Utah Code Section 76-9-501 <http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_0
It is codifed as a class B misdemeanor. Whether or not this is constitutional is an entirely different argument
Not in Utah. See earlier post on Utah classifying "knowing and intentional" provision of Utah Code 76-9-407. It may be a reach but it is a class b misdemeanor.
Milamber, you may want to check out the reply to the AC post as it was probably yours. In Utah, its a crime against the state b/c Utah Code 76-9-407 says its a class B misdemenor.
If he were and adult, no police would be involved, and there would be no issue here. If an adult were to say these types of things about a co-worker and his bosses, he would probably just get fired. But since it's a kid, and we're supposed to be afraid of kids and how violent they have supposedly become recently (especially pink-haired kids), the police have to get involved and the kid has to go to jail.
I don't think the issue is so much that the kid used the internet to voice this stuff. I think the real issue is that it was a KID who voiced this stuff. If the kid wrote this stuff down and xeroxed it at kinkos and stapled it to every telephone pole in town, he would be just as in jail as he is now.
Let's face it, the kid is lucky he's not from a middle eastern country, or they would be saying he's a terrorist.
Become a FIST.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fists_of_Righteous_
I think the whole point here is not the net or not, it is this silly country that is so "jail happy". USA is the country with the most jailled people per-capita. On the number of employees, the jails are the third largest gov. "organisation" ! The "John Wayne" syndrom so strong in the US ("there are only good citizens and bad citizen", all repressive and police system) is at work again...
The italics tag has been around for awhile. I wonder why browsers for people with disabilities haven't adapted. It's obvious that pretty much everyone doesn't care about accessibility. It's tough enough to get commercial sites that work with the previous version of IE or Netscape.
Modern websites must be really innaccessable these days. Frames, tables, the lack of alt tags, and even people who use gifs as their text.
I don't know how to fix this. The web is just getting too commercial and design based to worry much about accessibility.
Sure it's the same thing as we see in school rooms, workplace coffee rooms, irc channels, and web forums like this one.
The difference is: you or I post a flame, we don't have the police dragging us away to JAIL.
I'll spot you the benefit of not fully understanding why this is important, but it IS important. It's not the way it's supposed to work in America.
I hope the ACLU, the EFF, the Justice Dept., and freedom-lovers of all stripes go after this town with both barrels; if we're lucky, some cops, mayors, and school officials will see some jail time of the Koons/Powell/Briseno variety, and no one involved in this fascist debacle will be left with a dime to his name.
What I wanna know is, where's this guy's website?
_____
_____
The antidote to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech.
Therefore, anything involving a substantial number of people will attract the watchful eye of the government. Big Brother is just as much them as it is the corporations.
Yeah, well too bad for the Utahns that they live in the United States. Perhaps these folks would feel more at home in Afghanistan with the Taliban thought-control regime?
BTW, the kid is out to prove all his "libelous" statements, so I guess these "sluts" and "drunks" are going to have their whole lives exposed to the whole world to see, heheheheh.. serves them right.
Ehh.. wrong, the school libeled him, he libeled them back. He could have gone out and sued the school for libel, but he was a lot less of an alarmist and just decided to write a retort on the web. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the school and its principal.
Damn straight. This is the view that people should have, though it doesn't seem to be the view that they do. Someone posted about being blasted in a newsgroup by someone. My response is, "why do you care what someone says if they don't even know you?"
This is a problem that comes back to political correctness and the fact that people have apparently forgotten the old "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" litany. Or maybe people just need to get a life.
They're putting dimes in the hole in my head to see the change in me.
Jailing people for unproven libel??? What does that teach kids? that they dont have free speech protections? The only reason print has been held to a higher 'moral' (who's morals anyway?) is because publishing cost has been prohibitive to most people. Now its not. The internet is not lawless at all. In this case though, it appears, that the state acted unlawfully (imagine that :). I hope you never teach my children, you are ignorant (sue me bitch, I defamed you)
IANAL but I thought truth was a defense in libel cases no matter what.
Calling the cops is not the first step in a CIVIL case fucknut (sue me I defamed you)
If every agency of government limited itself to Constitutional acts, there would be no need for a judiciary to review them.
Not everything is defined in the constitution. Decisions still need to be made and the Constitution refined. If there was no judicial review civil rights would never have been an issue. thankfully the constitution is continually challenged and strengthed.
Yes you can sue them for slander or libel (not really clear if IRC etc is publishing or talking). You would have to go a long way to prove that it was defaimation though. And it is not really cussing, they have to make untrue accusations in front of others with intent to harm your reputation. The implications of this case though are rediculous, that one can be imprisioned for protected speach.
isnt idiotic hate speach protected as long as it doesnt make threats. I think libel has to be against a specific person.
TRUTH IS A DEFENSE fucknut (sue me I defaimed you)
the unfortuneate part is that other kids grow up in buttwipe land. I truely feel sorry for them.
Thats a real dumb troll. BTW Catholic Priests invalidate their vows if they talk outside of confession.
Is this a troll are are you just fucking stupid? I think you are just stupid (sue me I defamed you)
No truth is a proper defense. well and defaimation is not criminal, but civil so you cant go to jail anyway.
If I'm in a crowded room and I yell offensive things about somebody -- even if they're untrue -- I can't get in trouble.
I'd bet Al Sharpton wishes you were correct. But you're not. Libel has a different name when it's verbalized: slander.
Read here for more info:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9 807/13/brawley.verdict.02/index.html
Michael
Do you have ESP?
No. If 70 thousand or so angry Internet goers decended upon that touwn, that would only conform to the citizens' preconcieved notions about what th' internet-thingie really is - a gathering place where hoardes of disgruntled outcasts gather to plot revenge on the world.
How soon will "Internet" be synonymous with "terrorist communication"?
From Principal Walter Schofield:
"If you disenfranchise somebody to the point where you become their enemy or their classmates become the enemy, then you want to remove them."
Once you tell someone that they are unwanted enough to get the point through, THEN you ride 'em out on a horse.
Then you want to remove them. Not reach out to them. Not attempt to heal the wounds.
Once you recognize that someone has become an outcast, there is no point in reaching out to them. close the door behind them. And lock it. Isolate them out of the equation.
This is from the principle of a public school? WTF?
>The problem is that it is much too easy for
>people of a 'legally responsible age' (whatever
>that should mean) to hide behind their computer
>and spout off about someone else.
1)
Since when is libel a CRIMINAL offense??? I was always under the impression before that it was a civil matter and up to the wronged to file suit. Why is the state involved at all?
2)
It's been a long time since I took that journalism elective, but I KNOW that the prof said libel is VERY hard to prove, and that there are a number of factors that must all be true:
1)The statement must be untrue.
2)The statement must be intended to cause harm.
3)The statement must actually cause harm.
And the one that strikes me as important in this case...
4)The statement, while untrue, must be presented as a beleiveable truth.
That it has to be a BELEIVABLE truth is most important. Remember jerry falwell's libel suit against Larry Flynt (publisher of Hustler)? Flynt had published an article accusing falwell of having an incestous relationship with his own mother. The court ruled that since no one would *ever* beleive that the "oh so very virtuous" reverend jerry falwell would do such a thing, it was NOT being presented as the truth, and therefore NOT libel.
Kids call each other names all the time. But if a grade schooler calls a classmate a "donkey raping shit eater" is he actually implying that his classmate has unconsentual intercourse with donkeys and eats feces? NO!!! Of course not! Now, if he'd doctored a convincing image in Photoshop to make it look like he had photographic PROOF that the accused raped donkeys and ate shit, that might be abother story, but kids call each other names all the time. Full grown adults call each other names too. Ever been been to a UF/FSU game? Ever listen to what Berkeley/Stanford grads call each other?
john
Imagine all the people...
According to the article (i.e., may/may not be true), the content of the offending web site was not threatening, just offensive. A threat to initiate violence is a different animal from defaming someone (whether what is being alleged is true or not).
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
Look for material that identifies a person or an entity.
Check.
The material identifies a person or entity.
Check.
Is any identified person dead?
Nope.
If material identifies a living person, is it:
Private individuals.
Would the material negatively influence a reasonable reader's opinion of the person or entity identified?
Looks like a & b.
If the material might reflect badly on character and/or harm reputation, would the harm be the result of:
Since I have not read his site, I can only guess from the article that it was several explicit statements.
Check one of the following defenses only if you are fairly certain it would apply.
Neither, unless he has proof.
No one could reasonably interpret the statement or image to be an assertion of actual fact about the person or entity.
His assertions sound like they may be viable. None were ludicrous.
The statement or image can be characterized as mere words of abuse, indicating dislike for the person or entity, but does not suggest any specific charge.
It might have shown dislike, but also contains specific charges.
The subject of the statement or image has given consent to or approved the material.
Nope.
I am sorry, but it looks like he has successfully committed libel.
Perhaps what they did was not illegal... Are you aware of all the facts in the case?
Why are any of us sitting in judgement of this kid, or the school, when, quite frankly, 99% of us probably do not have all the facts?
Adam
And what does any of this have to do with my post?
BTW, libel is illegal, even if it's only a civil offense.
Adam
I ask again:
"Why are any of us sitting in judgement of this kid, or the school, when, quite frankly, 99% of us probably do not have all the facts? "
How much research have you done into this case?
Adam
I agree that everyone should be held to the same standard... However, if his behaviour is criminal, the fact that others did the same to him *does*not*excuse* what he did... (And this post makes no claims as whether what he did is illegal or not).
Adam
Once again... Doing something illegal (assuming that's what it was) in response to something illegal, does not make either action legal.
Adam
I haven't seen the site, so I don't know what it said or if it was true, etc. I will assume, however, that it was libel. In this case, I can certainly see a civil suit or two being brought up because of this, but a police raid? I think that the strong reaction to this is probably a result of the "Columbine incident". It bothers me that the police move so quickly when dealing with things that aren't really threatening. If the kid had threatened someone, then maybe it would be okay to raid his house, but because he put someone down? What was on his computer that they wanted? How could they possibly have gotten a warrant for such an absurd venture? This all just bothers me a great deal.
"So you recommend taking the abuse quietly, dealing with it in some quiet, non intrusive manner, and allowing people to keep piling shit on you while you deal with it all nice and neatly by some mechanism which doesn't inconvenience anyone.
Well, Fuck you"
Well fuck you too budy. That's not what I recommend, there's lot that I would recommend but it seems your pent up anger prevents you from even having a civil discussion with someone you don't even know on slashdot. So calm down and when you can talk without every second sentence telling me to fuck myself we can discuss it.
(waiting for the -1 flamebait)
"He also complimented some of the teachers he thought deserved it, AND he claims he can prove all of his accusations."
Hey if this is true then all the power to him. If he can prove his accusations and is ever charges (and hopefully found innocent of) libel he's set for the countersuit.
"He vented on the web. What's wrong with that?"
Lots. If I go slandering people on the web, espically in a small town, what if people start believing what I say. And what if thats wrong. You could destroy someone's life. I know that what people were doing to him could be argued destroying his, but why take down another person with you.
"Are we going to take away all mechanisms for dealing with stress that people have and let them explode and commit suicide or mass homicide? "
Ranting on the web is hardly the only way of dealing with stress. There's so much more to do, workout, play a game, ride your bike, etc. You don't have to get even to relieve stress. If his friend was attacked in the newspaper write a followup article to it. In our university paper friends of mine were involved in a similar situation (probably liberlous as well) and simply wrote back replies which were published.
Yup I totally agree with you. The problem in the article is he tries to draw a parallel between what happened to this kid and offensive speech. If this kids website was simply swears, and other similar things repeatly with no reference to anyone, then while offensive its not libel. When I start calling people names and saying things about them in a delibrate attempt to cause harm, that's libel.
I don't agree with him being bugged in school, and there's a lot of cases where nothing is done about that, but responding by posting a web site like this is not the way to deal with it.
"heh, that was too easy... Did you just respond to abuse with abuse?! Gad! You hypocrite! "
Well interesting way to make a point but I do see it. Though responding to posts on slashdot and defaming webpages are slightly different.
"We should be finding out why he was this pissed off and punished the people responsible before they push the kid over the edge. Not everyone can find a way to control their anger and focus it. This kid opened fire with a website, not a machine gun. I think should be encouraged. "
I agree with this fully, the source of why it was happening should be found and stopped. There's no reason why it ever should happen. But saying we should encourage him for writing a possibly illegal website is wrong. Yes its better then taking a machine gun to school, but its still not acceptable, in my opinion at least.
Or at least if he does put up a website, just don't call people names, say they're drunks, sluts etc. It would be more constructive to his cause if he wrote it explaining his situation saying what's been said of him, and by who. Calling someone back and saying they're a drunk or a slut won't help your cause, and like in this case can come back to bite you.
It seems that very few posters are getting the point - if the comments were recorded on paper, video, audio, etc., it would be treated as libel - which again, the police are not involved in.
Libel is handled as a civil case, in a lawsuit filed by one of the insulted parties against the creator of the libelous commentary. A previous poster suggested that a part of the normal procedure would be to request and receive a "cease and desist" order, asking that the webpage be taken down, (or in the print media, that the article not be printed, or a retraction be printed if it was too late.) In no case would a person be ARRESTED and have his or her belongings confiscated (paper, pen, Xerox machine, printing press - whatever medium was used to create these defamatory comments.)
This kid was treated as a criminal. He was arrested. He had his computer confiscated (and the odds that he'll get it back are slim to none.) For insulting someone. That is not how this system is supposed to work.
If we look at this further, though, even libel doesn't really hold much water.
An interesting parallel would be 2600's battles with NBC and Verizon. 2600 said some unpleasant things about them (in the form of registered domain names.) Even these enormous corporations know better than to think they're going to get anywhere by claiming that the statements "NBCsucks" and "VerizonREALLYsucks" are anywhere near libelous. Both corporations have had to go the loophole route, citing anti-cybersquatting and copyright protections laws to sue 2600 with. And I don't think they're going to win those, either.
Now, what if Mr. Goldstein were arrested for registering those domain names, and the 2600 servers confiscated as evidence? If they printed these things in their hardcopy magazine, would they be arrested and their printing presses confiscated? No. They *might* be sued. But probably not. Americans are raised with the idea of Freedom of Speech - it's a rallying cry more powerful than any other.
It *is* the computer that is at issue, and the injustice done to that kid sets a precedent. If its okay to have criminalized this one kid in Nowhere, Utah, then its going to be okay to criminalize you.
That's true. We only jail people for putting up protest signs that might offend foreign dictators.
For the sake of this discussion, which I appreciate, let's suppose that this kid had printed up a flyer with the same and made it freely available everywhere in town. I will do a brief comparison.
Here is my list of practical differences between the situations:
In short, I don't think this guy would have been bothered if he had done what he did in print, but it's obvious that what he did on the web got him in some deep shit. That's the difference: publishing moderately libelious statements on paper will not often be prosecuted, but publishing on the web will get you in deep shit.
print=okay
web=panties in a wad
My college, Warren Wilson College, took away my web access because I wrote some mildly unsavory things about their institution. If I had merely written a parody of the school's admission materials and then printed it, no one would have cared.
--Danka, who likes kids, but wouldn't want to eat one
First of all, I am a very big supporter of free speech.... I have written checks to the ACLU even when I do not have a job. I absolutly resent government interference with the publication of ideas that may offend others, including hate speech, unpopular criticism, memorandums and documents of three letter agencies, etc.
However, I have no problem with the the government interfering with libel, as long as it actually is libel. Libel is false information that is published with no other intention than to harm one's character.... by it's nature, libel is both pointless and also lacking in constructive criticism. I have absolutly no desire to encounter this kind of speech anywhere. If you have an opinion that you cannot back up with fact or evidence, and have no other reason to express this opinion other than to hurt someone else pointlessly, I do not mind the prevention of the publication of this speech. I do not want the New York Times editor-in-chief to be able to use his platform to blast his ex-wife for no particular reason.
I do, however, strongly disagree with manner in which this case was dealt with regarding the search and seizure and the fanfare with which it was carried out. But this comment really isn't about that.
Kspett
Kevin "Cash Money" Spett
Ignore your rights and they go away.
Writing it out is Conspiracy to commit murder, and sending it to him is a threat, don't remember what it's called, but it is illegal.
It's the 21st Century Do you know what your government is doing
What do you mean 'Linux in a nut shell', it don't fit.
Yes, it's a terrible outrage that this kid's stuff got confiscated and he was locked up for a week because of a web page.
But it seems to me that a lot of people are missing the central point here. If this kid had published the contents of his web page in the school newspaper, he'd likely be suspended for libel. OK, so maybe Bubba and Buford in the Backwater, UT sheriff's office were a little jumpy, and maybe their reaction was somewhat overboard, but the kid broke the law. Let's not start storming city hall just yet. He wasn't locked up for being different, or for being a hacker, or a non-athlete, or for his pink hair. He was locked up for libel. As strong a reaction as that might seem, he's not some doe-eyed innocent.
Unix: Where
You know, this incident brings up an entirely tangential point that makes it really hard to be a /.er... I'm really getting tired of controversial sites getting yanked FIRST, then judged later. Whatever happened to being innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't it seem reasonable that a site should be allowed to remain open until a court actually issues an injunction against it, regardless of how blatant it may violate any law? (Or, as in the many numerous cases of late, how gray or absurd the supposed violation may be?) It's getting really difficult to form an opinion on ANY issue these days when the offending or targetted site is pulled from the 'net as soon as the first hint of controversy and legal action starts flying.
I too was feared for overreacting. A few months ago, one of my classmates who ran a local AM radio show invited me and others to call in about "What would you do for money? Lie? Cheat? Steal? Kill?" And I responded that I would dress up as a video game character and kill its inventors. Not only was I cut off midsentence, but inside of an hour the sherrif was at my house asking me what I had on my mind.
The next day, I asked the guy why he even bothered to ask that question if he would just turn his callers into the cops afterwards, and he replied that technically I had crossed the line because he threatened a specific party. The truth was it was just Columbine phobia. Anyway, we didn't get too mad at eachother, mainly because it was his boss who pulled the plug on me and called the cops, but I was convinced that he and his radio station didn't know how to handle serious questions.
One month later, they put up fliers for a call-in session about "Columbine - One Year Later, How do you feel?" I didn't even bother calling in, but I just hope whoever did knew had some friends in the ACLU.
Recently there have been several cases where kids, under 18, where taken from their homes and their computers confiscated because of relatively contravertial issues. All because the ignorant masses don't understand computers. They immediately think that some kid who posts something _they_ don't like on the net is probably a hacker / cracker and should be treated as such.
You know what this makes me want to do? I am not a criminal yet, unless you count the occational illegal porn or mp3 download as truely criminal activity, however, when I see our government throwing out our rights and invading the privacy of our homes I want to round all my sys admin friends up and write some nasty M$ outlook virusses or even worse, exploit some of those bad buffer overruns and trash a few government systems. I, unlike most 16 year olds, work on computers professionally. I know how to program in multiple languages from assembly to perl, I know how internetworks work as well as how to implement them and design them. I know how your operating systems work, from win 3.x, 9x, NT x, BSD, Linux, SunOS, Solaris, HP-UX, Irix, OSF / True-64, AIX, MacOS, BeOS, etc. I can assure you the government doesn't want my friends and I to turn against them. I live in the silicon valley. Do you know how many technically proficient people there are living here? Enough to launch a large scale internet war for starters! It takes 1 kid to bring down sites like yahoo, amazon, etc. with a simple DoS attack. What happens when 50 sys admins decide to take down all of the governments' sites they can find? It isn't very hard, currently I work to prevent this stuff, but that all could change very soon.
The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect offensive speech, even when it's obnoxious.
Now I have to ask you, do I need to buy a gun to protect my first amendment rights and start shooting police whenever they break into my home in a manner in which I consider illegal? A gun happens to be the ultimate form of justice, and luckily I can still buy one.
If the first amendment can't protect my freedom of speech, I will. What would happen if the police broke into someone's home and someone got shot, either by the police or otherwise, all over some stupid HTML page written and posted on the net? Is it worth dying over? My freedom is! I will fight to the death and kill for what I believe is my freedom. I don't need a constitution to tell me what my rights are. And clearly, I have the right to say whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You don't have to browse my web page. And you can ignore what you read. If you can't, please seek help immediately!
And as for all of you
-lalas
That's a good point, but in the article, it never said anything about killing anyone in his webpage. The kid just said stuff about the students and teachers. By calling someone a "slut" doesn't really make them a killer.
You do make an interesting point though. But my point was, they shouldn't have treated him like a killer. I do agree with them taking down the website, and I don't blame the parents for being worried. I just think it should have been handled in a better way.
Another thing you said that I agree with is that they are always looking for "that bad kid." Sometimes I think they are looking too hard for that one kid.
School's think that if you have a coat on, you are automagically carrying a gun. if they see something in your pocket - it's gotta be a knife. You wear clothes different from other people, you better keep an eye on them - they're different. You cant be different anymore. If you do, you're a criminal. In that article, they mentioned that the kid wore Rage against the Machine T-shirts. Who cares? It's just a shirt. Because I listen to Rage Against the Machine, doesn't make me dangerous, but if I wear a Rage Against the Machine T-shirt, then watch out!!!
What about the colored hair? The kid goes to school with pink hair and they send them home. Other kids wear green hair and its OK. I dont know how true it is, but I'm willing to make bets that the kids with green hair weren't wearing a Rage Against the Machine T-shirt. It's just dumb.
-Brandon
This really bugs me... Anything that ever happens at a highschool is ALWAYS linked to colombine. Sure, it was sad, and should have never happened, but HELLO!!!!!! Wake up people! This kid didn't do ANYTHING related to the shooting. All he did write about people he didn't like for one reason or another. Sure, it should have been taken down, but did he really need to be sitting in juvinile detention for SEVEN DAYS?!?!? No. Should they have taken the computer to "analyze" it? No. They're treating the kid as if he was a murderer or something. It's rediculous! His father even said in the article, he had guns in the house, and if he wanted to, he could get to them. He was just letting off some steam, and look what they did. It's like his own computer was a bomb or something.
Gimmie a break.
Much has been made of an effect: the putting up of a web site of, shall we say, questionable taste.
But this is just an effect. There must have been a cause for that to happen. Seems that if the casue were treated properly, the effect would not have resulted.
Once again, the effect is focused on, a symptom "treated" but the actual disease left to fester.
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
I can read that you are frustrated, angry, hurt and fed up. What to do to make it different is the question.
If you take the easy way and "become a serious pain in the ass for the administration", they can act very quiet and polite, and if you are too loud or radical, they can call the authorities. If this happens more than once, then you are branded a troublemaker, and you lose your change to change things, and then it's okay to dismiss your views.
Take a deeper approach. Maybe write down what you saw as wrong, followed by what it would take to change it. Don't accuse individuals, or name names as you don't want to provide the information for your own harrasement. Express the problem factually. Make it easy to read, with bullet points, one page per issue, lots of white space and not flaming. Show a draft to others you respect, and take their suggestions on changing it. Writers have their editors tune their writing for more power.
Find out if there is a School Board member who you can talk to. Maybe write to the board and ask for a chance to address the board at one of their meetings. If there are 12 people, then prepare, copy and staple up 20 packets, and hand one out to all board members, as well as everyone else in the room, including the newspaper reporter. Dress so they won't write you off as a radical. Talk slow, and even. Present the problems, and ask for them to look into them and get back to you on making changes.
Or, prepare the writeup and send it to all board members asking for a chance to speak to a board meeting. If they decline, call the newspaper and ask to speak to a reporter about it, and send your packet.
Or, set up a meeting with the School Superintendent, but they may ask if you've met with the board first.
If all that fails, go to the newspaper.
Or, find an honest person, and help them win election to the school board, then take up your cause.
Or, figure out how to run for the school board yourself. Even if you don't get elected, you can use the campaigning to send your message to the community of people who care enough to listen to the candidates.
This can look like "sitting on your ass" and not taking action, but if you charge in too angry and too early, then everyone has permission to act like you were wrong about everything you wanted to say, and you're history.
See the difference? Plan.
I think that we will see the day when a person cannot say anything they wish with impunity on the Internet. Probably the geeks will start a new equivalent then, less regulated, etc.
It seems like we should try and move toward taking responsiblity for what we say, and skipping expressing raw negative thoughts. Right now we are restrained by what is legal, but we do pay an internal price for dwelling on negative thoughts. I don't mean to sound too corny, but we all have had the experience of getting dragged into some negative spiral, and noted how we acted and sounded, and when we weren't into it any longer, felt and acted better.
The Internet is still pretty "new" and it seems like a positive thing to have an opportunity to exress your negative thoughts anomyously, but I'm not so sure it works for us in the long run.
Slashdot itself wrestles daily with the dynamic of negative expression.
This news story shows how wound-up the society is about it all, and how badly they want to just order it to change, as evidenced by trying stiff punishments. I doubt the punishments will solve it, and wonder if there is a near-term solution?
Is the problem of excessively negative expression escalating? Has the Interent made it easier, or is it just better publicised at the moment?
I really seriously think this type of bullshit has gone far enough. Why are other people being punished for the mistakes of other people who decide to go on a shooting spree make? Really, he posted he personal opinion about some of his peers, though insulting, they were not death threats. All this is is that society needs put blame on our own geek/internet culture for the school shootings. I say sue the government for your computer and damages, make it a high profile trial and tell the public where to stuff it!
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
"he could be sued just the same and no one would think twice."
He isn't just being sued.
Man that's a waste of a good computer too! Donate it to my charatible cause.....we can pretend that it's tax deductible =)
<li>Brother's friend creates a I hate my ex-girlfriend page.
<li>ex-girlfriend's father calls school
<li>School calls police
<li>Police call parents, tell parents that they told the school to go fsck themselves, they have better things to do.
<li>Geek comunity declares local police "get it"
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
I'm wandering, if a person makes a comment on a website which is situated outside US soil the person still acountable to US law ?
I mean , if a person from the states smokes a spliff on dutch territory He's not in violation of any law. And on returning to the US he cannot be held accountable.
So, how does this relate to the virtual world.(Not that this website was in a different country, I think).
This is a bit like the eBay versus France problem.
Idea's anyone ?
So, in order for him to be found guilty of libel, doesn't the court have to first determine that what he wrote was not true. Shouldn't there be hearings to find out whether the particular school personnel are drunks, and if the cited classmates are "sluts". Maybe several of the faculty members are incompetent, and this guy is upset about the situation.
Just because a kid writes something bad about someone doesn't make it untrue or libelous.
Not quite... If you're in a crowded room, and you say things that are untrue, you can be sued for slander. If the things you said were true, then you can't get into trouble.
You're right about the published stuff. If it's untrue, then you can get sued for libel.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
A simple "sticks 'n stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me" reply from those offended would do in this instance. But yes, in this sue 'em all and let god sort 'em out society of ours ... by all means let's bring in the lawyers!
Len Brabant
The "good people" of this town probably weren't counting on anyone really finding out about this on a national level, [...]
.,@
Boy, do I hope they get wind of this discussion here. It'd freak the hell out of 'm...
;-)
xchg
xchg
jmp emailMe
From the link:
"They always take things personally,'' Jolley said.
Because the boy used a home computer, rather than one at school, the incident was handled by the Beaver County sheriff, Jolley said.
But removing a student from school in order to keep the peace is not unheard of, either.
In Layton, Northridge High School Principal Michael Duckworth said that years ago, when he was at another school, a group of students posted throughout the building signs designed to belittle a school administrator.
"Those kids were removed from school,'' he said. "When they had learned their lesson, they were split up and sent to other schools."
The students were disciplined under the Davis School District's safe schools policy, which is based on the federal safe and drug-free schools policy.
The policy is interpreted differently in each of the state's 40 school districts, said Verne Larsen of the State Office of Education.
"What works in Weber County won't work in Beaver County,'' Larsen said.
Principal Linda Sandstrom at Alta High School said a similar incident would certainly prompt recourse at her school, the largest in the state.
"There are just certain things you cannot say and get away with it,'' she said.
"Kids have a pretty high capacity for this stuff anymore,'' Jolley said. "I hope this situation is correctable for the sake of him and his family."
How little self-esteem do teachers and other people have? It really sounds like this boy hit a nerve here. If someone attacks your reputation, you defend yourself. However, criminalizing the very act of criticizing is the coward's way. I know it may be hard to defend against groundless attacks, but most people don't listen to that. If you just take your time, people will listen. Especially when you debunk the whole crap.
People should be more robust and be able to work things out. Not cut away "bad elements", that only shows how much they REALLY care and understand.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
If you know anything about Utah, you would know how much of an insult that is there
Nothing is a significant insult in the mouth of a 16 year old kid. This is an entirely inconsequential matter, blown out of all proportion.
Maybe this is the worst possible thing that kid could ever have done. Maybe it's entirely justified, by the previous comments in the school newspaper. I simply don't care. 16 year olds simply don't count, as far as their "libels" might "damage the reputation" of others. No-one ought to listen to the derogatory opinions of a kid (that goes with the territory of being a "kid") -- Yes, it's a good thing to listen to kids, especially your own, but they _will_ bad-mouth people without justification and so should never be regarded as capable of causing real hurt by this.
Is America, or Utah, such a wonderful place that the worst crime you have to worry about is to be bad-mouthed by an angry kid ? Here in the UK, we have a more considered opinion.
People must be accountable for what they say, whether we like it or not. Sadly we cannot allow people going around making damaging remarks about people that they know aren't true. How would you like Jon if someone posted online that they "found out" that you raped some hot chick in high school? Libel wouldn't be very funny then I can guarantee.
The libel laws most certainly need to be gone over to check for compatability with online speech. In fact it is my opinion that most critical area where we need to regulate is to license reporters the way we do doctors and lawyers. A reporter who slants their stories too much, too often, commits libel and other violations of the spirit of freedom of the press needs to be punished. However in that case of course you must make a distinction between professional reporters and guys who run hobby news sites like I guess betanews.com (can't think of a better example). The last thing we want is general speech licensing. However we need a licensing system that holds professional reporters accountable for their libel/slander.
With that part of online libel the last part we need to look at are of course flames. Few in their right mind would take flames seriously, but what do we do if flames step over the line into clearly illegal speech like threats of physical violence? Frankly I think all of those pundits that liken the net to the wild wild west got it wrong. It's not like the wild wild west, more like the colonization of the new world; we're having to build a new society from the ground up, not just transfering an old culture to a new one.
Here's from the California Penal Code:
CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 182
182. (a) If two or more persons conspire: (1) To commit any
crime. (2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any
crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime.
(3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action or proceeding.
(4) To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means
which are in themselves criminal, or to obtain money or property by
false pretenses or by false promises with fraudulent intent not to
perform such promises. (5) To commit any act injurious to the
public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice,
or the due administration of the laws. (6) To commit any crime
against the person of the President or Vice President of the United
States, the governor of any state or territory, any United States
justice or judge, or the secretary of any of the executive
departments of the United States. They are punishable as follows:
When they conspire to commit any crime against the person of any
official specified in paragraph (6), they are guilty of a felony and
are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for five, seven,
or nine years.
...
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes libel, slander, defamation and such. Here are some excellent articles explaining these issues, particularly with respect to the Internet:
Maybe I am mis-informed here (I hope for America I am!), but isn't this what you can expect from a country with (one of)the worst educational systems in the world, where the average (mind you, I say AVERAGE) education of people is lower than a 14-year old's in our country (The Netherlands). If you don't educate people, they get wrong ideas (and are easy to manipulate bij govt. etc). If media and govt. tell them the Net is bad, it MUST be bad. And if they are so stupid not to take the responsibility for their coffee-spills (or are not able to figure out you can't dry a dog in a microwave), how can you expect them to know someone who calls a classmate a motherf*cker isn't going to shoot a whole school next?
You should start with a better educational system, that is, in short, my point. Again, I hope i'm mis-informed here!
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
Thats actually the point of the article, in the opposite direction. He was basically jailed and had him computer taken from him for what he did. The article however mentions that he put these pages up in response to a Gossip Column in the school paper that said cruel things about a friend of his. If he is to be charged for criminal libel, maybe the writers of the column should be too. If it weren't for the fact that he included the faculty in his own "gossip" column, there's little doubt that he would have been left alone. What he did was wrong, but what was done about it was far from reasonable.
Stupid is as stupid dies.
some kid decided to call some buttwipes buttwipes, the buttwipes acted like buttwipes and the kid got to move to S CA? Where is the "victim"? I mean its Utah. The buttwipes there want to be buttwipes.
Take this personaility test.
what's the difference between police and lawyers again? they are both buttwipes dedicated ti wiping butts. The lawyers do it more with "talk" but you feel worse afterwards.
Take this personaility test.
If you cut them some slack now, then when they get older they will start playing with more dangerous things and expect not to be held accountable.
Exactly!
Put that same libelous speech on a website and then, all of a sudden, you're potentially another Klebold/Harris and woeful disregard of your rights becomes justified.
Millions of teenagers go to school everyday. Millions of them return home safely everyday. A couple of whackos go on a shooting spree and all of a sudden, we are in the middle of a nationwide crisis where every angry, confused and hormonally imbalanced teenager is a potential killer. It's all crap. You want to be safe? Stop watching television and stop reading mainstream news.
BTW... Until now, I didn't realize that there was such a thing as "criminal libel". Shouldn't libel cases be limited to civil cases? Who decides?
Do you think this case should be pursued in a criminal court or is a civil court more appropriate?
The whole point is that he is not being prosecuted as he would be for libel. If the local paper libels me and I lay a lawsuit on them, the police are most definately not going to confiscate their presses and drag the editors to jail. The kind (what kind?... the wrong kind) people of Utah have intimidated this boy into fleeing the state... they are not (necesarilly) sluts and drunks, they are intolerant thugs and small minded authoritarian theocrats.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
In my opinion it is neither. "Slut" is all in how you define things. Maybe I think if you kiss someone other then your partner you qualify as a "slut". Maybe in my opinion if you have a glass of wine with your Thanksgiving turkey once a year you are a "drunk". Just as the meaning of the work "sucks" has taken a whole new definition the last 20 years. While it origionaly was understud to mean a sexual act, now it has a more general conotation of just being bad. Slashdot has recently ran stories about the courts afferming this by protecting www.XYZincsucks.com type domains. Now if I said you slept with 5 guys in the past week and did not, that would qualify under slander or libel. ^IMHO^
Let's get real, they have to let you get one shot off at your intended victim before it is attempted murder? I don't think so...
For better or worse, we naturally fear the unknown. If a police officer sees a teenage boy calling a girl a slut in a strip mall, he feels he knows what is going on from the tone of voice, the body language, etc. Does he have the same gut feel for something he sees on the Internet?
Net distributed messages are often less nuanced, either because of the limitations of the medium (my straight text here), the skill of the person using it (ditto), or the ability of the recipient to detect those nuances if properly conveyed, or decrypt them if not.
The one thing that the police can do, is show what was said with MUCH better documentation. No longer is it a he-said/she-said deal. Also, libel and slander (defamation) is one of the areas where the speech itself is the issue, you don't have to look for proof of any other real-world activity. (Example: If someone hears me wishing to bump off my old man, they are going to have to investigate as to whether I took any real-world concrete steps toward such a goal to arrest me. On the other hand, if they see my internet site calling a physician a malpracticing quack, that's it, they're done.)
For better or worse, the authorities are out there, and looking at the activity. I live in a major city, and I can tell you that the cops like their teenage-girl-on-the-internet stings. They get a lot of play in the papers and on the evening TV news. (Your police ARE protecting your children on the Internet, yes they are!) I think it is our job to educate them to have as good a feel for what is really going on when they see an IRC channel as when they are on a street corner in the bad part of town.
Trying to post big STAY OUT signs, and scare the authorities away from pursuing their normal activities on the Internet is not going to keep the authorities out, it is just going to make them come in that much harder and that much less informed.
Given the typical fiascos and cliques at High Schools everywhere, and the seriousness with which the web publisher was treated... perhaps he should hire a private investigator to uncover the true facts surrounding those who were libeled. Often in high school, many so-called rumors were overkill, but then many others had some truth to them. Serious legal attack demands serious legal retaliation. Lawyers are the new superweapons of society. David
The HTML 4.0 specification at the W3C has a sub-section on accessibility of the web for those with physical disabilities. (sorry to hark on but lack of support for disabled access to the web is a pet hate with me)
take a triptonica to subthunk
That was a good letter, but you have the wrong address, there is no stltrib.com domain, I did the whois lookup, and no records exist under that name. You would be better off using the correct domain name for the Salt Lake Tribute which is sltrib.com.
"You ah oll sluts"*
-Conan the Barbarian
* = you are all sluts
I am suing Arnold now.
Lars -
This would never happen in Canada.
Lars -
Surely that's part of the larger problem...that kids lose sight of/fail to develop a connection between their own actions and the consequences of those actions. Calling the cops in seems a bit extreme, but remember: it's just the first part of the legal process. When it gets to the judge and it turns out child x wrote "all the teachers are drunks", there will be very different consequences than if he wrote "I have photographic proof of tzanger diddling his daughter".
Kids learn from the reactions their actions receive. By continually relaxing the threshold at which we begin to enforce the rules, we don't make happy children, we make irresponsible children.
Because when we were in school, it would never have crossed their minds that you might be holding three guns and a half dozen pipe bombs. That unfortunate door is now open, and it leaves school administrators in the deeply bad position of choosing between an immediate over-reaction and explaining to Tom Brokaw why they didn't "see the signs earlier".
I suppose I do sound like I'm advocating a police state, which is not my intent. Calling out the goon squad is overkill, and probably only defensible in Utah. (hence the question of constitutionality of his charges, which apparently have yet even to be filed)
Does that mean that I can be jailed if I write "Netscape engineers are weenies" spelled backward ? :-)
Hang on. I thought the basis of libel was that you'd said something untrue about someone, and claimed it was factual, and it DOES count if it's verbal. The difference is that no-one can stop you saying what you *think*.
Saying "Bill Clinton is a woman." is libellous, as he isn't a woman.
Saying "I think Bill Clinton is a woman." is not libellous, as it's your opinion, and your opinion, and your right to voice it, is protected.
Now this dude sounds like he posted comments like ""So-and-so teacher is a drunk." when they might not be. That's libellous, and angry or-not angry, is breaking the law.
Safer to say "I think so-and-so is a drunk."
I could be wrong though...
Not being resident in the USA, I am not proficient with the Yank Law / Constitution. However I believe the libel law(s) to be in direct contravention of free speech, defining free speech as free from financial and legal recriminations.
:) and 2. There are too many libel lawyers getting their pockets lined by the present system.
My remady would be to alter the libel laws so that the party disseminating (wether on the Web or on a Newspaper) libelous comments which are untrue (this may be proven/disproven in a simple court hearing with only a Judge prosiding to minimise costs - with no party being libel for the others costs) to print an apologie with EQUAL or greater prominance and time of display to the original libelous comment(s). After all how often have you seen YYY newsrag print a week full of untruths on the front page then after this is proved as such print a 2 line apologie on page 10.
This would help recifiy the problem of media printing untrue information (by giving the readership the true picture afterwards and by detering incorrect information before [think of the lost sales in the News market]), reduce costs of both parties during legal action, stop the awarding of stupidly large and difficult to determine awards and provide a plesent form of poetic justice.
Of course this will never happen as 1. It is too sensible of any goverment to implement (going to write to my local MP with this idea anyway
Physicists are said to stand on one another's shoulders while programmers stand on one another's toes.
If it's true why do you get offended at the messenger? If it's not why do you care?
While I completely agree with you on this subject, I think I need to pose an answer to this question you posed.
To start, I can only justify being offended by the truth with low self esteem. If my esteem were higher, I would easily be able to take it.
But... Why do I care if it's not true? It goes back to the old adage that a lie travels half way around the world while the truth is putting it's shoes on.
Now, what am I going to do about these lies? One of two things. Either shrug it off, because my image is good enough that everyone will know that they are lies. Or, fight back on some level playing ground. I can code HTML well enough to fight back against some website which has blasted me. And if I can't code HTML, I've always got FrontPage or Composer to help me out.
-- Hi! I'm a
Yea, here we have 6K people (in the States) and cable is aways away. And DSL? The phone company and ISP here haven't even HEARD of DSL yet...
I wasn't bashing Canada, the post did menation the United States when I was refering to the legaity of selling crack, I am not sure what the laws about crack are in other countries, so I didn't want to be the "We are USA, are laws apply everywhere" type of guy, I was just stating what I knew for a fact, other countries may allow crack and didn't want anyone to get confused on the details of the example.
I personally would like to move to Canada, less stupid laws about crypto, better hockey teams, less crime, not so dam hot in the summer... IMHO Canada reminds me on the United States, but without the corrupation or Nuclear Bombs. I know that is stero-typically, but it is J(ust)MHO so don't get to bend out of shape cause of it.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Yea, but they made it "easier" for the average user, getting Mosaic to work was extremely difficult. Not like IE or Netscape. Please using DUN or a chat script was hard, you had to remember phone numbers, or atleast write them down. Now you don't have to with AOL, Compuserve and the likes of point and click, "we remeber the phone number for you" services.
(The above is sacarism)
5 years ago, when I got 3 wishes granted towards me and I used them all for the good of the Internet:
1) faster bandwidth than 28.8
2) Netscape won't crash as much
3) more people online
1) ok, techinally my wish came true, so now we have 56.6K, wait 5 more years, cable and dsl should be coming around (live in a small town)
2) Uh, ok Netscape doesn't crash the entire system now with it (switched to Linux) and techinally if you don't use it, it won't crash so much
3) Ok, so there is more people
It is like to monkeys paw. Techinally my wishes did come true, but at what price? MUAHAHAHAHA
...
...
...
MUAHAHAHAAHAHA
I think I should of wished for 1 million dollars, I mean 100 BILLION DOLLARS and built my own Internet Super Highway, this one seems to be more like an alleyway in Vegas, slow moving, littered with trash, pimps and whores on both sides and some crazy homeless person standing in front of you car shouting about his shoes.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
ok karma whores, just keep on bashing katz, you're just so cool.....
If you want a real world equivalent to this, picture first the 3 articles attacking his friend appearing in the newspaper, then this as a response. Or the same on cable. Etc.
Learn to represent the entire situation.
Oh, and, btw, there aren't 300,000,000+ channels on TV, or pages in a newspaper, like there are web pages.
- Rei
Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
I would think that by definition something that "sucks" would have to be taken as an opinion and not as true fact. Although, I would love to see a court of law try to define something that "sucks".
suck vb 1 to draw (as liquid) into the mouth through a suction force produced by movements of the lips and tongue. The baby sucked on his bottle. 2 to draw by or as if by suction. The tank was sucked dry. 3 to involve in an enterprise by compulsion or deceit. He was sucked into the situation. 4 to be extremely or disgustingly unpleasant or objectionable. (considered vulgar) That really sucks.
I really don't think you could go after someone for libel because his or her opinions about others are vulgar. As far as I know libel is being responsible for one's actions. This is what I thought the first amendment was supposed to protect. Then again if you are under the age of 18 you don't have any constitutional rights. And by the time you reach the age of 18 you realize the constitution is not set in stone like you were taught. The constitution is not absolute
I think it really sucks (no pun intended) that all of this happened... and I agree with you KATZ that free speech only applies in the real world. If people's rights keep getting squashed, the net is going to come crashing in on itself. Personally I don't spend too much time on the net anymore. (Slashdot and a few matches of Counter-strike and UT is about all I get into) During the last year I've been discovering a whole new world out there where my rights acutally mean something. The last 2 years I've spent on the net have been wasted. I think I'm better off because of it, but I still feel a void that needs to be filled and I'm not going to fill that void in a place where my rights don't mean anything anymore.
"Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."
-- Ernest Hemingway
Me thinks Utah is a fascist state. Will US bomb it like they did to Yugoslavia?
Get some respect for yourself and then you won't give a rats ass if someone is saying something about you.
Here, here!!
OoO
OoO
Please do not publish outside of
ROFLMFAO...
Do you mind if I use this as my new sig, it so totally hilarious, but makes such an important point.
"So I did what most ordinary people would do in that situation. I caught a squirrel, and sacrificed it to Zaqurarlin the Space God from the Third Comet Under the Setting Shoe. Zaqurarlin called upon his poet-assasins, and sent forth Hrrranak, the Most Exhalted, Feared, and Rhythmic. The poor bastard didn't stand a chance." Anonymous Coward
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask you. Are any of the popular kids going to jail over this? No. Ok, I rest my case. If you read, they pubished articles in the school paper/their own websites. I guess that that doesn't count since they are the "good" kids.
Eh...
Actually, it came as a child to my response. Which was defending the kid. I know all about Discordianism. Hail Eris.
Eh...
Whatever dude. So he posted it to the net. Ever get called a name in school?
Eh...
What's your problem? These people are coming down on this kid like he just nuked China. The other kids at school wrote websites too. Only difference between what he did and what the other kids did is that when a popular kid cries a bit, people go and make things better. Doesn't work like that for people who live in the real world. BTW, the reason that a woodpecker doesn't bash it's brains out has to do with the shape of its skull and a fluid surrounding it's brain. But then again, you're too closed minded to pick up a book and learn that, aren't you?
Eh...
This kid going to jail, retaliating for a website against his friend, with a website against the people who wrote those websites, when they are running free, is NOT appropriate.
Eh...
I never read this kids webpage. Have you? I bet that the careers of these kids have just been destroyed by it. Maybe little Susie didn't get asked to the prom by that really cute senior because of it? People should watch what comes out of their mouths as well, but they don't. If someone bashed me on a webpage, and nobody believed what they said, I wouldn't care. If someone bashes me by word of mouth, and people take notice, then I'm going to care.
Eh...
Hehe, that was listed in some chart of phone boxes way back when! They must've downloaded the anarchist cookbook or something, saw that, and pee'd themsevles. The concept was pretty much a way to link a van de graff generator to a phone line. Which, yeah, could mess up some electrical equipment, but obviously can't route itself by TCP/IP. This is a case of a news dude who doesn't know his tech and is interpretting something he doesn't understand, and probably has never heard of as being "Internet" by default of the mention of a modem. For those who don't know what the heck I'm talking about. Sparking a van de graff generator to a phone line is kind of like lightning hitting it. Ever get shocked during a lightning storm? Now picture some joker with a joybuzzer in the wireroom of your business doing that.
Eh...
I'm not crying, I'm conversing, perhaps you should have read the topic and understood that this is a discussion. I chose a side and argued for it. Perhaps if you don't like it, you should read a news source that revolves around what you have to say.
Eh...
Yes it is the same old story, but is it overreacting? I don't think so.
Now that there is a 'new' medium in which to express oneself, there will be a new group of people who use that medium to talk about it. Jon Katz has found something that is wrong, and is speaking about it. Unlike NewsPrint where something like this would be considered newsworthy.
By bringing this kind of attention to the problem, maybe people will start to relize that they will be called out in public to explain why they have infringed upon a citizens contitutional rights.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This isn't a lawsuit, this is a criminal charge that they're talking about. That's a whole other thing. Also, no matter how offensive, if this kid can prove what he claims then it ain't libel, baby!
Don't try to KNOW everything, just know how to FIND it.
"'...It's whether the others are going to be held to the same standard.'
Not likely. In 21st Century America, harassment and cruelty are fine as long as you don't do it on a computer."
It's not the use of the computer that is at issue. It is that the web page is hard evidence as opposed to hearsay. The same actions take place when something is recorded on paper, video, audio, etc.
Those sentiments play well here on slashdot, but need to be thought through more carefully.
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
I know someone at my school who had something similar happen, although the police didn't bust in and take all his stuff.
This was in middle school, and yes, it was immature. However, no school proprety was used in creating the webpage; it was just that a few other students going to that school were in his "vote for the biggest geek" contest.
The school prohibited him from using the computers for the rest of the year (this was at the end of the year, so it wasn't that big of a deal). Whenever he wants to do something special for the systems at our high school, the admins allways point back to this incident and forbid it.
------
Not a typewriter
Why is it that in these cases the people and the "law" always forget that it matters who said what and for what reason.
Of course, judging the severity of a lot of the above could be left to a judge and/or jury (whichever law-system your country/state has), but the people directly involved (the adults, not the kids) should be able to recognise the nature and severity of this case. Which is IMHO not that harmful and not that severe, considering that this is a pubescent teenager with his back against a wall.
Why don't the parents of either side's kids go talk to the school-management or each other? Solve this on the adult level, but out of courts...
Considering all the verbal abuse and other stuff in tv-series, movies, bathroom-walls, magazines, etc. It isn't surprising that Ian Lake didn't think he was breaking any laws. And to all those US-citizens: this isn't worth wasting your tax-money (or your childrens mental health) over!
The difference is that when it's done on the Wed, the authorities overeact viciously and unfairly. Without being guilty of libel (you are innocent until a trial proves you guilty beyond all etc), he was forcibly detaned and had his ability to express himself both constrained, and undermined through insinuations which clearly are libellous. If he had spoken out by nearly any other means, and also as nearly any other persona but the teenager, he would not have been so harshly treated. This is Jon Katz' point.
There is no question that the authorities have essentially denatured this person's "inflammatory" opposition. My question to you: what if he was right? I've been in a school I could denounce, would denounce, should denounce (for the public safety), and do denounce. I don't want to be censored so effectively and insiduously. It's akin to red-baiting: just because he's communist (or, in this case, web-savvy [ish]) doesn't mean he's wrong, or a libeller.
____________________
He who fights and runs away,
Mate, America was doomed when they let the first half-assed law-suit through the net and awarded damages to the torpid-whingeing cripple that brought it. JM2P
"It's expensive, stupid, last only seconds - but makes your mouth hurt for days - it's BEE IN A BALLOON" - Kibo 3/1/95
And Americans get upset when the rest of the world laughs at them. Talk about a hysterical over-reaction, and what has been done about the people libelling his friends? Have they had their stuff confiscated too? Doesn't look like it, but then they're 'normal'.
This is just another example how the first amendment is no longer in effect in places such as the internet. Yesterday a bunch of people walked through some city totally naked to prove a point about free speech. I think an event like this on the net should take place. I'm already naked...
when I find myself you'll be the first to know.
Gosh. Well it is nice to know that American teenagers are as horrible as English teenagers. I hated my teenage years, but I don't have the comfort of thinking that all the people I hated will be pathetic nobodies... I went to a posh school and they are all probably earning lots of cash in the city. Still, that is just a richer way of being a pathetic nobody.
How glad I am to grow old, to move away from those awful times.
----------------------------------
What are the weapons of happiness?
On the Internet, a simple PUT command on an FTP server can allow content to be viewed worldwide. Publishing stuff on the web is a lot easier than on paper, and in general, should be considered a lot less accurate. (Can you say, "potato powered web server?")
Did the kid expect anyone to actually read the content, or did he just want to put it out there to get rid of it from inside? There is a difference between publishing something in a newspaper and simply making it available on the web.
It's easier to put content on the web, and generally speaking, the expectations for truthful content is not the same as when you pick up the daily Times.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Use the preview button Luke, use the preview button... >:)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Seriously, I have not laughed so hard in a long time... It has been far too long since anything on Slashdot has even made me smile... Thanks for this, it made my mono day seem better...
Yeah please, let's make this into yet another 'voices from the hellmouth' discussion. If the kid did this in a (local) newspaper, or on a local cable, would he be arrested then? And would you also write an article about it? So please tell us mr. Katz: how is this different from the real world?
How to make a sig
without having an idea
If the students responsible for that are not held to exactly the same standards then I, myself, despite the consequences will fly to Utah, walk into that school, and well... give everyone a big hug? subject them to a stern lecture? dance a little jig?
More like, Troll Slashdot with a purposely vague post that indicates I might be unstable enough to go to Utah and shoot up a school.
High school is hell.
Unless you are good looking, athletic, dumb as a brick, and don't know a computer from your own ass at least.
People who don't fit in have always been around. People who dare to spet outside the norm for a while have always been criticized. Gallileo was branded as a heretic for his belief that the Earth revolved around the sun. Do you think that if he had had access to something as global and far reaching as the internet that he wouldn't have used it to put forth his theories??
People in general are not open to new ideas. If something comes along to alter what they percieve as reality, they lash back. To many people I went to school with, computers weren't useful, fun, interesting or anything else but boxes that made clicking and buzzing noises from time to time. I will note that these are the same people who thought that reading the ingredients on the side of a cereal package a challenge. Since I preferred books and computers to sports and cars, I was labelled a freak, subject to ridicule, and occasional violence. I was not given the right to retaliate, as my parents, teachers, and many other prominent adult figures agreed, although silently, with the judgement of my classmates.
This young man fought back in the only way he saw available to him. He went to a medium that most of them would never see, but he would be vindicated and justice would be served in his own mind. Was he right to say those things about those people?? Absolutely. He didn't say about them anything that hadn't been said about him or his friends by them in the first place.
In this day and age, people are still being branded as heretics for standing up for their beliefs. If you do not believe what everyone else believes, you are wriong. If you have been branded as an outsider, you'd better damn well stay an outsider because any sort of retaliation is just going to get you into more trouble. I only wish that back then I had have had the power to set up my own webpage with my thoughts and feelings about those who tormented me, it may have made my life a little easier.
Why is a person not allowed to speak his mind? Why is he branded as a potentially dangerous sociopath for standing up for his rights to security and peace of mind... basic, inaliable human rights?? Perhaps society is about ready for a radical change. I suggest a call to arms for all the downtrodden (Bring us your poor, your downtrodden, your huddles masses) people who have put up with crap from a bunch of clean cut, athletic go-getters. A call for all of us who have been labelled 'Geeks', 'Nerds', 'Wierd', or any other insult designed to slander you for being smart, or for being non-athletic. I issue this call, post your rants somewhere they will be seen, post names you remember from childhood that made your lives particularily hard to bear.
Do not break the law, this is not intended as a call ot violence, but a call to exercise your rights of freedom of speech. They can't charge us all, they can't even find us all. I'll be the first person to go, my web-page is started, it'll be posted here for all to see.
Don't let these people take away our dignity by silencing a simple act of retaliation.
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
------------------------
------------------------
Thus Spake ComradePenguin
You know... I don't mean to sound bitter, here, but I've never had anything of mine moderated one way or another - when my mentioning of the backbone cabal just got moderated by -1 for being a troll. Now, your response to my comment, doing nothing but praising my comment, got a +1. Yet my original comment got nada. I'm currently a negative-karma bastich, and I can't see what I'm doing or saying that's much different than what most of the other non-trolls do or say. Where am I missing the boat? Anyone who wants to explain this to me is more than willing to, and I humbly apologize for taking up bandwidth and/or taking this off-topic.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
Except, unfortunately, life IS like that. An' I don't like it any more than the rest of you men - I was harrassed, threatened, verbally and physically assaulted my entire grade school and high school life. It sucks. I nearly committed suicide twice, and I know one or two friends that actually did - they got out the only way they knew they could, and I like to think that, finally, they ARE at peace. That's the damned problem, though. We're so hyped-up on the sanctity of life that we won't let people opt out of living - people who the rest of the world has already decided are totally worthless; people who EVERYONE AROUND THEM SEES AS EXISTING FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN TO PROVIDE THEM WITH PERSONAL AMUSEMENT AS PUNCHING BAGS. What the hell kind of life is that? To wake up any morning, be forced to go out into the world, knowing that the only reason why people haven't just offed you yet is that your cries and pleas for help amuse them? The real social problem with teenage suicide is that it reminds us all of an exceptionally unpleasant fact, one that we'd all rather just ignore: Growing up sucks, and being an adult sucks almost as bad. Few ever achieve happiness, and the rest either live in their misery or delude themselves that they really are happy, after all, painting on hollow smiles and crying themselves to sleep every night. When you wake up tomorrow morning, look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, "Where did I say I was going to be today, when I was 6?" Then let me know whether you start crying.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
It doesn't matter :-) Since most sluts inhabit the internet already, consider it free advertising. He was just increasing their profit potential.
Send me a mail I'll pick you up at the airport. hehehe. Since it looks like my son will be going to school here in Utah this would be a *good* thing.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
And everybody laughed.
Because he did do it.
Tsha! That darned kiddo..
Nevertheless, it IS pathetic that people don`t see what teenagers mean with their 'difficult' behaviour. I think parrents atleast should have more attention for the problems their kids are causing/having. But seriously, One lousy website. Ugly words! By a kid! Oh no! We`re DOOOOOOOOMed! (now there`s a cute hint)
Anyway, ironically, "Grow Up" fits nicely.
a0a
With great power comes great electricity bills.
Somebody grab the Popcorn...
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
If you disenfranchise somebody to the point where you become their enemy or their classmates become the enemy, then you want to remove them. Columbine did come up. Parents didn't want to send their kids to school until he was removed -- taken from the original article
and in the end this is the problem that started it all but no one seems to want to address. instead of running legal interferance to get the kid out, shouldn't the community be working on some kind of counseling? and not just for him. from the article it seems no one is willing to admit that that children had anything to do with this. thus remove the problem and it will be ok. does anyone realize that their children may have made the problem? doubtful seeing how we live in perpetial denial. however as long as this kind of environment this like this will continue.
A pessimist thinks that the world is going to hell in a hand basket. A cynic thinks that the world is going to hell in
In either case, look up HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).
In this case, Falwell sued because Hustler printed a parody in which he was portrayed as having had his first sexual experience with his mother in an outhouse.
That was legal. If Flynt could publish that kind of material, then it is just as legally protected if published online.
In either case, the chilling effects on First Amendment protected speech are enormous if libel such as this is viewed not merely as a civil tort which can be redressed by a libel suit, but in fact actually becomes a criminal offense.
I hope this kid sues the holy bejesus out of these bastards. Personally, I agree with him. These fucking people are on crack, probably sluts, and certainly fascists.
When I start calling people names and saying things about them in a delibrate attempt to cause harm, that's libel.
No, a principal component of libel, at least in the United States, is that it not be true. Have any of us seen the website? I haven't. The father at least states that if taken to court about it the intention is to provide proof that all the statements did have a factual basis.
Name-calling may not be pleasant but it is not illegal unless it involves false accusations. Something like "slut" is not illegal, it is a matter of opinion. The use of such terms is often seen as sexist or otherwise politically-incorrect but that does not magically make it illegal.
Incidentally, apparently he and his friend had been subjected to libellous attacks in the school newspaper itself before this started--see my RAV v. St. Paul quote at the end with regards to that.
"What is the freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." - Salman Rushdie
"St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules."
R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue or reputation, or publish the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.
Incidentally, this statute may be unconstitutional by its construction. Either on an argument of "unconstitutionally vague or overbraod" or in that it appears to criminalize first amendment protected conduct. This depends on the state definition of defamation and whether the truth of the allegation is allowed as an affirmative defense.
"St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules."
R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
"If you can't say fuck, you can't say fuck the government."
Furthermore, for an act to considered criminal libal too things must be proven, a. that the statements are indeed untrue, and b. that the person or persons named by the statements have been in some way damaged or injured by the statements.
Further, many of the people involved in the alleged defamation have injected themselves into the public controversy by their own public comments, making them limited public figures with relation to a libel action.
In this case, the parties (or the state) would have to prove ACTUAL MALICE, not merely damage by the statements.
"St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules."
R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
I find it frightening that the society that supposedly encourages individuality actively opresses those whose actions are harmless but not marketable. You say your mind, like they say you have a right to, you get sent in for "reeducation". Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness, they've become a joke in Amerika.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
No, I'm saying that they should not be subjected to an investigation that will reveal that this kid's accusations are untrue. Why should these faculty members be subjected to additional srutiny when it is probable that they have done nothing wrong.
BTW, in order to prove libel, the claims must be untrue. If the prosecutors cannot prove this, then they will lose.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
What amazes me is the number of posts from people who go into the intracacies of libel law, as though they are legal scholars, instead of addressing the very plain and clear human issues that involve basic concepts of right and wrong. The law is an arse, and lawyers are arseholes. Trying to defend what is unpalatable and inexcusable in that way is beneath contempt.
-------------------------------------
I simply do not understand how we as a community can speak out against those who torment fellow students with vicious and unsubstantiated remarks while defending the kid in this case. It is almost like saying that somebody who privately torments a student should be chastised while somebody who stands in the middle of Times Square and publicly shouts those same remarks is not deserving of the same judgment.
I think the problem that we have is that our past victimization has led us to always identify with those who are experiencing similar treatment--regardless of their actions.
I hated people in high school and I'm glad that I'm going going 300 miles away to college in August. Nonetheless, stooping to their level and justifying my response by claiming that I'm just responding to my tormenters' attacks in kind is infantile. I'm not an "apologist"; I do not think that the magnitude of the administrators' response was appropriate. Nonetheless, we need to recognize that the individual we are identifying with *did do something wrong* by the same "basic principles" that you acknowledge.
While we can rage against "this corporate fascist right-wing police state" all day and all night, I think that we should not be afraid to look critically at *ourselves* and those who we identify with, first. Only through introspection can we grow as individuals and as a community. Blindly lashing out at those who we are viscerally or emotionally drawn to dislike is not productive, in and of itself.
I appreciate your criticism and look forward to your response.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
The Web site at issue here is, in some ways, the digital equivalent of the taunting and baiting that has always gone on in many American schools.
-----------------------------------
Not quite. Posting a web site is akin to publishing a document. Not only are you humiliating your targets but you are unfairly criticizing them in the presence of others who might heed your criticism. Sure, confiscating the kid's computer is a bit harsh, but we cannot ignore the damage that could have resulted if the school board believed the student's claims and investigated the employees who he called "drunk" or "incompetant."
Libel is libel, plain and simple. Your claim that it is simply high-tech bullying is misguided. Bullying is a very personal action (believe me, I've been subjected to it, too), while publishing a web page constitutes using a public medium. As a result, it is subjected to libel laws. Of course, if a bully makes hurtful and *damaging* statements about a student, he can sue for defamation.
While I do not invoke the Katz filter, I can understand why people do. Katz has a strong analytical ability but his tendency for sensationalism is rivaled only by the tabloids. Here, he is trying to connect two very different and independent issues in an attempt to make a grandiose statement about how society unfairly treats people who don't fit in--again. Try again, Jon; if you cast often enough, you may catch something.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Heh... does it mean that if I post a first post and it gets moderated down, I can sue somebody? After all, being labeled a 'troll' on one of the world's most popular websites can hardly be good for my public image or self esteem.
I'm sure that this sort of thing has happened in this same town before to drug users, long-hair types, girls who got pregnant out of wedlock, and the like. The only thing that makes this unique is that "The Web" was involved. It does not signal a newly emerging social dynamic.
Yet does that make it right?
Blacks used to be slaves, so let us keep slavery.
Women could not hold jobs, they should stay in the kitchen.
Do I need further examples?
Yes this is being pushed into the light because of new media, this is going to be a case that someone could quote saying, "You don't have to be the bad one putting this kid in lock-up, you can just say you are following the lead of this case." Things need to change. -- Need more, think more, get sleep.
This is not a libel case at all. This is about censorship. This town wants to send a clear message to everyone that saying terrible things (no matter how true or how laughably and ridiculously unplausible) about it and its established residents (especially if the speaker is an outsider) will not be tolerated. Just read the article carefully. If they go through with it, this will be the first prosecution under this particular criminal libel statute. Criminal punishment for libel and slander are usually associated with countries like China, Singapore, Malaysia, Cuba and Iran. It is pretty astounding that such laws have not been struck down by the Supreme Court already, perhaps because there has not been a test case yet since prosecutors in real cities and states have better things to do with their time than prosecuting people for criminal libel, such as going after murderers and robbers.
You should make the determination as to whether the words warrant legal action and if you believe that you were harmed by the false words, you have the right to sue for damages. In this case, the government, not the individuals allegedly harmed, is considering suing him criminally and put him in jail along with murderers, rapists, robbers, etc. This is not about libel. It is about censorship in its worst form (censorship under the guise of protecting the populace).
Then they would claim that it was music/videogames/TV's fault that he did this.
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
"Jailed for saying M$ sucks"? Well... You wont have to worry about that when they move to Canada. You'll have diplomatic immunity...
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
Does that mean that I can be jailed if I say "Microsoft Sucks"
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
This seems to allow two possible interpretations:
--
--
Pay no attention to the errors in my post. I am the great and powerful Oz.
Yeah, if he's spray painting on his bathroom wall. you're saying what he did was vandalism, but how can you vandalize your own property.
Okay, yeah, so if you say it in a crowded room it's slander and you can get sued for that too. I should have clarified that I meant it as an opinion... I didn't because generally when somebody says "X is an asshole" it's taken for granted that this is an opinion. That's just the way (informal) speech is -- it's mainly opinion. When I said "a crowded room" obviously lots of people thought of a man with a mike in front of a podium, which isn't what I meant.
This is, in fact, the same confusion that's going on with this kid's site: he's saying stuff that is patently just his opinion / venting, but people are using laws which apply to an entirely different class of action to kick his ass, just because they're pissed off.
My main point -- that they shouldn't be able to kick his butt just because he doesn't like them and says so -- still stands. It's rampant censorship. And I think I've clarified what I meant on the other points: on the net, things should be taken as opinion, not facts or attempt to be factual.
Thanks for illustrating my point, people! No wonder I love /. :-)
While this is true to some extant, I believe if you read the original article (which is linked to in the above article) you would see that the original Internet postings were done by other students that were saying negative things about him and one of his female friends online. Shouldn't these people be treated the same way? After all, the point of America seems to be trying to homegenize everyone into the same boring slave-like, can't think if you were told to, dumbasses. The only way to do that is to treat everyone like a complete moron. Not just those that don't fit in. Oh wait a minute, those that don't fit in....
...sounds like everyone that now reads slashdot when we were in high-school.
Bite my yammer.
Didn't anybody read the original article (the one linked to above)? Other kids put up sites wich attacked him and his friends. He retaliated in kind and he is the only one being punished. Why not punish all of them? Oh, I know, because the rest of them were preppy assholes that agreed with the principle of the school. And the principle wanted the kid out of the way.
Bite my yammer.
oh, come on. You can't deny that the free-speech issues involved here aren't important. Technology isn't everything--the thought behind the tech, the driving moral and ethical forces, are equally imortant, if not more so.
And anyways, that was the solution... if you removed all books entirely, NOBODY'S feelings could get hurt. Gee... we should listen to books more often. ;^)
</sarcasm>
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
I could give a rats ass if someone wrote shit about me on the web.
A side rant: I've told Hemos that there needs to be an organization (by techies) that fights all these important issues that come through Slashdot. Rather than having an article, about 500 comments, and thats the end of that. Maybe a page for each case, key people to contact by snail, email, etc. Donations taken. Lawyers hired..
If we let big business decide our new world, imagine what will happen.
Deepak
It seems to be quite irresponsible journalism on Jon Katz's part to make misleading and incendiary statements like "sent out of state" and "driven out-of-state". According to the article and the kid's father he was sent to California to live with his granparents, and that's what the kid wanted out of this.
As mentioned in the article this to me does seem like the beautifing (- is that right) the web for the 'average' person. The problem is the 'average' person really isn't going to read the page. They need to realise the net is not a medium for business and they should piss off back to where ever. this is indicative of the way business permeates everything in society today. I am from Australia and we have big problems now with businesses control of sport (namely Rupert Murdoch -- Australia apologises for him), I realise that it has been like that in the US for years but the day someone could own a competition s the day sport died. And I say good on you to the kid. I was never really bullied at school as I was big and played sport (sort of) but many of my friends were. And I hear the US is much worse. America should look at itself and see how the rest of the world sees it. Not as the leader of the free world but as the decline of modern society. The moment some one can be arrested for paying out somebody is when we realise the extent of the totalitarian society we live in. I agree that we should unite to help this guy, otherwise it will be another case where the 'cool' people win. but remember the best revenge is living a good life. and most of these jocks will end up doing nothing for there life and this guy will probably create some great program and be rich!!!! Sorry for rambling ;-)
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
On the bright side, this kid will have a nice scolarship fund to put away for college after he sues the police for violating his civil rights (due process).
Who polices the police?
agreed
"Producing satire is kind of hopeless because of the literacy rate of the American public."
I just pooped your party.
Ranting on the web is hardly the only way of dealing with stress. There's so much more to do, workout, play a game, ride your bike, etc. You don't have to get even to relieve stress. If his friend was attacked in the newspaper write a followup article to it. In our university paper friends of mine were involved in a similar situation (probably liberlous as well) and simply wrote back replies which were published.
What a pile of mealy mouthed new age sewage!!
Why should a person have to relieve their "stress" only in supposedly "healthy" (and ineffective, IMO) ways like "workout, play a game, ride your bike" etc?? What's wrong with ordinary outrage and anger!! Are you one of those creeps that think that everyone who gets ticked off because they are being shat upon should just "get anger management therapy" and "get over it"??? What a recipe for a breakdown!!
I could work out until I was blue, but it would do absolutely nothing toward educating others about what an idiot you are! So I rant, and I get even. Part of relieving anger stress is venting it appropriately - this doesn't mean swallowing it and going for a bike ride. It means taking steps to shed light on the cause, and trying to stop it, i.e. ranting and getting even!
Also, most high school papers are run by the "in" clique, and therefore they wouldn't publish a rebuttal, or followup. They don't have to, and if it's detrimental to their power base they won't. So your solution is idiotic. University papers are only a little less biased. The net, however, is a free medium.
What this kid got viciously whacked for was expressing his opinion of the teachers and students who were harassing him and his friends. He flamed them in print, that's it! He didn't use a gun, or a bomb, but has been treated as badly as Mitnick for a lot less reason!
If he posted real threats, that's different. But calling people "sluts" or incompetent, fascist, stupid, or drunks is not a threat. Flaming != threatening.
So put those pop psychology books away and learn about how real people deal with anger before you give yourself an ulcer.
PS: When will this thing get a spell check utility in it? I don't always catch my typos with "preview".
use Sig::Witty;
Yeah, in high school I contemplated a) blowing up the school, or b) killing myself. In the first case, I couldn't figure how to get only the ones that I hated without getting caught, and they'd just be dead - not good enough. In the second, I figured "Why should I die because they are vicious jerks? It won't hurt them a bit! Better to stick around and plot revenge."
It turns out that time brings the best revenge. When I went back for my 20 year reunion, I was one of the few with a nice geek job. One of the other geeks had already retired after starting his own company! The ones that treated me like shit had dull sales jobs. Even better, a lot of them had packed on a lot of weight, whereas I am only 20 pounds more than I weighed in high school. I was always fat, but some of them looked like they doubled their weight. No more room to sneer!
The "what have I done since high school" that was put together for the 15 year had a lot of "was alcoholic, got sober" stuff in it. Seems a lot of the "stars" didn't cut it too well in the real world, and turned boozer.
None of this is an excuse for shitheads to harass the "odd" student, and especially not using the police and the (unconstitutional) seizure laws. Mind you, part of the kid's revenge will be the really negative international publicity and legal expense that this will bring that little backwater town.
use Sig::Witty;
This is ridiculous. He isn't the media. When a celebrity figure sues a tabloid, I believe it is wholly justified. Whether the tabloid has the reputation of being such, they still have the responsibility as the media to deliver truthful information. But that isn't the case here. We are dealing with a boy who is voicing his opinions about his classmates. That is freedom of speech. Loose or strict interpretation, he is justified in what he did. He is being targeted merely due to the stupidity of authorities in this matter. This is what I don't understand about libel. I find that addressing someone by name is merely one way of identifying a person. What if, instead of addressing "Jane Doe" as such, he referred to her as "that slightly overweight 10th grader that plays french horn, and is going out with so and so." He may have avoided this whole mess if he used a little creativity and that's bull. Yes, there may be more than one "10th grader that plays french horn and is going out with so and so" -- but probably not. Moreover, you will never see Bill Gates or Bill Clinton filing libel suits against individuals over the same matter. Why? Because think of how many sites are dedicated to flaming either of them? Then think about how many sites flame the "Jane Doe" that Ian flamed. Yes, the web is a public place, but it's no different than writing "For a good time, call Michelle at 555-1212" on the side of a bathroom stall. But of course, it's much harder to get caught for that. :) Hrmm... I wonder. JANE DOE IS A SLUT. I wonder if they're going to send the Internet Police after me.
But the printed word is considered speech in the context of the First Amendment. In that sense, both libel and slander occur in everyday speech, the distinction being that libel occurs in print and slander occurs in the spoken word.
It's a tough call, because obviously his intent was to harm
I think the intent makes all the difference. If the site was intended to be laughably hyperbolic, the harm would be harder to prove because no reasonable person would actually believe the content.
Didn't Larry Flynt avoid defamation charges by pointing out that no one would actually believe that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse.
IAMNOTALAWYER (I Am Moderated "Not On Topic" And Laugh At What You Expect Really) but I doubt whether jokes about people could be considered defamatory. Even though the Flynt vs Falwell case hinged partly on the fact that Falwell was a public figure, the private citizens in this case are involved in matters of public concern, namely the public school system. This decision by the supreme court might have some applicability here.
I'm a Canadian, so it doesn't even apply to me. However, there is nothing exclusively American about the meaning associated with the constitutional use of the word 'speech'. It is used to convey a similar idea in the Canadian Bill of Rights. The english word 'speech' has acquired its meaning partly because of its historical use in the American Constitution and other such (not exclusively American) documents. So the mere fact that a word was used in an American document doesn't make that meaning exclusive to the USA.
The USA certainly isn't the entire world. I didn't mean that at all. But in the English language, wherever it is used, the word 'speech' can mean both printed and spoken word, depending upon the context, of course.
It could be argued that the teachers are public figures in this case. They are certainly public enough to be held to a higher moral standard than other people. Teachers are entrusted with a public duty when they teach. Shouldn't they then be subject to the same kind of criticism as Clinton?
See the following case for some interesting comparisons:
Falwell v. Flynt (485 U.S. 46 1988)
A personal website is not the same as a public newspaper. While it is true that it is publicly available, it is not publicly distributed.
This small detail makes a huge difference in deciding if what this child did can be construed as Libel. My website is not a magazine, or a newspaper. The things which I put in it are for the enjoyment of myself, and a few hundred of my internet friends. I do not have the benefit of running my pages through a legal department to make sure I'm not offending anyone. As a matter of fact, as a representation of what I think and feel I want to be able to say anything I please on my personal site.
If I want to be a racist biggot or a tree-hugging hippy thats MY business!!! I am putting it on my website so that everyone who goes there knows what I think.
A newspaper or magazine is a public information source which is distributed. Because of it's use, it falls under a different class of publication than a personal webpage.
At some point, libel must be redefined to be applicable only to distributed publications. If this does not happen then the internet will be destroyed by this and other limitations on free speech.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Utah is not in general known for its high degree of tolerance of social malcontents.
ahh yes.
utah, land of bigamists and daughter-fuckers.
there, i just libeled the whole state. sue my ass.
crap generating idiot
Unfortunately, things are never as simple as they seem. How hot would the coffee have to be before it would be OK to sue? The elderly woman in this famous case was hospitalized with serious burns over her genitals, thighs, and buttocks, and McDonald's had received numerous complaints over a long period of time informing them that the coffee was dangerously hot.
Is a consumer ever justified in suing a business over a dangerous product? An argument can be made that coffee shouldn't be served hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.
My point? Oh, yeah, I did have one of those...
Lawsuits, and the use of lawyers in general, are, like most tools, morally ambiguous. In other words, good or bad depending on the circumstances.
---------
---------
get your war on
They don't drink Shlitz where Jon is from - PABST FUCKING BLUE RIBBON!! FUCKING PABST!! GET IT RIGHT! Or may your sould forever be damned to the stinking pits of South Texas, to listen to bad "house" techno and Moby until your ears bleed gory red and your entrails get eaten by carlito katz.
--Hail Mary, for she has the largest shotgun of them all.--
And, whether the kid is sixteen years old or eighty years old, he has to show some common sense and learn that he just can't say what he feels about people no matter how much it may be the truth about them, because the truth can hurt. Actually, yes he can. That's the point of free speech -- one's inalienable right to be an asshole. America is doomed if you start incarcerating people for hurting other people's feelings. What a ridiculous thing! play the blues punk. -bluesninja
Imagine that the media didn't inform us about the Utah incident. What would have been the real effect of the insults of that boy? Not really dangerous. On the same level as if he just shouted his anger at school and/or in the surroundings.
Freedom of speech, in internet and among human beings, is ruled by a certain amount of common sense. In this story, in this whole mess, there isn't. There's prevarication, malversation, and a sick measure unit in judging the boy's behaviour.
An example: Who knows if I insult my neighbours? Maybe other people in the same building. Few consequences in any way: the spreading of my insults has the limit of passing the word on. Without appropriate links, insulting on-line has much the same limit. In my humble opinion.
Greetings
"If I'm in a crowded room and I yell offensive things about somebody -- even if they're untrue -- I can't get in trouble." Thats just plain wrong! You'll get in trouble ESPECIALLY if its untrue. As long as it is true you CAN'T get in trouble. The difference between spoken and written comments is the difference between slander and libel. One is written, one is spoken. They're treated the same in court.
But is this really that libelous? If the kid had yelled something obnoxious in the halls, would they have called the cops? The issue here is that there is an overreaction to the material because of the medium that it is being used. Because this was on a web page, the kid is getting an punishment that is out of proportion to the crime, in essence, getting punished for knowing html.
On a slightly more legal angle(although IANAL), doesn't libel mean that the speech had to cause harm? What actual harm happened because of the web page being up? Did the school administrators get fired because this kid claimed they were drunks? It seems to me that while as immature and obnoxious as writing a nasty web page is, its hardly something you should get arrested and kicked out of the state for.
Right on, brother. Holding it in is of no use. Better lash out immediately than let your rage grow and become more harmful. When you kick some ass, people understand and are generally nicer afterwards. I know that sounds cynical, but hell I know that from experience. If you can't beat up some fucker alone, get your bigger brother or friends to beat him up. It works like a charm, believe me.
1. Libel is written defamation of character
2. Slander is verbal defamation of character
3. Statements have to be false in order for them to be considered libel or slander
4. Both are civil offenses, not criminal -- the "injured" parties should have filed a lawsuit
5. The police should not have been involved because it was not a criminal matter
6. In cases of libel, the "victims" don't have to prove that they were harmed -- the fact that the statements were written is proof enough of harm (even if no one else read them)
7. The law enforcement in this particular town in Utah is apparently profoundly retarded
From Unfettered Press
In 1637, an English writer named William Prynn made the unfortunate mistake of writing a book that criticized the queen. Brought before a panel of judges, the hapless Prynn was found guilty of libel and ordered to spend the rest of his life in prison. As an added punishment, he had his ears lopped off before he was hauled off to jail.
Had Prynn been living in modern-day America rather than 17th-century England, he undoubtedly would have been free to write his book -- whether about the queen or a U.S. president -- without worrying about losing his ears or ending up in prison.
Libel is a legal term that describes a written form of defamation, which the dictionary defines as a "false or unjustified injury to someone's good reputation." Sometimes the word slander is used in the same breath as libel. The two terms mean the same thing, except that slander usually refers to defamatory statements about someone that are spoken to others rather than written in a newspaper, magazine article, or book. Today the legal differences between libel and slander have all but disappeared due largely to the dawning of the electronic age. American television networks, for example, are sometimes sued for libel even though news reporters and correspondents "speak" their words to a viewing and listening audience rather than to a reading audience.
For the United States, the laws that control libel and slander first began to take shape even before the colonies gained their independence from Britain. One of the most famous American cases involved New York publisher John Peter Zenger, who was imprisoned in 1734 for printing political attacks against the colonial governor of New York. Zenger's lawyer established a legal precedent by arguing successfully that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases. Up until then, it had never mattered much whether the allegedly libelous statements about someone were true or false. Since the Zenger case, however, someone can sue successfully for libel only if the defamatory information is proven to be false.
The Zenger case established another precedent that remains in place today. Libel cases, which are part of civil (rather than criminal) courtroom proceedings, may be heard by juries, and it is up to the jury to decide whether a publication has printed libelous information about someone. If so, it is also up to the jury to decide how much the libeled individual has suffered and what kind of monetary damages he or she is entitled to receive as compensation. In the United States today, about 90 percent of all libel trials are heard before juries.
The 18th-century framers of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed freedom of the press by writing that protection into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Even so, the Supreme Court of the United States -- the highest court in America -- for years refused to protect the media from libel lawsuits by relying on the First Amendment. Instead, libel laws varied from state to state without a single coherent rule in the nation.
That all changed in 1964 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.
And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.
The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media.
For purely private individuals, the test for proving libel is not as difficult. Although Supreme Court rulings such as the Sullivan decision apply everywhere in the United States, most states continue to have their own libel laws that cover private individuals. Usually those laws require that public figures who believe they have been libeled prove that a journalist has been negligent when publishing false information about them. Negligence, like malice, is a legal term that generally means carelessness on the part of a reporter or editor. Because private individuals have more reason than public officials to be left alone in the media, American libel laws recognize that they are entitled to more legal protection against false statements made about them.
Every year hundreds of libel lawsuits are filed against newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations in the United States. Typically, these cases are brought by current or former public officials, by entertainers, or by business executives who feel they have been damaged by critical media publicity -- usually accusing or suggesting that the person has engaged in unlawful, improper, or questionable activities.
In December 1990, for example, a judge on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court won a $6 million libel verdict against the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper because of a series of articles it carried in 1983 that suggested he was guilty of influence peddling. And in one of the largest libel verdicts ever reached against the media, a former district attorney from Texas named Victor Feazell was awarded $58 million in April 1991 after a Dallas television station accused him of accepting bribes to fix drunken driving cases. "This verdict sends a message to the rest of the media to get your facts straight," Feazell said after the jury announced its verdict.
Two months later, a state district court judge not only upheld the judgment but included a provision adding a 10 percent annual interest charge to the award if the station appealed the case and lost. A settlement was reached shortly afterwards.
A jury in Chicago, Illinois, awarded businessman Robert Crinkley $2.25 million in May 1991 because a Wall Street Journal article falsely linked him to bribery payments made to foreign officials. Crinkley said the newspaper story prevented him from being hired after he left his former employer. The jury agreed that he was a victim of libel even though the newspaper published a correction to its original story. The award was thrown out in September 1991 by circuit court judge Howard Miller. Miller ordered a new trial on damages after ruling that the evidence in the case was insufficient to support such a large award. Crinkley's lawyer began planning his appeal.
In these and other cases, the person bringing the libel suit has the burden of proving that he or she has been libeled. In other words, a public figure must prove that a reporter not only published false information but also did so recklessly and maliciously without attempting to determine whether it was true. Libel cases are not limited to disputes between the media and the people they cover. In July 1989, the American Express Company admitted to spreading false information about an international banker who controlled New York's Republic National Bank. When the banker's attorney threatened to sue for libel, American Express confessed to its role and agreed to donate $8 million to charities as a settlement in the case.
Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.
Not long ago, the owner of a restaurant in New Orleans sued a food critic for writing unflattering things about his eating establishment. Too bad, the Louisiana Supreme Court told the restaurant owner, before sending him back to his kitchen empty-handed.
More recently, Jerry Falwell, an American religious leader, sued a magazine after it published a biting satire of Falwell that mocked his piety. Indeed, a state of Virginia jury awarded Falwell $200,000 after concluding that the magazine had inflicted "emotional distress" on the well-known clergyman. But the U.S. Supreme Court later threw out the award by explaining that satire, no matter how scathing and upsetting to its target, was protected by the First Amendment.
Floyd Abrams, a New York lawyer who specializes in representing media organizations, estimates that individuals who sue for libel win about 75 percent of the cases that end up before a jury. But the media succeed in reversing jury verdicts most of the time after they appeal to higher courts. Abrams says the reason is that jurors often do not fully understand or apply the proper legal standards that cover libel cases. As a result, it is common for media organizations to carry libel cases to intermediate appellate courts if they lose at the first stage of a trial.
In recent years, a number of American courtrooms have turned into stormy legal battlegrounds because of widely publicized libel cases that have made headlines the world over. One such case started in 1976 when the tabloid National Enquirer printed a small item about Carol Burnett, a popular television actress. The newspaper falsely reported that Burnett had gotten into a nasty argument with former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in a restaurant in Washington.
A jury in Los Angeles eventually awarded Burnett $1.6 million, concluding that the National Enquirer had never bothered to find out whether the item was true. An appellate court later reduced Burnett's libel award to $200,000, agreeing that she had been libeled but ruling that the Enquirer should not be so harshly punished for its errant behavior. Still, the actress was satisfied with the result. "If they had given me only one dollar plus carfare, I'd have been happy because it was the principle," Burnett said after the case was over.
In other cases, principles have all but disappeared under an avalanche of legal tactics that sometimes turn libel trials into expensive battles that leave no clear winners.
That happened after former U.S. Army General William Westmoreland sued the CBS television network for $120 million. Westmoreland was angry about a 1982 CBS news program that had accused him of exaggerating American military progress during the Vietnam war. After an 18-week jury trial in New York City, Westmoreland and CBS reached a private settlement that amounted to a surrender on both sides.
"In the end, the trial came to a termination as cloudy and unresolved as the Vietnam war itself," wrote Rodney Smolla, a libel expert and law professor at the College of William and Mary.
In the wake of Westmoreland's case, several legal experts have criticized the way libel matters are handled in the American legal system. Some of them blame media organizations for relying so strongly on the First Amendment's free press guarantees. Daniel Popeo, a lawyer in Washington, says that the First Amendment unfairly protects the media but not the "victims" of unfair media coverage.
Journalists respond with their own set of complaints about libel lawsuits. Yes, they say, the courts have made it difficult for most people to win libel cases. But the threat of being sued also causes many news organizations to shy away from publishing controversial stories. Large media outlets like CBS or the New York Times have the financial resources to battle expensive libel lawsuits. But smaller newspapers and television stations find it more difficult to afford such a costly burden.
The ongoing debate over libel has prompted at least one proposal for a new set of libel laws that would make it easier for public officials and others to prove their cases. The proposal -- drafted by a private committee of lawyers, law professors, and media representatives -- also would eliminate large financial awards that can be assessed against media groups found guilty of libel.
Over the past quarter of a century, the courts have favored the media in libel matters, "but such victories have been hard fought and costly, absorbing millions of dollars in attorney fees and thousands of hours in lawyers' offices and courtrooms," according to Roslyn Mazer, a media lawyer in Washington.
Bruce Fein, former general counsel for the Federal Communications Commission, a U.S. government regulatory agency, is one of the lawyers who helped to draft the proposed set of libel laws. Fein says the ultimate goal is to ensure more accurate reporting by journalists so that members of the public are better informed about important public events. But he also thinks it is important that the media still have wide latitude in deciding what to publish. "In a democratic society," says Fein, "everyone has to take some lumps in the media."
According to a link on About.com:
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires that, before a public official can recover damages for a defamatory statement, he must prove it was made with "actual malice", even if state laws otherwise allow recovery for negligent defamation. The Court has since expanded this to cover not only public officials but "public figures", including individuals who involve themselves in controversies.
So in this case, does this seem to indicate that the teachers would have to prove that the kid intended to be malicious? (i.e. wanted them to lose their jobs, something like that.)
Also, a defense for libel is if the statement was an opinion -- you can't get sued for saying "I think Bill Clinton is a slut." An opinion can't be proven false because it's just an opinion.
From About.com: * You can be threatened with a defamation suit. You might receive a letter saying that unless you retract a statement, you will be sued. There are numerous threats of defamation. Most of them are just bluffs; nothing happens. Even so, often a threat is enough to deter someone from speaking out, or enough to make them publish a retraction.
:)
* Proceedings for defamation may be commenced against you. This is the first step in beginning a defamation action. Statements of claim, writs or summons shouldn't be ignored. If you receive one, you should seek legal advice.
* The defamation case can go to court, with a hearing before a judge or jury. However, the majority of cases are abandoned or settled. Settlements sometimes include a published apology, sometimes no apology, sometimes a payment, sometimes no payment. Only a small fraction of cases goes to court.
With this information, it's extremely difficult (read: impossible) to see why the police would see it necessary to employ guerrilla tactics in dealing with this kid. Libel is libel -- the fact that it's on the internet shouldn't matter. We're supposed to be living in a society, not a society where people become irrational and paranoid simply because someone was using a computer. I think we should all move to Costa Rica
I've seen slanderous things written about teachers and students all through my school years, in bathrooms, on chairs and desks. It's called grafitti. But the trend of getting a law inforcement agency or teaching personelle to confiscate the personal possessions of a student due to percieved moral infractions is becomming incresingly common, (probably tenfold in Utah) and that's a very dangerous problem.
When I was in high school, we had cameras on every hallway and our lockers periodically searched by drug dogs, at which point we were forcably detained if we attempted to leave our classrooms during that time. I am not a drug dealer, but I was personally chastized later on not for having anything illigal in my things or my posession, but for having a poster of a very attractive, scantily-clad celebrity in my locker, which, btw, did not attract the attention of the drug dogs. At the curiosity of one of the teachers near by, my locker was then forced open and checked for pornography. I assure you none was there, but the fact that I was forcefully moved away from my locker so that a teacher (not even a law-enforcement agent!) could rummage through my belongings got me furious.
I had a computer disk eventually confiscated, a disk that contained a collection of personal writings of my own and many close friends who were helping me launch an art zine. (you remember zines.) The disk was later stolen from one of the teachers (who kept it in an open shoebox on her desk full of other disks.) She refused to return it, and told me only that it was given to her for use in the school literary magazine. Although I had previously agreed to give her a disk contining poems and stories for her magazine, the fact that she had also lost that disk probably made it even more difficult to convince her I was not backing out on publication by swiping my work. (Again, I most certainly was not.) Even if I was, I still should have been entitled to have my disk back.
The point is, this kind of incompetence is becomming common-place in school systems where just about anything goes as long as you show up for work, and it's probably very similar to the situation Ian is in right now, only he is being attacked on a much grander scale. No doubt some of what he said was true, and mocking the weaknesses of those in charge has been a legal right (political parody) for many years past.
Having your computer confiscated for a web page is like having your car stolen and dismantled for driving it to an underpass and spray-painting "microsoft sucks!" on the concrete. What does the car have to do with the free speech display? And more importantly, why kill the messanger? There's a reason pollitical parody has had such strong legal protection, and it's a very disconcerting to wonder if the time is comming where to question authority means to have your privacy raped and your belongings stolen. Getthe kid to therapy and explain to his parents the fine art of parenting, lest the internet become for little Ian the no-holds-barred babysitter the television was for them.
I agree, if it infringes on the rights of others you are held accountable. but what infinges on the rights of others? is it said anywhere?
What a sad time we live in. It's sad that we've gone from the home of freedom, free speech, and information to the time of petty lawsuits, ecommerce, whining corporations, and wide-spread idiocy. Thank you large computer companies for bringing fuckheads of all shapes, types, and backgrounds to the perfect place and ruining it.
Tehre has been a very similar case in the UK, where 2 financial journalists for The Mirror bought up cheap stock, then wrote puff pieces in their collumn before selling on the resulting high. This is illegal under the London Stock Excange regs, because it is clarly an attempt to rig the market. Note that these people didn't mention at any point their interest in the matter.
The management apologize for any convenience caused.
No. We'll just keep prodding them until they start making noises about lashing out, and then remove them quietly, so we don't disturb any of the normal students.
The most frightening quote I saw in the article was this one, by Principal Schofield: This just gets scarier and scarier the more I think about it. It's the same sort of attitude that slaveowners had in the Old South - they prodded the slaves to weed out any signs of rebellion. The instant anyone began to stand up for themselves, they were killed.
It's also the attitude taken by bad manufacturers - if there's a problem with one of their processes, and it turns out a faulty product every so often, they don't fix their process. They just discard the faulty product and keep right on going, as it's too much of a bother to actually fix their problem.
Just another argument for "schools == assembly-line factories", I guess...
Cariset
Wow. First, I'd like to congradulate the kid on getting what he wanted. How many of us can say that we achieved fame on /. because of a problem with school? Not to mention getting to make a mockery of the town, insult people who he disliked, and getting out of that (as he probably sees it) hell hole.
Was it right? I believe that, if he intended all of this to happen, that he must be fairly intelligent. It was definately right of him to use technology rather than physical violence.
From what I hear, what he did with it may have been questionable. If he wanted to solve the problem in a more acceptable way, he might have made his comments a little more level headed. Of course, I don't have access to the origional site, so I can't make an unbiased judgement. On the other hand, if he did want to create such a stir, he accomplished his goal.
On the legal front, I think that it was probably wrong to confiscate his computer and yell libel in a crowded forum. This only makes the kid into a martyr. Oh well, what is done is done, we'll see how the rest turns out.
If Ian reads /. he sure must be happy!
Julian Delphiki
I have never heard of a case of criminal libel - I've heard of famous people bringing civil cases against print media for slander/libel, but I never thought someone could actually go to jail for saying something. This whole thing smacks of "go 'ol buddyism". The local law enforcement leaders are probably good friends of the faculty/admin people who got slammed or friends of the parents of stundents who were called "sluts". Small town fascist shit like this makes me sick. The judge who let this go forward should be disbarred (and believe me, it took a judge to get a search/seizure warrant for the computer).
Much like Ohio. But that's a different story entirely :P
The point made earlier about the main difference between the 'net and print being one of inferred validation is quite on target. People read printed material and automatically assume it is factual, and accurate (the obvious backdoor to that statement would be publications such as Enquirer and Sun, which no sane person takes seriously). People look at personal comments on a web site and laugh their asses off. No one with even half a frontal lobe would take comments on a web site to be fact just because they're there.
That's just plain lunacy. Yes, he should be held accountable for his comments, but NOT in a court of law, federal, civil, or otherwise.
------ He'd been to some great parties in tombs.
Well in your first example you are just stating an opinion...Being labled as lazy is hard to clasify as being a statement of fact...And even if you would classify it as fact...is it defamatory? And is it untrue?....But the biggest hurdle there is no reasonable person would interpret that as a statement of a factual matter and therefore it's just opinion and not actionable...But for libel you do not need to prove damages, general damage to your reputation is presumed and the court can award you acordingly, same is true for narrow cases of slander which would be called "slander per se". Unless you are dealing with a media defendant and prove less than Actual Malice (ie Negligence for a private plaintiff), in which case you have to prove "Actual Damage" which is the general damage to your reputation preseumed above. Of course if the defamation is just plain ol' slander, then you must prove special damages. But if this teen's words are statements of a factual matter, which some of them appear to be, then what he said is actionable in civil court and damages would not have to be proven because it's libel....Even if it was just spoken, some of what he said could be considered "slander per se", and would have general damages presumed...Ie calling the girls sluts...Because allegations of serious sexual misconduct by a 'WOMAN' is one of the categories of "slander per se" (notice the emphasis on woman which means that allegations of serious sexual misconduct by a man is NOT "slander per se")
Yes your quoting of Utah's code was on-point to the original article but not in regards to my posting....My original reply was to a discussion of civil defamation...Many were defining it incorrectly and I just replied telling what the correct definition for civil defamation is...Then you come in saying I need to brush up on my legal research....What was that about??? I never maintained that my definition had ANYTHING to do with Utah's criminal code. I don't need to brush up on my legal research...I didn't research Utah's code at all....Why would I want to? I have better things to do than to reseach some backwards state that takes a matter which belongs in the civil courts and clogs up it's criminal justice system with it. My point was and still is that regardless of what the law-makers in Utah put in their code, defamation doesn't belong in the criminal justice system. Even beyond the 1st Amendment issues, it's a frivoulous charge and serves no social purpose beyond clogging up the criminal courts. But then again maybe Utah's criminal courts are pretty clear and they need this to give the DAs something to prosecute :)
See my reply down below...I posted as an anonymous coward because I didn't notice that you could set up a user name :) I'm the law student and I posted the legal definition of Defamation.... To your point....Yes people should be held accountable for their defamtory statements even when it's on a webpage instead of a newspaper...BUT defamation should be a civil action...Just WHERE is the crime against the state here??? The DA has no business getting involved...AND I will be extremely surprised if this goes very far within the criminal justice system. Criminal courts are not there to settle the name calling disputes between kids! No judge in his right mind would allow this case to go forward.
Again your still a little bit wrong here although you are on the right track....Opinions are NOT actionable...TRUE...But what is an opinion? X is an asshole....that's opinion...It's neither true or false...X is a slut...or X is sleeping with students...or X is a drunk...all are statements of fact...they can be proven either true or false...It doesn't matter that the person meant these as his opinion, if it's a false statement of a factual matter...it's actionable. BUT again...this is meant for the civil courts and doesn't belong in the criminal justice system
Where the $#@! did you get that definition??!!! I don't mean to flame here but I just find it sooo funny when lay people try to define legal concepts. Nowhere in the definition of defamation is the requirement that it must be told to '3 or more' people. ONE person is sufficient as long as he is a 3rd party....that means he is neither the communicator, nor the person who was defamed. Here are the elements for defamation...1) Defamatory Communication...ie either Obliguy(defamatory on it's face) or Inducement(extrinsic facts) + Inuendo(defamatory meaning) must be shown...2)Falsity...3)Publication to a 3rd party...4)Basis of fault (Actual Malice or Negligence)...and 5) Damages (General Damages presumed for libel and slander-per-se...unless private P and media D where only negligence is shown, then Actual Damages must be proven[General Damages presumed above] Although not a lawyer yet, I am a law student :) Don't take it too hard...must non-law people posting on this topic have got it wrong too :)
Well yes there is obviously a code section in UTAH making this a crime...otherwise the DA couldn't charge him now could he? The article even states he was charged with 'Criminal Libel' which is obviously on the books....MY point was that defamation doesn't belong in the criminal code...The law of defamation evolved to protect one's interest in one's own reputation....Just where ss the crime against the state to defame someone? Regardless what is in the criminal code...no judge in his right mind would allow such a charge to go forth. It's about as bad as the law against anal or oral sex that is also still in the criminal code of many states.
That maybe what is codified in UTAH's criminal code for 'Criminal Libel' but that is NOT what defines the common law tort of libel. I defined the common the tort of defamation and libel...I said nothing about it being what was defined in Utah's criminal code as 'Criminal Libel'....That being said Utah's code shows you an example of how some law makers used a tort concept to define something they wanted to make a criminal offense while totally changing the definition in the process....Still doesn't change the fact that no judge in his right mind would allow this case to go forward.
No your a little wrong there...The legal defination of publishing has nothing to do with the intent of the communicator...It means the statements were conveyed and understood in their defamatory meaning by a 3rd party....So in your example of yelling offensive statements in a crowded room...You CAN be held accountable IF the statements were defamatory and untrue and not just statements of opinion...(the statements must have an element of fact to them..ie they are either true or false)...Same would go to a website...BUT a website would change the defamtion to Libel instead of slander because the statements are in written form. Again though it has nothing to do with the intent of the writter...It's all about whether a 3rd party received and understood the communication in it's defamatory meaning...AND again it should be a civil matter NOT a criminal one. AND I am a law student
When I was in High-School, I pulled this kind of thing all the time. The only difference was that the people that I was venting about were as "Internet Ignorant" as the rest of the world at that time. If I posted a rant on a BBS somewhere, the only people to see it were people in my shoes. It was kinda like a secret club.
It's bad enough that the kids are getting harrassed worse than ever, but now the only safe place to vent is quickly becoming more policed than the schools that they are trying to escape from.
If I were in school nowadays, I'd probibly be watching my back at school AND home. God forbid one of these kids "looses it" in school.
:::still shaking my head:::
My
So what we are saying is that, lets arrest them for complaining... so that they keep it bottled up, so that way they will go freaky, and kill... yea that is smart.... rogan feel free to email....
I think the big question hear is what a web page is and what is an instant message. An IM is written text but is it closer to conversation or to a newspaper. What about a web page, conversation or newspaper. Communications are divided into two parts based mainly on control and each has different legal asspects. Large expensive business controlled media such as newspaper and television are in one catagory and you would expect any false damaging information given out here to be prosecuted. The other would be face to face conversation as well as over the phone, these are decentralized modes of communication initiated by the user, has anyone every been prosecuted for a private conversation? The question is where does the web fit it has elements of both. This is not so much about libel as it is defining the web and its content right now it is being related more to magazines and newspapers but it really needs to be established as it's own form not tv and not conversation it needs to be sepperate from past legal precedent.
I have been a journalist for nearly 30 years. I have been held personally responsible for every word I have written. Think before you speak: think twice before you write. It can come back to haunt you. And there is one constant with amateur writers- they want the praise, but rarely understand the responsibility that comes with free speech.
A revolution is coming in this country. I'm no kid - I'm age 50. But I can smell it coming. This will not happen until things get much worse in the way of censorship, concentration of power and abuse of technology to make all aspects of life someone's "intellectual property". Maybe another 10 or 20 years.
This will be a bloody revolution because those who feel they have nothing left to lose (translate no rights and possibly no employment prospects either if they have ever dared to offend some corporate entity) well, they have nothing to lose. Their lives - so what. As in all revolutions, it will be the elite, in this case the technological elite, which leads it. This will also involve the US Military being fragmented as its members take sides - some with the repressive corrput bought and paid for "government" and others with those who want a change. Further, while the government-corporate establishment may have even better means of tracking and repression, the revolutionaries will also have devastating cyberweapons (I think the nanotech threat is real) to use which can be cheaply produced or engineered mostly with software - anywhere, anytime. Truly, this will be a "cyperpunk" novel come to life.
The trend is clear. There have been too many of these kinds of stories and they continue to increase. I could not imagine this kind of repression happening in the US 20 years ago - in Soviet Russia, perhaps.
The only thing to prevent this will be action in the near future by tech workers (sysadmins, programmers, scientists, etc.) in the form of massive strikes and slowdowns, massive demonstrations, etc., of a peaceful nature which are effective in bringing the economny to a halt. This will get results. Nothing else will, short of a violent overthrow of this so-called government which increasingly is just a puppet of money interest and neo-facist conservative lobbies. Elections are bought and mean nothing given the scale of contributions by corporations which are thinly veiled bribes to anyone who can see.
You have been warned. If this trend continues, people will not stand for it. They tolerate it now only because the economy is good. But that can change, and the repression can get much worse. I suggest you all do a lot of praying, and/or emigrate to a part of the world which values freedom more that Americans seem to these days.
Once we valued freedom here in America. Perhaps that was because we had to fight for it!
When I read articles like this, it really forces me to ponder, have I been infringed upon? Have I said anything that could possibly hurt someone else over the internet? I hope so. After all, last thursday someone threw a campbell's soup can at my left ear. And sure, I laughed at the time, but it hurt on the inside. Specifically, inside my ear.
So I did what most ordinary people would do in that situation. I caught a squirrel, and sacrificed it to Zaqurarlin the Space God from the Third Comet Under the Setting Shoe. Zaqurarlin called upon his poet-assasins, and sent forth Hrrranak, the Most Exhalted, Feared, and Rhythmic. The poor bastard didn't stand a chance.
Anyway, I hope you see my point.
Have a couple of beers in the sun, go for a walk, read a book. This is the same thing as we see in school rooms, workplace coffee rooms, irc channels and web forums like this one.
When you have a load of people in close proximity sooner or later someone's going to get pissed off with someone else. The group will probably polarise into two fractions and things will just go down hill.
* Yarn goes to loaf around in the sun with a drink.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Shit.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
In general, schools can only discipline students for 1) behavior that occurs during school, a school event, or on school property, and 2) behavior which is disruptive, interferes with the learning process, or constitutes a danger to others. The Supreme Court has ruled that schools may not censor critical speech by students unless it meets both of the criteria above. In the case of the black armbands, the students involved did not disrupt classes in any way, did not rave and rant in the hallways, and were engaged in critical speech (albeit silently). Thus it was protected by the Constitution.
Of course, in reality, principals and school districts routinely ignore the law. This is especially true in small rural school districts which are not under the sort of strict oversight that big-city school districts are, and which do not have the systematic rules and procedures that big-city school districts have. I still must say, though, that this is a really weird case altogether. I taught in a small rural school, and I cannot imagine my principal suspending or expelling a student for something that happened off campus. Heck, I had enough trouble getting him to suspend a student for cussing me out and walking out of my classroom when I denied him permission to get up in the middle of my lecture and go to the bathroom! I can't imagine any of my principals suspending someone for stuff said off-campus... and some of these guys were, well, nuts. (shrug) Guess things have changed in the 6 years since I left the teaching profession...
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I though libel was always a tort. Can someone help me out here?
--
IMHO, the difference between freedom and conflict is that in one, there's accountability. In the other, all is fair, no matter how bloody it gets.
(The difference between flames, trolls and slander on the one hand, and cluster-bombs, land-mines and UXB's on the other, is that you can always recover from a physical injury, or at least die instantly. Verbal abuse is for life, and no surgeon or doctor can ever relieve the pain.)
Does that mean that I think what happened to this kid was ok? Of course not! Abuse + Abuse = Abuse. You don't clean up shit by piling more on. At best, it'll teach this kid that, when he grows up and someone insults him, the "right and proper way" to solve things is with superior firepower.
Just as importantly, what message does this give the bullies at his school? Simple. Find a weak enough victim, and the school itself'll keep the bully safe.
Is that the kind of message we WANT sent? I think I know Slashdot well enough to know that there are people brighter than that here.
So, what would I suggest as an alternative? Beating up the original bullies? Chances are, they only became bullies because someone beat THEM up, originally, same as happened with this kid.
No, the answer is to show kids that violence need not be met with violence. If you fight fire with fire, you'll get your hands burned and probably many innocent ones too. Fight fire with water, and that needn't happen.
Will anyone do this? Nah! Schools are made up of people with their own problems, and nobody with a problem is going to be keen on anyone shining a light on it. To cover up their own toxic waste dumps of poisoned emotions, teachers and parents alike will never voluntarily show kids how it can be safe & ok to be a kid. It's far too dangerous.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Seems to me libel has always been more capable of taking legal action against that slander.
Our rights online may be being taken away left and right, but this seems a pretty clear cut case to me. The fact that online libelous writing hasn't been taken up in courts before this has no bearing on it.
I would tend to agree - this person may be guilty of libel (note that we don't have all the facts). However, libel is a civil offense, not a criminal one. The involvement of the police in this case should have been limited to serving civil suit papers to the family.
Criminal libel is a special case -- one where irrevocable damage is caused to one's reputation. Somehow I doubt that any teachers lost thier jobs, or any students were expelled over what this one student said. Most courts would be reluctant to allow criminal charges to continue on something like this had it been said in the school newspaper.
My bet is that the victims (and I use the term loosely) in this case will use the concept that a web site has a potentially limitless, worldwide audience as a forum, whereas a school newspaper is very limited. They will doubtless ignore the fact that no one gives a dingo's kidney what this student thinks of his teachers. :)
--
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Hmmm. Given how much Killing Miranda have played up to the "most hated band in the goth scene" image, are you really in much of a position to complain about defamatory stuff being posted about you? I'd say yes, depending on the circumstances (particularly for non-KM related stuff), but you're treading awfully close to the line. As you say, the real problem is when it spills over into real life, and the smaller the community (such as a small town in Utah, or maybe the UK goth scene), the more likely this is to happen.
BTW, what's the reason for the no show at Gotham?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Utter rubbish. Libel is the process of causing harm to another's reputation, and it comes in two forms. If the process is written, it's called Defamation. If it's spoken (as in your example), it's called Slander. The only difference is that Defamation, by its very nature, tends to leave some kind of lasting proof, and hence is easier to persue in the courts. Slander relies on witnesses being present (usually when spoken in a public place, or in a televised interview, for example). Also note that truth isn't always a valid defense against libel, if the intent is to maliciously harm reputation, rather than just expose the truth. IANAL.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
My point wasn't that what the town/school/police/government did wasn't wrong, my point is that people commenting that he was simply doing to the students in the school what they did to him was incorrect. They slandered him, he libeled them. The kids father wants the other students held to the same standard, but what they did wasn't the same, legally. Morally or ethically, yes they're pretty much the same.
And these days no one should be at all suprised that individuals representing the government overstepped their bounds, trounced on a citizen's rights and generally behaved in a manner that would be reprehensible if done by a third world country. But this is the U.S., the greatest police state in the world!
Calling someone a slut vocally is slander, calling them that online is libel.
Seems to me libel has always been more capable of taking legal action against that slander.
Our rights online may be being taken away left and right, but this seems a pretty clear cut case to me. The fact that online libelous writing hasn't been taken up in courts before this has no bearing on it.
Wow! A Killing Miranda aware Slashdotter. I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise given the amount of people at the Slimelight that have programming jobs ...
...
As for playing up to the "most hated band" tag, it wasn't something we actively sought, although it obviously works for people like Marilyn Manson, etc. Other people painted us into a corner simply because we put our faith in a record label with a handful of vocal detractors. The amount of people who then projected their own grudges and fantasies onto the tedious affair is remarkable.
The very nature of things like Usenet and Slashdot make it appear like an enormous school playground. People take sides, bandy about ludicrous opinions, make dubious allegations
A good example of how this can then spill over into everyday life is the rift between Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond. Perens appears to have been serious when he suggested getting a court order against Raymond (although given ESR's interest in firearms it isn't that suprising).
The sad thing is that people like to gossip, and take sides in other peoples arguments. But if that's what they need to enliven their lives than what can be done to bring about some form of closure?
Chris Wareham
On the web, anyone can publish anything. They only need to know how to write. People are much less likely to take it seriously.
... the average Slashdot user may take anything they read on the web with a pinch of salt, but it's still legally admissable in most courts.
Hmmm
The other way to look at it is this:
Libel can occur in everyday speech. If the libelled party can get witnesses to support their claim, a case can still be made.
So simply because web publishing doesn't involve a third party (newspaper publisher, etc.) doesn't set a precedent in libel law.
Chris Wareham
The difference is that this kid isn't being sued--he was arrested.
"I nearly committed suicide twice, and I know one or two friends that actually did"
:-)
...
I don't know what to say to you about that, because I didn't know your friends, and I don't know you. I do know that the same things happened to me however.
That's interesting. I, too, attempted to kill myself on two seperate occasions, when I was 13 and 14 years old. Fortunately for me, I wasn't very competent at it.
When I was 6, I said I was going to be a pilot. And you know what? I joined the Air Training Corps, hated the herd mentality there and left. But one day, either with money from my music or my work on computers, I'm going to take my money, learn to fly, and I'm going to plot a course directly over my old school, and the places I've been taken to remind me of 'the way it is' with sticks, fists and white trainers, and I'm going to spit on them from a thousand feet.
If your school is not built in a town (many serving the smaller midwestern towns are actually a couple of miles out in the country, surrounded by cornfields), you can legally spit on them from 500 feet AGL if you like.
Shortly after I got my private pilots certificate I took my sister flying over a small town in central Illinois where we both had very unpleasant memories. While neither of us spit on the town, we did dart around the clouds (keeping the required 2000' lateral distance, of course) and did a few steep turns just for the fun of it. Why? Because we both have successful lives doing what we want, and the people which caused us such pain in those days are still down there, ecking out their sorry lives with death the only light at the end of their tunnel.
I would strongly encourage you to learn to fly, but as you probably already know, it will be an addiction to make heroin or crack cocain look innocent in comparison. Just starting the motor on the ramp after a two or three week haitus is like a needle prick to a junkie: pure, wonderful bliss and delicious anticipation...
To the person you responded to I would add: Growing up is hell. Being a teenager is hell. High school isn't the best years of your life. It may be the best years of the sorry saps lives who are tormenting you, will never go to college, and will never get out of their sorry little town, but they are not your best years. If you are at all like me, they were quite the opposite.
College may be some of the best years of your life (certainly the most carefree in some respects), but even after graduation life as a working professional isn't bad (though the first job out of school generally is). Being an adult doesn't suck at all, and can be damn fun at times
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
In america we do these things not out of malice.. but for the greater good. We Kick students out of school for just saying the word bomb, or bombing, we have internet sniffers that search for the words above and flag the packets for inspection. A normal teenager, specifically a sportsman, were to accidently leave his hunting rifle in his car's trunk, with a trigger lock on, in it's hardcase, locked, and then locked in the trunk... he is expelled, charged with a felony crime, and persecuted in the media as a lunatic freak. This is for the good of our children, these "laws" protect our country. Oh and we need to physically assult and jail the teenager that has a pocketknife, because he violently sharpened his pencil in shop class with it. Think of the pencil's feelings!
All doublespeak aside. THIS is the picture of america.. and it has been this way for a long time. We shout to the world, " WE ARE FREE!" while all our freedoms are actually superficial (as in you can have them until we decide to take them) We have radical left win groups trying to take the rights of the right wing radicals, the right wing radicals trying to opress the left wing radicals, and the normal citizens sit in the middle getting abused. right now in america, if you are a white hetero male you are evil it's self. It's not a racist thing, it's just that if you are a white hetero male, you are a very easy and safe target to take out. The government can torture you and no-one will care, or raise a fuss. the ACLU couldnt care less, and the media spotlights another damn white hetero male causing trouble in our schools (Espically if you have an IQ!)
It also depends on your "value" to the school. will they sell fewer ticket to the football game next week? better not keep "superstar billy" out of the game just because he broke a students arm while he was stealing an mp3 player from the student.... let's expell the student for causing trouble by bringing that to school/looking wierd/not bowing to our star player.
This is LIFE... get used to it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I would make the argument that in most cases, the government is the puppet of the corporation. Not in all aspects of government, but if a large corporation wants something done (or something made illegal), they can donate heavily to one party or another and have their request made into law (DMCA is a great example of this)
Not to say that the government doesn't tramp all over our rights by itself, it's just that it will also tramp on our rights on behalf of a large company.
Finkployd
Its all the lawyers' fault, you realise.
:)
As an economics major, I have to point out that it is actually the public's fault. Simple supply and demand.
The people who always complain about the lawyer scum are usually the same ones who will not hesitate to sue over the slightest thing. "I'm so dumb I spilled hot coffee on my lap, I need 5 million dollars"
If there weren't such a demand for lawers in our society, there wouldn't be so many of them.
Finkployd
Wow good point. That's some stuff to think about.
:)
Nobody wants to be accused of being a technology slob or elitist, but the internet WAS much better when most of the people on it knew what they were doing.
For some reason I'm reminded of a Dogbert quote "You may still discriminate against stupid people as their lobbying efforts have proven ineffective"
Taking from a more recent slashdot story, maybe there should be bandwidth limiting for dumb people
"You can't browse at 33.6 until you stop typing in all uppercase"
Finkployd
Ironically, I was working at a fast food joint (not mcdonalds, but one that serves tacos and has a big bell as a logo) while that whole lawsuit happened. I do know a little about it (as it sent shock waves through the industry)
Nearly every coffee machine in every fast food joint (they are all pretty much the same) is rigged with a set temperature. They are generally not adjusted, but are usually kept between 150 and 180F. Except for during peak times, you usually are getting coffee that has been sitting on a hot plate. Also remember that coffee is supposed to be very hot. If you are going to drink a near boiling drink in a car. you had best be careful.
How hot? Hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns? Not possible. Boiling water isn't enough to cause third degree burns. In fact I'll bet no form of water (perhaps super-heated steam) could cause one. A third degree burn is marked by charring and blistering of the skin. Water simply cannot do this. Look in an EMT manual at third degree burns for a better explination. The worst she could have gotten is a second degree burn, which (while painfull) is rarely serious (although in the groin area all bets are off) and is marked by blisters. I HAVE seen web sites (notably one by the Consumer Attorneys of California) claiming that there were third degree burns. This is simply not true.
The coffee was not hot enough to eat through the cup, it only burned her when she placed it in her lap, removed the lid and attempted to add cream and suger, and spilled it all over herself.
This is not the intended use of coffee, and should not be something you can sue over.
In my tenure as a fast food jocky, I've found that vastly more people called and complained about coffee being cold than too hot. Since we had our machines at 170ish (mcdonalds was at 180) I'd imagine they had more complaints about cold coffee too. You see people get coffee to take back home or to the office, and seem to think that coffee should hold it's temperature no matter how long it sits.
Finkployd
I thought libel was a civil offence, not a criminal one.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
As many Russian politicians and government officials found out in the last few years, if you say/print something like this:
....
I know this guy who looks a lot like Mr. So-and-So, and he is a
Apparently this cannot be considered a legal libel, even though the end effect is the same.
IANAL!
Libel isn't the problem. If the guy is publishing hateful or false statements about people they can sue for libel.
The problem is this kid is being treated like a criminal, put in juvie, etc, simply because he published statements. People SHOULD sue him for libel if they really feel so hard done by.. but he should not have a criminal record because of it.
I think the best defense would be establishing reasonable doubt that the things he said were lies. (assuming it really is criminal libel, which ought to put the burden of proof on the prosecution... IANAL)
When I was in high school, I knew girls who were sluts (both those who were promiscuous and, in the older sense of the word, those who were slobs). I knew a teacher who picked his nose openly in front of the class (one of the most important things you learn in school is what is acceptable public behavior; a student would be punished and ridiculed for the same thing). One of my teachers would always respond to a question with "I don't know, but I'll look it up" and never look anything up; she'd also mark any sufficiently long and complex answer as correct (laziness? ignorance? stupidity? I never could decide...). Another teacher continually had strange impulses that he'd enforce for a few days, then forget ("Okay, from now on, everybody in the class call each other Mr. or Ms.").
Now, calling girls "sluts" is rude and generally unproductive (although not necessarily slanderous or libelous if it's accurate), but in my experience, half or more of public school employees are not fit for the work, and this should be brought out in the open. A public trial might help get the ball rolling.
One screams "libel!" at one's own risk, it tends to make people look for evidence...
It's not that "white hetero males" are particularly oppressed, just that we're oppressed in different ways. There's a peculiar kind of equality in the ways a white man, a black man, a woman, an old person, a young person, a homosexual, a computer geek, a computer illiterate, or a member of any group might be refused employment, be denied access to a service, be verbally abused, or have to face other forms of oppression, in different places dealing with different people.
Regardless of the degree of oppression (which certainly isn't equal in all cases), we all have the choices of going with the flow and avoiding situations where we would be oppressed or butting our heads against a brick wall hoping that enough others are doing the same to make some cracks, and of spitefully oppressing members of other groups to "even the score" or being impartial and fair in the hope that others will follow your example.
Revenge is an odd pendulum; when you push it one way, it comes back even harder.
IANAL, but unless the law is very different than where I come from, I seriously doubt that the school has the legal authority to act "in loco parentis" (literally "in place of the parents").
"in loco parentis" is typically only granted to boarding schools, esp. when those are state-funded (i.e. math/science magnet-type schools that have an admissions process but are still paid for with public funds).
The whole reason for granting "in loco parentis" is to provide legal rights to a body that will be literally that, "in place of the parents," and needs the authority of a parent/guardian.
Either way, regular school districts can not arbitrarily decide to act "in loco parentis", it must be specifically granted to a particular body for a specific reason, and most schools do not have this advantage...
Anthony
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
America is doomed if you start incarcerating people for hurting other people's feelings.
In the Larry Flynt case the Court established that free speech includes the right to insult and hurt people's feelings, so we've dodged "doom" yet again. It's what he said about the teachers, which could harm them professionally, that might be libel, but ONLY if he knew that the things he said weren't true. If he really thought his teacher was a drunk, it isn't libel, which makes trying libel cases pretty tricky.
-jpowers
-jpowers
Libel laws exist because not everyone owns a printing press. However, if you're defamed on a web site, you can defend yourself on a web site.
Maybe somebody needs to start a defamation search engine, which links defamation to defenses against same, and lets people compare to see which is more plausible.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
four out of five firemen recommend fighting fire with water.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Paper does not refuse ink, so lawyers and authorities can issue edicts as they please. If every agency of government limited itself to Constitutional acts, there would be no need for a judiciary to review them.
The Supreme Court has made abundantly clear in ACLU v. Reno that publications on the Internet is protected with equal force under the First Amendment as publication in any other format. Defamation law is likewise closely circumscribed by First Amendment issues.
The case will stand and fall on the same issues any pamphleteering case has stood or fallen.
We aren't provided the actual content for evaluation, and I'm sure I wouldn't take the time to study it at this point anyway.
You CAN commit defamation, regardless of media, and, I suppose, it could go over the limit to the level of a crime. But to be constitutionally sustainable, there are incredible hurdles the government can overcome. It is far easier to be egregiously offensive than it is to be criminally libelous, which is the most likely scenario. (But, as I said, I don't know the facets).
But there is no interesting techological question here -- this is a routine first amendment case.
For Beaver country, the applicable county. Note that the direct office addresses of the judges are available as well.
http://courtlink.utcourts.gov/dir/5th dist.htm
Below, someone mentioned that the press likes political controversy. If we start kicking-up enough dust, the *local* press (i.e. in the town where this is happening) will have no choice but to cover it. They won't want to look like bumpkins under the national spotlight, and as such will likely be on their best behavior.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
This is getting to easy. Direct phone numbers.
Beaver High School
195 E Center - PO Box 71
Beaver, Utah 84713
435-438-2301
Principal - Richard Albrecht
Milford High School
62 N 300 W - PO Box 159
Milford, Utah 84751
435-387-2751
Principal - Walter Schofield
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
From the article, ". There he will remain until Beaver County Attorney Leo Kanell decides whether to bring criminal libel charges.." The reason I posted this information is to dispel any chance of them nailing the kid for libel. In fact, if the school administrators in question had not raised the issue at all, very few would have seen the supposed libelous website. What could be really amusing though is if the teachers in question have to defend themselved in court against students who would testift about their verbal comments that those teachers sucked. The slut thing would be a fun one too.
I think this is where it ties into the Columbine thing. Paranoia about teen violence. They probably had to put in a call to the state prosecutor to see if they had anyone to search his computer. "seven nights in a juvenile detention facility"..."5th District Juvenile Court Judge Joseph Jackson ordered Ian sent to Cedar City's juvenile detention center because of safety concerns for him and the community." . I'm not sure about the laws in Utah, but it could have been done by Social Services. They are given a lot of leeway. At any rate the reporting is missing any information on what evidence the police had. Pink haired kid with past altercations with classmates... If his Dad said stuff like this to the police ,"Lake acknowledges his son has a temper, and has gotten counseling to deal with it. "Ian's a fighter," he says.". I don't think the Judge would have objected to an extended stay.
Agreed, there shouldn't be any difference. But they don't confiscate all your pens when you libel someone in print, so why should they be confiscating his computer?
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
Sadly you are not misinformed. Though I can't say for certain that us Americans are only getting educated to the level of a 14 yr old in the Netherlands, but it sounds about right. Throughout highschool I often knew more than my teachers during daily discussions and lectures. Only very rarely do good teachers manage to survive the system, and by "good" I mean teachers that actually encourage students to think for themselves. 9 times out of 10 in this country teachers are worthless robots who wouldn't know an original thought if it bit them in the ass. Many mask their incompetence by overloading students with needless amounts repetive busywork both in class and as homework. Oh and don't even get me started on the overinflated value placed on student athletics, especially in relation to Art and Music programs...
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
I should have explained a little more. There is a vast difference between having a newspaper print that you are a drunkard or a drug addict or cheating on your spouse etc. and some kid putting up a website insulting people. Do the teachers of this school really care that much about what one of their students is saying?
I wasn't going against the kid. I think that he has the right to speak his mind and according to the story has proof for everything he said. If he believes it to be true then he's not libeling. He might have to apoligize if someone proves him wrong but libel is a long shot. I see a counter-suit coming from this kids friends who were slandered by the school paper (see the story)... and I say more power to them. I've noticed that in school as long as you toe the line for the admistrators you can get away with a lot. Be different (as this kid was) and you're going to get slapped down (or in this case suspended, arrested, have your computer stolen by the police, and shipped out of state).
I fail to see the difference between libel in print or on the web. If this person were to write the same things in a newspaper as an article, he could be sued just the same and no one would think twice. Just because it's on the web doesn't mean this is a whole new area with a whole new set of consequences. People who spread libel outght to be held accountable.
(caustic sarcasm)
And just think, Wave America could have caught this dissident and "normalized" him.
(/caustic sarcasm)
So where can donations go?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
> Does that mean that I can be jailed if I say "Microsoft Sucks"
Nope. Truth is an absolute defence against libel. From the article:
> "and prove that there is a basis for everything said on his Web site."
Which means I'd really like to see the transcripts of the kid's trial:
Failing that, let's crank up the time machine and read the following fictional account of the trial from "Tackhead's Ideal Universe Where People Who Launch Stupid Lawsuits Get What's Coming To Them":
"Your Honor, I have here a love note from Miss Kaitlynn Frobozznitz, age 16, to Richard (to whom she coloquially refers as "Big Dickie") Johnson, Principal, age 37, and I have here an office memo from the same Principal to the custodial staff, detailing that the custodial staff is to have every third Wednesday off work and is to vacate the building by 4:00 pm. I will now present another memo in the same handwriting, addressed to 'Katiep00', arranging what appears to be a tryst at 4:15 pm, and telling her to bring her brother Bratney and three gerbils, for reasons which should probably not be discussed in open court.
An nslookup and WHOIS query reveal a "Dick Johnson" as the owner of "kaitlynnspanties.com", which purports itself to be a pornographic web site, hosted in the principality of Sealand. A subpoena to AOL revealed that the katiep00 account is, indeed, owned by Ms. Frobozznitz. The folks at Sealand were kind enough to provide us with a full mirror, but we (surprisingly) found a copy in the cache of the DA's web browser, so the tapes from Sealand may be redundant. We have also subpoenaed Kaitlynn, Bratney's, and Big Dick Johnson's computers and are able to present their chat logs and emails for the past two months, because the threesome were obviously too stupid to use PGP.
But we believe the circumstancial evidence alone is sufficient to prove Kaitlynn's sluttishness. The defence rests."
From the legal dictionary at Nolo.com:
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).
Ok, so if libel is a civil wrong, then the authorities really don't have much to say about the issue. The people who were offended need to sue the teenager, no?
Also, there are a lot of conditions in libel cases. Namely, the offended party has to prove that the statements are false, and furthermore that the offender *knew* that they were false, or at least that he never cared whether they were true or not. Secondly, the statements are libelous only if the offended prty can prove that the statements have ruined their reputation or standing in the community. This reminds me of the Falwell vs. Larry Flynt case -- Flynt's statements were so unbelievable and false that no reasonable person would think they were true, therefore, they weren't libelous.
This is all my speculation, as IANAL. Help me out if I'm wrong about anything.
www.poak.net
you can say any nasty things about me you want to. I don't care. Libel doesn't exist if nobody has their head shoved up their ass far enough to sue. Yeah, language can be hurtful, but only at the moment you start taking yourself too seriously. So what's at fault here?
there are no bad words; only bad people
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
I've been involved in a situation like this. I used to run a web site for a humorous newsletter that two of my friends published and distributed around school. I'm reluctant to actually mention the name of the newsletter now, so for the sake of obfuscation I'll call it "M.L.", especially since those two letters were nowhere to be found in the newsletter's title.
M.L. was almost always filled with completely random sentences and weird rants. It acquired a few dozen dedicated readers.
So then, in an extra-large issue for the Millennium, they decided to take the names of everyone in the sophomore class from the yearbook, and put one of their classic random thoughts next to each name. The problem was, word got around that this issue had a comment about everyone in the class, and even though they only managed to publish 7 copies of that issue, they got around to basically the entire sophomore class, 90% of whom had never read M.L. before.
The sentences without the names next to them would have been basically meaningless. In fact, that was what the issue was going to be in the first place, just meaningless funny sentences like all other issues, and they inserted the names later. But the names made everyone try and read into those sentences. Practically everyone was insulted. Various students even went so far as to report it to the school administrators as a "hit list", and that idea was fueled by the fear left over from Columbine.
The most extreme case I can remember is when "Open All Night" fell next to a girl's name.
So the two students who wrote M.L. got suspended for 5 days, with a threat that it would be extended to 20 days if they tried to dispute it. They tried to publish an apology issue (a few paragraphs explaining the situation, and "Sorry." next to everyone's name), but the school had already decreed that they could never ever write another issue or else they'd be expelled. And I had to take down the entire web page, not just the page for that issue, meaning that nobody could even read the archives to get an idea of what M.L. was like before the "Millennium Issue".
The school sent them to counseling sessions, they recieved a few death threats from fellow students, and then Christmas break came and everyone pretty much forgot the situation, except the fans of M.L. who were now deprived of the only thing they could look forward to on a Monday morning.
I suppose I should be glad it didn't turn into a situation like this article describes, though.
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Typical Katz, theorizing, ruminating, exaggerating, interspersed with, thankfully, a minimum of Katz's usual anti-American invective.
/Judge's chances of reelection? In other words, does it appear that the communitty will correct the problem by effectively removing from office those officials whom allowed the matter to get out of hand? Is the Prosecutor's office seriously considering proffering criminal libel charges? Are there parallels to this incident in libel issues exisitng in meat space? Examples? Specifics? Facts?
This Katz piece is a failure, like so many others, because it's long on Katz's philosophy, but short on facts.
Understandable, of course, because the facts (the few provided) don't completely deliver the "punch" Katz seeks.
A prime example: Katz states that the boy was "sent out of the state" (implying it was at the behest of authorities) and "driven out-of-state" but the linked article makes no mention of a specfic attempt on behalf of the authorities to coerce him into leaving the state. Although the Father does use the phrase "run out of town", he plainly states that getting "run out of town" was his son's goal!
I understand the importance of Free Speach. I don't need yet another Katz diatribe against the 'anti-free-speech-machine'. What I need are facts. Tell me how and why the Principal, the Judges involved, and the Sherriff's department were able to do what they've done.
Specifically, what laws allowed the authorities to sieze the computer? I assume a court order was obtained. Under what pretext? What was the text of the court order? Why did the boy leave the state? Was a court involved in the process? Was it merely coercion on the part of an overzealous Sheriff's department, eg, "If you can get the boy out of the State we won't be obligated to pursue the matter any further. If he stays, we intend to prosecute" Was it simply the boy's choice, as the Father seems to infer? What does the ACLU have to say about it? What does the community think about the entire incident? Will it have a political impact? Will it jeopordize the Sherriff's
Of course, Katz is incapable of providing the details so essential to understanding the issue. A competent and experienced Journalist is required to give the public the facts neccesary to fully understand the circumstances. Katz is a dilettante with an agenda, and it shows. He's keyed off of a few convenient facts, and ignored those facts that don't further his goal. The entire episode is merely a springboard for his pet causes.
It's a damn shame that a story like this, that is at the cutting edge of so many of the changes taking place in our society, is given such two-dimensional coverage. Oddly, Katz regularly criticizes traditional media sources as out of touch with the "new age", yet a 'dinosaur' like the New York Times is just what's needed, a journal that employs professionals capable of sorting out all of the details and then communicting the facts to readers who then make up their own minds. It's ironic that Katz's obvious limitations, as revealed in this piece and many others, are the proof that "dinosaurs' still have their place.
My comment didn't get moderated up; for some reason inside the mysterious whirring gears of the secret slarsh-tit status script I have "earned" the semi-permanent state of automatically getting my posts entered at two goody-points. And it's not as though I'm anybody special or worthwhile, like Bruce Perens, either; over the years I've written a mess of programs but basically they all suck, I can't code my way out a wet paper sack. Even when I merely stand and applaud the alluring yet minus-one literary works of some of slarsh-tit's most eminent trolls, like 80md or spiralx, I come in at two. Gladly would I lend a point or two to 80md when he's on a roll, to help keep the troll train bouncing merrily along!
(...say, did you ever read the story about the guy who learned Latin and then later forgot it? Old, old, old. I'd pay $1.00 right now to remember which Jack Vance story it was where "slarsh-tit" was local-planet slang connoting a cute adolescent girl.)
I suspect that there may be something in the automatic scoring that looks at the length of your posts (and maybe spell-chex 'em too, I'm real good though not perfect at spelling). So maybe I get ahead because, being semi-senile, I go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on; I'm real loquacious or logorrhaeic or whatever.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
People talking trash about each other goes on all the time. I think the fact that this kid published something defamatory probably adds some weight though. Even if he were doing offline--distributing flyers, a newletter, whatever, I think it would still have a lot more weight than if it were just spoken word. Now that it's so easy to publish though, maybe we just have to buckle down and deal with the nasty things that people say about us--protecting freedom of speech is pretty damn important. Also, it seems pretty scary that a kid can end up in a juvey so quickly over defamatory remarks--if it had contained threats it would be a different storey.
OTOH, what if what he wrote is true? It's hard to say since we haven't seen the page. Maybe the principal is a drunk, girls in his class are "sluts", and the faculty sucks. Gee, is it possible that such a high school exists--even in Utah?
Two sides indeed, but I think I prefer to err on the side of protecting freedom of speech when it comes to this kind of dilema.
numb
For a long time the Internet social structure worked pretty well, usually without hitch, and generally without interferrence. It was a great model of a way a society could behave and interact that was different from the rules out in the real-world. It provided an alternative social structure to those who were interested in learning how the new system worked. As a result, the Internet got very big, very fast. So now that it has drawn some attention, the real-world has decided that it's not going to learn any lessons from the Internet. Instead, it'll just try to change the social rules of the Internet to conform to those of the real-word.
Anyone who knows anything about the Internet social makeup is going to have a very hard time swallowing someone bitching about getting defamed on the 'net. What someone says about you -- good OR bad -- means practically nothing here. I'm sure anyone who's been around for a while on the 'net has had the glorious opportunity to be defamed, verbally attacked, and otherwise misaligned by a few people here and there on the 'net. I know I've faced more than my share of such attacks. The great thing about the 'net, though, is that anyone whose opinion I might give a damn about will find out my side of the story and decide for themselves. Does ANYone out there still take someone else's word for it when you have access to so much raw data nowadays?
The best part of the Internet is that, traditionally, you CAN say whatever you want. The part that's even better than that, though, is that what you say has the impact of an ant sneezing. You'd either have such an incredible sneeze that someone notices, or else get a million other ants to sneeze with you, if you want anyone to hear. This kid did neither; he called a couple of people some bad names, which isn't very remarkable, and he did it all by himself, which isn't very influential.
- Milford High phone 435-387-2751, Fax 435 387 2494
- EDNET Site Facilitator Cathy Palmer, cathy.palmer@w.beaver.k12.ut.us
- Beaver School District phone 435 438 2291, fax 435 438 5898
- James E. Robinson, Mayor, phone 435 438 2451, fax 435 438 5826
- City Manager Steve Atkin, atkin@inquo.net
The mayor's address is:60 West Center Street
Beaver, UT 84713
USA
I think EDNET is the Utah state education Internet.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
If you'd like to drop them a line, here's their email addresses and here are their fax and phone numbers.
Tell them the hardcopy edition of the cluetrain is well worth buying.
It will be helpful for their 21st Century Project:
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
26 South 100 West, P.O. Box 69
Milford, UT
USA
435 387 2711, fax 435 387-2748
nkennedy@milford.state.ut.us
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Here's some email addresses that are pertinent, why don't you drop them a line:
- Beaver Counter School District Superintendent Henry Jolley, henry.jolley@m.beaver.k12.ut.us
- Assistant Superintendent Donald Willden, donald.willden@m.beaver.k12.ut.us
- Technology Director Tracy Davis, tracy.davis@m.beaver.k12.ut.us
These all came from the Beaver County School District Homepage Mike-- Could you use my software consulting serv
If they had to prove they are not sluts or drunks in open court i wonder how fast some of the offended parties would rush not to bring charges.
Does this story make you angry? Does it make you think an injustice has been done? Do you want to actually do something about it?
Remember two key facts of public life:
Thus, a little political controversy will thrill the local newspaper, and make life miserable for the bozos who think they're the Big Shots in the "close-knit" community of Milford, Utah.
And how do you engender a little political controversy? Posting a comment here on SlashDot can help (the more comments, the more people read the article--the more people read the article, the more will hopefully express their concern to people in Utah). But expressing your thoughts directly to the Utah press will do even more. All you have to do is write to the electronic version of Letters to the Editor of the Salt Lake Tribune at mailto:letters@stltrib.com. Be sure to include your name, your address, and a daytime phone number. Be polite, don't be crude, and be sure to use words like "fairness", "concern", and "fair play". Here's what I just sent them:
I'm not a lawyer, but this all seems to be a large waste of tax payer dollars. First even if it did go to court how could you declare criminal damages.
It's seems to me that at best it's a civil libel suit. I think once you got out of the bible belt the cops wouldn't do jack.
Most likely the kid simply wasn't liked by the school staff, and probally had run in's with the local donut eaters. The price you pay for putting Manic Panic in your hair.
I find the most dangerous part of this event is the use of Police force.
More and more, they are being pulled from important duties and being used in this *attack dog* role on kids who have done nothing *physically criminal*.
Most police deal with violent crimes and are prepared for just that. Turning them loose on kids with computers is terrifying.
And police don't become police to terrify children, they want to do something important like stopping physically harmful crimes and drug trafficing.
I mean, we got into this whole puter thing because it was physically harmless in the first place, right?
If you want to take legal action for something, fine. But involving police with mace, pistols, sticks, cuffs, boots, laws, and a background in hurting bad people is way unecessary.
Their involvement is just a pathetic demonstration of the cowardice of the parents and administration against something they don't understand, and clearly don't want to.
Use lawyers and send a letter next time for Xhrist sake! This is all just my opinion and I don't present any of it as fact.
================= Getafix the Druid
I don't understand what legal grounds the school and police have to confiscate this kid's computer or even arrest him. The judge who issued that court order should be taken to task on this, because unless there was some evidence that the site represented a danger, it should be protected by the first amendment up until such time as it is proven libelous in civil court.
Can someone out there explain what "criminal libel" is? Does the state get special treatment if the libel is allegedly committed against its own officers, mainly the teachers and school officials? What's the legal basis for this, the Sedition Act?
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
This stuff is just mischief. So, it was on the net... What difference does that make. Someone calls this guy a dork in class, gets told to be quiet, if the teacher takes sympathy on the kid, the other kid gets detention. He puts it on the net, all of the sudden it's as if he went on CNN and announced that his classmates run a drug ring in order to mess up their campaign for class president or something. Get real.
And if you want to know my opinion, the same goes for kids writing viruses. It doesn't take a dangerous criminal mastermind to get into trouble toying with virus code. Most 10 and 12 year olds aren't after nukes. Cut them some slack.
Eh...
tcd004
Libel in print has been written by someone, and approved by a different independent person. In most situations, both of these people are being payed by a third party. Print is regarded by people as being accurate. This means there is a duty to the person who owns the publication and to the readers to make sure it is as accurate as possible.
On the web, anyone can publish anything. They only need to know how to write. People are much less likely to take it seriously. If I spread untrue rumours about someone, then that would be illegal slander, but it would not be considered as extreme a crime as if it appeared on the front page of a newspaper.
This may or may not be important. It should certainly be considered.
Is that criminal libel must be something that constitutes a direct incitement to violence. It goes along the same lines as the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" scenario or the "clear and present danger" test. In this sense, posting his resentment on a web page is actually LESS like criminal libel than saying the same things directly to the targets of his criticism. To do that could be a direct incitement, but he did it in a more detatched way, by publishing online. While it is true that this method had the result of publicly defaming large numbers of people, that is not justification for CRIMINAL charges. It could well be grounds for a civil suit, but that's not what they're doing to him. Personally, I hope he actually does get to prove every single one of his accusations. It's not libel if it's true, and now that he's in court, you know that EVERYONE will be listening. Of course, since it's juvenile court, it may be closed, but I suppose it would be possible to open it up, if he so desired.
This whole scenario kind of reminds me of "An Enemy of the People", I hope he wins.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Historically, the First Amendment to the Constitution has always been the most lightly enforced. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act, which stated that it was a crime to say anything "false, scandalous, or malicious" against the U.S. Government.
The act was enforced; a number of Americans were actually incarcerated for speaking against the Government and individual politicians. Now, this seems blatantly unconstitutional, a direct violation of the First Amendment, and if such an obvious measure were passed today, there would be an uproar. (Thank god for the ACLU, is all I'm saying.)On paper, the Sedition Act did not exercise prior restraint; the government then, as now, could not prevent seditious speech in advance. However, they could do whatever they wanted afterward. If people were aware that they could be punished for such speech, they would probably choose not to exercise that constitutional right. Thus, according to Howard Zinn and his excellent A People's History of the United States, you have a defacto condition of prior restraint, and a weakly enforced First Amendment.
So: how about all those people out there tempted to make Usenet postings about their boss, or their classmates, whoever, who are now aware of the liklihood of legal repercussions of this action? Do we not have such a defacto exercise of prior restraint in this situation? Oh, well. I'm sure this kid's classmates had their feelings hurt, terribly, and in the current political climate, hurt feelings are an exception to freedom of speech.
http://www.farmerbob.org
In society, libel charges handled via lawsuits. You're served with papers to appear before a judge to answer the 'charges' against you. Only when you are convicted can the plantiff seek/claim damages. People don't go directly to jail and first. Ya know that thing, Innocent until proven guilty ?
Do you honestly think when the 'The Star' or 'Natl Enqu' are sued the police confiscated all their computers and throw them in jail? No. Both tabloids have been sued, and lost, multiple times. Yet, they are still in business... go figure.
Not arguing whethere what he did was right or wrong, his civil rights were violated. He's not a threat to society, he's a minor. He shouldn't have been jailed. At the very least, they could have gotten an injunction to make him take it down until the trial is over.
God is Real Unless Declared Integer
Charging him for libel seems reasonable as long as there are substantive assertions that unduly characterize individuals or organizations on his site. I am just not sure where there is sufficient material or monetary damage to warrant the hostile treatment by law enforcement.
In print media, the "injured party" generally plies legal means to restrain the publication. It seems that nobody sent a standard "cease-and-desist", all sounding to me like someone wiped their butt with the 4th Amendment.
Maybe one of the "injured parties" knew the local sheriff?
-L
Nope, most libels are a civil affair, but there is such an offense as "criminal libel". Usually it has to be pretty malicious to warrant this treatment, however. --montoya
-- the most controversial site on the Web
I dont see the difference between posting rude comments on the web or spray painting it on a bathroom wall. You would think that posting such "graphitti" on a web site would be more acceptable then the latter because it cause no serious damage to actually property.
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
my question is, can this case trully be described as an act of slander? How can the justice system arrest people for internet "bad mouthing" when they don't have a definition of exactly what does and does not constitute as slander and what is just harmless aggression, when it comes to the internet? and for that matter how can we define that? Millions of highschoolers call each other worse than sluts, and homosexuals multiple times on a daily basis, and yet this kid gets arrested and possibly charged because of the fact he said it on the internet? Unless these terribly "vicious" (heavy on the sarcasm) remarks of his on this website, caused some seriously detrimental effect to the lives of one of the people in question...why is his house being searched and his property being seized? In an internet full of websites about child porn, terrorist organizations, sacrifices, and cop killers...the "ever so swift" law enforcement department goes after the "really big fish"..an irritated kid who called his classmates pot smoking sluts
"that which does not kill me makes me bitter" -anon
The written word has always been held to a higher standard in many ways than oral speech. For one thing, it is far more permanent and far reaching.
I'm sure the comparison has been made, but consider a school newspaper, even a completely underground one. If such a paper were to print the comments made on the website, charges may well have been filed, equipment seized, etc...
Several references were made about the early days of the net when information was "more free" and not scrutinized. Years ago, in the wild west, the land was more free, and people were more free to shoot each other. Eventually though, the land was tamed a bit. The same thing is happening to the internet. This happens with any frontier that becomes populated. It simply can't remain the free lawless space it once was, whether a physical frontier or a cyber one.
Perhaps dangerous precedents may be being set in this case, but consider the alternative for a moment. What if we teach our children that its ok to say and write whatever you want, without regard for facts or the consequences to others, as long as you do it on the internet and make it free for all the world to see. I find that idea a bit scary as well.
Of course I use Microsoft. Setting up a stable unix network is no challenge
I'm not 100% sure about the specific laws regarding this kind of behavior, but I know that libel (written defamation of character) is illegal, but I know for a fact that no level of non-computer-related libel would result in the police busting into someone's house and digging through their personal files and mail.
It's ridiculous that this kid would have to go through this just because law enforcement is paranoid about computers.
Unfortunately, this case was settled at the local level, and no national precident is there. However, this case should help the defence of the student as it argues *for* his rights outside of school grounds.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
1) This is not 'one of the few cases'! As far as straight (civil) libel goes, existing 'cyberlaw' goes back to the 80's, with mailing lists and BBSs and has definitely been upheld internationally. "international" is important, because you can be sued in jurisdiction where the 'damage' occurs or where the 'victim' resides. Here are some cases/sources:
2) Do a websearch for "criminal libel" and you'll find that its primary use worldwide, historically and currently is against journalists . One of the 'Inciting Abuses' that contributed to the American Revolution was a (then British) court verdict that a newspaper was guilty of defaming the reputation of the Governer-General of New York by (accurately) revealing his corruption.
3) To address another of Katz's points, here are mini-case studies in dysfunctional human behaviour on the net
Katz was on my 'exclude list' for a few months, not because I dislike his writing, but because his loose use of facts and analogies leads to a sloppy, infuriating discussion. A profesional writer should investigate his facts and limit his speculation to what those facts support; If he doesn't, the readers will certainly go hogwild. This is the first Katz article I've read in a while. I am not pleased.
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
Having experienced what it's like to have defamatory stuff published about me and several friends on newsgroups, I'm not too sure where I stand on this one. It's very easy to hide behind the 'freedom of speech' banner and allow anyone to write what they like on the web - but that disregards the anguish that those comments can cause.
Whether you believe that you should be allowed to post whatever you want on the net or not, you must agree, jailing someone over their speech is just downright wrong. These things should be dealt with in civil court, there is no reason for police to get involved, computer seziure, or jailing. I'm quite disgusted by the US for doing this.
-- iCEBaLM
Found on some Utah state government page:
Milford High School
62 No. 300 W. / PO Box 159
Milford, Utah 84751
You all know what to do. If even 10% of Slashdot writes a physical letter, that's about 10,000 pieces of mail. Even send a post card with "Good luck Ian!" scrawled on the back. Show these asses that, yes, the outside world knows what they've been up to and are not happy.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
It seems to have gotten lost in this discussion (it was at the bottom of the cited article) that he was not merely disparaging his classmates and teachers out of a personal grievance: he was defending and avenging a friend of his who had been publically disparaged in the school newspaper and on several private sites.
The story says she (the friend) was the butt of some "unsavory criticism" in the school paper's "gossip column filled with tidbits about the romantic lives of Milford students." In other words, evidently his friend was the victim of public, in-print, school-sanctioned sexual harassment. Not to mention libel.
This changes nothing of the fundamental legal issues, but it does color the character of the case. This is not just some twerp flaming people because they hurt his feelings (though considering how ill he was treated, from the account of his father, I think he would not be out of line if he had). This guy was attacking the people who hurt his friend, probably committed a crime against her (libel and/or sexual harassment), and did it with complete impunity. He was was standing up for a friend.
Bless his heart.
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
And as a minor, he doesn't have the right to vote, among many things. In fact, minors don't seem to have any rights when it's convenient for prosecutors and alarmists. He shouldn't be tried because that's ... well, for want of a better term it's like taxation without representation :-/ Let's face it, he's only facing the possiblity of charges because he insulted some teachers who probably were slackers. If he'd just been insulting other teenagers, it wouldn't have even made the news. Being a young person must really suck these days. I thought it was bad when legitimate stories in schools newspapers were censored because they were too "controversial" (birth control) or "offensive" (whistle-blowing) when I was in school. Guess it just gets worse.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The person who has filed suit also claims he is going to bring civil and seek criminal RICO related charges against ANYONE who he judges has posted defaming comments about him.
One interesting twist, is that on a number of occasions, he has stated he will consider NOT filingsuit against those who "turn" on the gang, and give him information he can use against others.
The groups which are home to this ongoing battle of words are: alt.sports.gymnastics, alt.romance and alt.seduction fast.
The individual who brought suit runs a web based sports handicapping and seduction-related publishing business called Snodgrass Publishing, his site can be reached here
The Civil Court Docket for his first of what he promises to be many suits is here.
I will leave it to anyone who wishes to investigate the various postings in these groups, and read the court docket (though it lacks any information other than dates for meetings/hearings, etc) to decide if this is kookery, or someone defending their civil rights.
btw, I go by a similar name on USENET.
Going on means going far
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
I don't know what to say to you about that, because I didn't know your friends, and I don't know you. I do know that the same things happened to me however. I lost one friend to suicide, another to heroin addiction (to this day I don't know if he's still alive, because he wouldn't talk to me), and one to what I still believe to be a grisly murder at the hands of a group of yobs with nothing better to do than make other people's lives hell. I also know that he was a bright kid with a bright future. That was the one incident that made me stop being so maudlin, wake up and start standing up for myself. I don't mean physically, any heavily-built human could probably kick my butt if they wanted to, but that's irrelevant, because as you do get older, brains do become more important. You're obviously bright enough, to see as far as you do. I bit my tongue, finished my exams and got the hell out of Dodge, moved to town and am currently heading towards the last year of a Uni course that will (hopefully) see me financially secure at the end of it. Every so often I go back to my home town (to see my family), and see those that used to taunt me, still stuck in their mindset. It's been years, but they haven't moved on. I see them, and realise that I was mentally killing myself with fear and worry over nothing. I may not make much of a difference on a global scale yet, but I'll do my bit from where I'm standing to help those who were in my position out. If you have the ability to think like that, you've already got the f**kers beaten. They're stuck on their islands, proclaiming their manhood, but they've never touched anyone deeply, and it's them who are condemned to eke out an existence as a mediocrity until they keel over.
We're so hyped-up on the sanctity of life that we won't let people opt out of living - people who the rest of the world has already decided are totally worthless;
If I were them, I'd set about trying to prove the rest of the world wrong. Worked for me ;-)
But seriously, If you can transcend the prison that they built for you (and you finished, by letting them get to you) in your head (It will be rebuilt from time to time, recurring depression still affects me. I've done my fair share of crying, but now some people depend on me, and they're so important to me that, well, any problem I have can wait), and look at it from the outside, hopefully you'll see that you don't deserve to be there, not for them, not for anyone. If you're bright enough to use a computer, you have a skill that many don't (even if you're only starting out). Remember, though they don't understand it yet, they'll be working on cars and in factories, or maybe even working in stores when you're outclassing and out-earning them.
Few ever achieve happiness, and the rest either live in their misery or delude themselves that they really are happy, after all, painting on hollow smiles and crying themselves to sleep every night.
I used to think that, and I have the right to feel pain over my problems, but compared to Jason Haas, or the guy on here whose wife was killed by a speeding drunk, or my friends, lying passed out under a bridge, or six feet under somewhere more permanent, hell, I've got a better chance of dealing with my problems than they have. My smile when it shows is definitely not painted. I won't fake emotion for anybody. You can get out of the ruts you're in without letting go of life. For those who genuinely didn't believe otherwise, it's a tragedy. I wish the old adage 'Only the good die young' wasn't true, but sometimes it is, and all we can do is not add to the statistics.
When you wake up tomorrow morning, look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, "Where did I say I was going to be today, when I was 6?" Then let me know whether you start crying.
When I was 6, I said I was going to be a pilot. And you know what? I joined the Air Training Corps, hated the herd mentality there and left. But one day, either with money from my music or my work on computers, I'm going to take my money, learn to fly, and I'm going to plot a course directly over my old school, and the places I've been taken to remind me of 'the way it is' with sticks, fists and white trainers, and I'm going to spit on them from a thousand feet.
A hard goal, but not impossible. Please don't give up. Life was much simpler and nicer when you were young, don't think I don't know that. We all wish we could go back sometime, but the sad truth is, we can't. All we can do is take what we've learned and pass it on, while trying to make our lives as much fun as we can (and I can still have a lot of fun at 21). Read Only Forward by Michael Marshall Smith for a more eloquent analogy on this and other things.
Obviously something shitty has happened to you, and I hope that it can be resolved. Just remember that pain fades, hate becomes irrelevant and life can be worth it. You could blow your brains out tomorrow, and they wouldn't care, because they don't have the mental capacity to go beyond certain things. They fuck rather than love, they work/drink/fight rather than think and they'd rather die than admit they are wrong. I suspect you are more than that. Don't die because of them, we need more people like you. Live to prove them wrong. And I hope you can hear me too, Ian.
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
In my experience, school authorities are most afraid of students who know how to use comptuers. Why? Because they are afraid of anything they know nothing about, they don't want someone to make them look stupid, so they overreact.
I used to work for our public school system. They fired our former Technology guru, basically because they did not like him. They shut down the network for a month, during the school year. Most students were back up within 3 weeks, however those who worked with the former techonology guru were still locked out. We were told that they wanted the system 'secure' before they let us back on. A few phone calls by our parents fixed that, but they are still afraid of us.
Just the other week, a student was sent into time out for using the Microsoft Chat program provided to every student in the Start menu. According to the Assistant Principal, this is illegal in the district's "Acceptable Use" Policy. She then refused to show this policy to the student in question.
Something needs to be done. School Officials are often good people who for the most part are just doing their job. But there are those out there who prey on the weak, the ones who school record are often times less than explemplary(sp?). If someone doesn't fight them, they could completely control students lives. They will find fault in a student who was trying to find his own way to deal with something that these officials SHOULD have known about and SHOULD have dealt with before it got to this. Its their own stupidity and they're going to make this kid pay for it.
There was a case where David Brudnoy, called some restraunt owners pigs. Another case, where an ex-MBTA employee called someone a racist. Both cases ruled that the statements in contact were opinions, not statements of fact. Therefore, is libel.
For libel, you publish statements as fact, not opinion that are false. Or opinions that imply libelous facts (not revealed).
Remember the swearing canoer case? The man was charged with using obscenities in front of women and children? That case was thrown out.
When we allow the state to dictate what speach is not proper, we start on a slipery slope.
Fight Spammers!
Are we insane? Why are we letting this happen? Every libel case, every time a site is shut down, every time another mouth is hushed we get closer to giving up our freedoms. And we're not doing anything about it. We need to stop these idiocies, we need to convince the lawmakers and the public at large that nothing is worth the abolition of free and unfettered speech. And above all, we need to do it now.
Otherwise, we'll just keep complaining about our lack of freedom until finally, one day, somebody tells us that we can't.
If I'm in a crowded room and I yell offensive things about somebody -- even if they're untrue -- I can't get in trouble. If I do the exact same things in print -- like a magazine or a newspaper -- then I can. Because the source is claiming legitimacy, it is implying that what I say is true.
On the 'net, that's a boneheaded idea. Nothing on a website is likely to be true. Even CNN.Com publishes fraudulent virus warnings before realising they're untrue (famously, the story of an invention that lets you "fire a pulse of energy down a phone line and fry the modem" of somebody who's pissing you off). So libel should not be possible on the web.
The real issue here is that the people in charge and the people with more money are crushing an opposing view, for no good reason except that it opposes/offends them. They need to realise they do not have the right to do that! I can curse you to your face if I want to, and if I'm a beggar on the street and you're Bill Clinton you still can't touch me, once I don't threaten you.
OK, Jon, this happened in Utah. Utah is not in general known for its high degree of tolerance of social malcontents. That goes double for small towns. And the fact that the Internet is, as everyone knows, the source of all evil and godless things only makes this worse. Basically you had a kid that hated everyone and that most everyone hated, who angered a lot of people. The "good people" of this town probably weren't counting on anyone really finding out about this on a national level, and I'm sure that this sort of thing has happened in this same town before to drug users, long-hair types, girls who got pregnant out of wedlock, and the like. The only thing that makes this unique is that "The Web" was involved. It does not signal a newly emerging social dynamic.
If anything, the fact that this sort of thing can now get instantaneous national attention will probably help put a stop to it. But let's not overreact, OK? It's just the same old story with a new form of media thrown in.
So let me see here.
Something ain't right here. Seisure of equipment? For writing something that yes, was bad, but was a thousand times better than opening fire?
Maybe someone should go Columbine on that high school* just so the faculty gets it. You can't take away everything. Kids need an outlet to vent. Everyone does. They're taking them away one by one and then wondering what the hell is wrong with America's Youth. Things don't escalate(sp?) by themselves. It takes a continual pressure and a lack of vent. The pressure's there, but there's no vent because no matter what you do you you're chastized and maybe even arrested.
I'm not saying what the guy did was right, I'm commenting more on the fact that the faculty (and parents, wtf is up with "not letting them go to school until he was gone?") completely overreacted.
Once. Just once I'd like to see the faculty deal with the shit these kids have to put up with and not get themselves expelled, arrested or otherwise torn apart by the rules they themselves have set out (or better, not even set out until after the fact). Yes I'm a parent and every day I see this and think to myself "My kids are getting homeschooled, fuck this, I'm not putting my kids though this."
* - No, I don't honestly mean that. Columbine was a horrible horrible tragedy and should have never happened. See, everyone says things when they're mad. It doesn't mean they mean them. Fuck even my four year old does it and understands this concept.
Ian is scheduled for a hearing June 5. If charged, David Lake says his son will plead not guilty "and prove that there is a basis for everything said on his Web site."
Oh my god.
These are going to be the most incredible court records in Utah history. I cannot be the only person imagining a Clinton Impeachment like mass subpeona'ing of anything that could prove the truth or falsity of the various claims.
"I did not have sex with that prepubescent girl. Momma says it ain't sex if we do it like that." Can't wait to start hearing that out of fifteen year old boys, on the stand, in a suit that's not big enough but "it's the good one".
What's just cruel is that this is bound to be more the work of parents than the kids themselves, and there are likely more than a few girls who--shocker of schockers--actually are sexually active who are going to have to watch a court ordered sexual inquisition brought on by their hapless parents who couldn't imagine that Their Daughters---theirs! What could they have done wrong as Parents(TM)!--would in anyway deserve such labels.
I've got the popcorn right here. This should be rather fun to watch, if your definition of fun is "watching the forces of the legal system brought to bear against a 16 year old boy who called some other kids bad names, like football players and cheerleaders never ever do."
Fug.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
This reminds me of a ridiculous and stupid thing I read a while back in some columbine-reactionary-editorial. It said, and I'm paraphrasing, It's a shame that such violence happens in high school, the one place where kids are supposed to feel safe.
I read that and I thought, "What fairyland, mythical high school did this person go to!" I don't know about y'all, but high school (and middle school, too) for me was the most brutal, cruel, dehumanizing, and horrible social experience I can remember. In high school people can do things with minor repercussions that, in the adult world, are called "slander," "assault," "sexual harrassment", and "battery." Adults and legislators look on this and say, "This is just normal high school activity" and then act shocked when one of them has had enough and decides to kill some of his/her tormentors.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has fantasized more than once during school about murdering some of his evil classmates.
So if assault, battery, sexual harrassment, and slander are "ok," then why are people having such a cow over mere libel? And when I say "ok" I mean "punished very lightly despite the severity of the crime." I once had a person tell me to my face, "I'm going to rip off your f*cking head and ram it up your g*ddamn ass, you f*cking f*ggot" and he meant every word of it. (No doubt he could have made good on his promise, too. I was a little crybaby kid in high school.) What defense does the average high school kid have against that crime? And this poor kid was arrested for calling people "drunks" and "sluts"?
So why is there a double standard? What makes libel so egregious while assault and sexual harrassment are overlooked as "typical high-school kid-stuff"?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Having experienced what it's like to have defamatory stuff published about me and several friends on newsgroups, I'm not too sure where I stand on this one. It's very easy to hide behind the 'freedom of speech' banner and allow anyone to write what they like on the web - but that disregards the anguish that those comments can cause. When the virtual slanging matches spill over into real life, things can take an even nastier turn. The problem is that it is much too easy for people of a 'legally responsible age' (whatever that should mean) to hide behind their computer and spout off about someone else. The anonymity that the Internet affords, along with the fact that the malcontents may be hundreds or thousands of miles from each other exacerbates this. As someone with a strong sense of right and wrong, along with a healthy disrespect for authority, this leaves me with a moral dillema. The only reasonably satisfactory answer I can come up with, is that people should be able to write what they like only if they are prepared for the possible conequences ... a sort of modern day civil disobedience I suppose.
Chris Wareham
Normally, I'd relegate this sort of post to that of a humorous troll. But, this is wonderfully applicable here. A few people, in jest, have pointed out that in a civil trial Ian could exonerate himself by proving that his statements were completely true.
Check this shit out:
Source: http://www.42.dropbear.id.au/wrd_news3. html (annoying javascript keeps the window on top. bastards.)
(I'm going to presume the above is true, as 170 people in high school is about right for a town of 1100 or so. I graduated with 20 and I came from a town of 300, so it seems right.)
Now, pressuming this goes to trial, couldn't Ian just hold up the list and say, "See! She really is a slut!" Actually, that's another problem in and of itself--define slut. Drunk. Incompetent. Very relative terms, giving him a lot of wiggle room. Here in North Dakota, I know quite a few people (old country Lutherans actually; listen to Garisson Keilor) who consider any woman who has sex for reasons other than procreation, or--[sarcasm]dear god forbid[/sarcasm]--marriage is a slut. This is a rather nice chink in the plaintiff's armor I'd suppose.
Thoughts?
And please check out my previous post, just a few below, with Milford High School's snail mail address. I want to see that school office innundated with mail on this one. It's the least we could do, helping out a kid so he doesn't have to go through the shit a lot of us did/do.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
For God's sake it's a kid! Of course he's going to make fun of his peers, especially if they're making fun of him. Would we be more happy if he took a shotgun and emptied the school? At least he didn't libel them.
I remember in high school some kids put out a underground newsletter that basically blasted one of the teachers at the school (they didn't agree with his politics). I was in that teachers class and these were his exact words when I asked if it was libel or slander. "Yes, but I don't care. They're just kids screwing around."
That response has been a good guide for me. Think about it for a minute. Essentially this whole thing is someone, somewhere going "They said mean things about me. I'm going to make that poopyhead pay!" Get some respect for yourself and then you won't give a rats ass if someone is saying something about you.
If it's true why do you get offended at the messenger? If it's not why do you care?
His father told reporters his son was fighting back against hostile peers. "For him, it was just a tit-for-tat thing. Everything he has done up to this point was in retaliation for what other kids did, stuff that was just as vulgar and just as hurtful. For me, the question isn't whether [my son] is going to be held accountable. It's whether the others are going to be held to the same standard."
Not likely. In 21st Century America, harassment and cruelty are fine as long as you don't do it on a computer.
He was retaliating against web-based libel by a school run website, AND by the school newspaper against one of his friends. If the students responsible for that are not held to exactly the same standards then I, myself, despite the consequences will fly to Utah, walk into that school, and well... Leave the rest to the imaginations of the people involved.
I'm tired of these fucking double standards, the school officials can harass students, punish them for nothing, anything they want without retribution. And if a student says 'Teacher suchandsuch is a fucking moron.' instant suspension. And apparently if you say it on a website you get arrested. Well I'm fucking tired of it. I talk about it all the time, I lived through it in school, I watched my little brother live through it and I watched a few people not quite make it out. I'm done talking, I'm going to start doing something about it.
*Goes looking for the phone # of the local school board*
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
(not trying to be an expert here just because I live in utah, but I have lived a small Utah town for some time.)
It's more of a small town thing than a Utah thing, up here in Salt Lake City, they even had a gay rodeo. (gasp!)
There's one thing that you have to understand about utah, particularily southern utah. Most of the population there is transplanted from southern california, including myself. "native" southern utahns despise the newcomers to some degreee, but it's not usually visable.
I point to the pink hair thing, I was always given shit by everyone for having long hair, and down in st george, kids are routinely suspended for coloring their hair. The school administrators go nuts on anyone who sticks out. Besides that, when you manage to piss off enough people in a small town, you're bound to get screwed. I did the same, and that's why I have over fifty moving violations on my driving record. It's all about being high profile.
How this got national attention, who knows. I read about this in the Salt Lake Tribune a couple weeks ago, so it's already old news here in Utah.
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
Here's the link: SLTrib article
Too bad the original site isn't still up, allowing us to judge for ourselves.
Pray for us here in Utah, ok? :)
Well, we've given up a great place where minds could meet and interact without racial, sexual, political, or geographic boundries, and instead turned into a mirror of the flawed real world.
So no more free speech. That outdated concept needs to go to make room for commercialism. The companies came, saw and conqured before we knew what hit us. They found a place to spread their banner ads and 'one click shopping(tm)' and all they had to do to make it ready for them is get rid of the previous tennants and their silly ideas of anonymous information and freedom of speach. Silly kids, those don't make money.
Since, for the businesses that exist on the net to florish, they need to made sure some stupid kid can't publish negative information about their company or reveal their poor trade secrets (hello, Mattel) so there has to exist some method silenceing those who stand against them.
But let's not stop there, let's made damn sure this place is politically correct too. We wouldn't want anyone offended, especially by some outcast kid. Bring in all the lawers, there are potential suits for everyone. We need to make sure this digital land mirrors our real one, and that it inherits all the flaws and problems that it's makers 'forgot' put in.
If anyone needs me, I'm going to dial into some of the old BBSes I used to frequent. Maybe see if the sprirt of the old (dead) internet still lives on there.
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that there is intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us"
Calivn - Calvin and Hobbs
Finkployd
Look for material that identifies a person or an entity. Keep in mind that it is possible to identify people or entities like corporations without actually using a name. If the material contains identifiable voices, likenesses, or descriptions of or concerning a person or a company, it could be a problem.
The material identifies a person or entity. STOP HERE if the material does not identify a person, business or other entity. You can't have a libel without someone to complain about it!
Is any identified person dead? There is little reason to be concerned with statements or other material reflecting badly on dead persons because the law only protects "the memory of the dead," giving no cause of action to decedents. So long as the material concerns only the dead person, you need not answer the rest of the questions on this form.STOP HERE if the person identified is dead.
If material identifies a living person, is it:
A private individual.
A public person.
A political person.
Would the material negatively influence a reasonable reader's opinion of the person or entity identified?
a. It would reflect badly on the character of the person or entity.
b. It could harm the reputation, diminish the esteem, respect or good will in which the person or entity's relevant community holds him, her or it.
If the material might reflect badly on character and/or harm reputation, would the harm be the result of:
An explicit statement.
An insinuation.
A sarcastic statement.
A parody or cartoon.
An opinion that implies that there are unstated defamatory facts underlying it.
Other.
There are several possible defenses to a claim of defamation, although none may apply in a particular case. Check one of the following defenses only if you are fairly certain it would apply.
The statement or other material is true.
The statement or other material is a fair report of an official or public record or proceeding.
The statement or other material is purely an expression of opinion and not an assertion of fact.
The statement or other material constitutes a fair comment - that is, a comment or opinion on a matter of public concern, for example, the use of public money, disbarment of attorneys, management of public institutions and charities, management of private companies whose activities widely affect the public (pollution, delivery of medical services, common carriage, employment practices, discrimination, etc.) or the review of books, public entertainment, sports events or scientific discoveries.
No one could reasonably interpret the statement or image to be an assertion of actual fact about the person or entity.
The statement or image can be characterized as mere words of abuse, indicating dislike for the person or entity, but does not suggest any specific charge.
The subject of the statement or image has given consent to or approved the material.
The fact that material has already been printed somewhere else is not a defense except in the narrow fair report circumstance. Republication of a libel creates another libel.
Or even on a computer, as long as you do something that raises the school's profile. I remember being told in school to cut my hair, smarten my attire and cut out my slacker attitude (by teachers who were quite blatantly drunk as hell on occasion) on a regular basis, while the school (& county) champion runner/rugby player/cricketer could look like how/do what the hell he wanted (including verbally abusing the less athletically inclined). When I questioned those double standards (directly to the head teacher, no less), I was told that that was the way life could be sometimes, that he brought a lot of attention onto the school, that that was a good thing, and by the way, cut your hair, or I'll suspend you. My (admittedly childish) retaliation was to cut my hair to within a millimetre of the regulation, form a band, and use the schools' rock concert for charity as a sounding-board. 'There's only one way of life (and that's your own)' was a good starting point, and 'Killing in the name of' was a good follow-up (Although we covered it badly, the look of shock on the teachers' faces as we screeched 'F**k you, I won't do what you tell me' time after time is an image burned forever onto my mind, and raises a grin every time I think about it - I also wound up with a nice young lady that evening ;-). I got canned for it, but it felt good to make the statement. Athletic boy put a band together the following year, played Oasis covers and didn't pull. *grin*
This was in the UK at a fairly cold-shower independent school, and I believe that any child in a repressive environment should be allowed to sound off, at least once, for what they feel is right, as long as they can back up their arguments well. If I had been born 5 years later, I would probably have sounded off on the Web. I would have expected maybe detention, but arrest? I can't help but think that the powers that be are way off-base here. Those that fail to acknowledge history are doomed to repeat it. Any kid who feels that life is unfair only has to look at how the Columbine two were portrayed to know that the answer doesn't lie with Dylan and Klebold's methodology. You'll die (which sucks), You'll be hated by everyone (which sucks), and you'll make it worse for others likes you (which sucks more than anything has ever sucked before)
Use your brain, not a Beretta. And just because Utah is fairly backwater doesn't make it right. No-one should have to endure it. Only when a disillusioned kid kills themselves and others do the words 'Life's like that, deal with it' sound kind of hollow.
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
Civil libel, maybe. But civil libel cases have to be brought by private parties. It's also a defense in libel cases that the libelled party was a "public figure", which includes government officials generally and probably includes a school principal.
The kid may have a good case for false arrest.