Slashdot Mirror
Texas Teen Arrested Under New Online Harassment Law
SpaceGhost sends in a story from San Antonio, TX: "Police have arrested a 16-year-old girl on charges of harassment under a new Texas law that took effect September 1, 2009. H.B. 2003 says a person commits a third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person. Police say the harassment went on for a few months and involved a dispute over a boy. ... Some people expect legal challenges to the constitutionality of the new Internet law.' The law is evidently a response to the Lori Drew case.
"I respectfully submit that the defendant is a Meanie-Head in the first degree!"
"My client wishes the court to know that the witness, in fact, 'started it'."
Such stuff needs to be a felony.
we'd better get these young people used to the idea that everyone is a criminal, no sense in letting them think they ever were or ever could be innocent. after all, there's no way to rule law-abiding citizens.
When you're a kid, you can have the intellect of an adult in knowing how to hurt someone, but none of the barriers against doing so. Kids are often the ultimate narcissists.
Not that I neccessarily mean that police should be involved, but just to offer a dissenting view from the number of posts that will dismiss this as just "your trousers are so ugly".
Obviously Texas lawmakers are unfamiliar with the legal principle "Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" If I post online that Cmdr Taco is a goat fucker, have I really "harmed" him or his reputation in any way? It's not slander unless a reasonable person would believe it to be true, and no rational person believes Taco actually dates outside his own species (unlike Captain Kirk).
There's a big difference between saying "This person, IMHO, is an asshole" and "I'm gonna punch your face until you bleed from the asshole" (just an example, I have never ever said such horrendous things. I'm appalled that you would take me for that kind of person you fucking piece of shit! I'LL KILL YOU!)
But seriously, I tell my kid and other kids in my family - don't say anything you wouldn't say in person. And if you threaten someone in person, well that's assault.
People need to learn that being a SHITCOCK Internet Fuckwad is unacceptable. People also need to grow thicker skin, but when it truly hurts someone it's time to stop.
...make bad laws.
Of course, she's a minor being 16 so the punishment will most likely be up to the judge and expunged at age 18 but for you adults who like to poke and prod people online ... better think twice in states where these kind of laws are enforced lest you target the wrong person.
My work here is dung.
This is outrageous! What will we do if we can't go around the internet spewing ridiculous and inflammatory comments at the expense of others for our own amusement?!
If they did these same things in person I imagine the worst penalty would be some detention or a being grounded. Should it be different? I suppose you have a much larger audience(potentially) on the internet but should it be a felony. I think its overkill.
Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man, and let history make its own judgment - Zemfram Cochrane
Here's the new hot sport: intimidation bait!
Step 1: Write something so stupid and of bad taste that some people will just have to reply to intimidate or threaten you.
Step 2: See a picture of them in handcuffs in tomorrow's newspapers.
Can of worms, I dub thee COLOSUS!
Just leave the goatse/tubgirl redirectors alone!
It is about fucking time that people start getting punished for this. It has been far to long where people could harass you online, and go free.
I'm sure most of you have heard about that gal committing suicide because of the online bullying.
Finally justice will be handed out to individuals like that.
-BigL
If you review this ridiculous law (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/HB02003I.pdf ) you can deduce that it is a Class A misdemeanor to uses the name or persona of another person to create a web page on or to post one or more messages on a commercial social networking site with the intent to embarrass any person. It could becomes a third degree felony if the actor commits the offense with the intent to "harm" another. Hopefully this case is overturned on appeal.
I'm not so sure laws needed to be made for something that amounts to name calling. If the name calling extends to harassment we already have laws in place.
The only fix to this problem is proper parrenting and teaching kids how to respect and really communicate with one another. Even removing anonymity doesn't fix this problem (and I am completely against any attempt to remove it). I am aware that Anecdotes aren't evidence but I've been "bullied" online (if you want to call it that) by girls who went to the same school as I, they were well aware I knew who they were and they knew who I was. How did I respond? I walked up to them the next day and kindly asked them to continue calling me names now that we are face to face. They just slithered away muttering half apologies and never messaged me again.
Sorry to reply to myself but I found a list of felonies in the third degree for the state of Texas if you want to compare this new law to older laws resulting in the same degree of punishment. Apparently a third degree felony punishment (as noted in my parent post) can be meted out for anything ranging from arson to assault to conducting a game of bingo without a license.
My work here is dung.
I honestly think this is a good law. Case in point: a kid in my little brother's class created a myspace page using my brother's name and picture and put some truly disturbing stuff on there. We only found out about it because one of his classmates texted him asking about it. The headmaster of our school almost expelled him over it. This is a very serious thing. It can cause emotional damage to the victim, and can ruin their reputation. The kid who did it sent all kinds of rude and nasty messages to people who saw my brother's page and sent friend requests. This law is a good idea.
"Think of the Children!"
"The Children are Trolls"
"Uh... I meant only think about SOME children SOME of the time... I think?"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Harassment online should be no different than harassment offline. If I send an email threating to break someone's leg how is that any different than a message over the phone or in person? Why do people make a big deal that otherwise illegal behavior is somehow legal online? Intimidation, coercion and other forms of threatening behavior are all readily accepted as illegal offline, this case has absolutely no defense in the first amendment (and I'm usually the one defending it).
If you go to the article, the article explains:
<i>It seems the goal of the new law was to discourage using the name or persona of another person to create a Web page.</i>
If she really did this, she should be punished. Now, there's a good point that a felony charge may be too strict and existing laws about libel and false light should cover it (though there could be loopholes that keep it from doing so), but the general idea that we shouldn't tolerate this behavior is pretty sensible. Contrary to popular belief, trolling isn't actually good, and the fact that you can get away with it doesn't mean you should get away with it. Harassment is wrong, and I have no problem with the law punishing it.
(And for the Slashdotter who said "she wouldn't be charged with a felony if this was done in person", exactly how do you put up a web page under someone else's name in person?)
Your Honor...Jr. here is a sensitive young man and his mama, God rest her soul, would not approve of such a slack jawed use of our great American language. Would "Your Honor" be so kind as to make a law that would severly punish those little pukes who would discrace her wishes which were always in the best interest of the "Independent" state of Texas under the Lord God Almighty himself.
Is there any existing case law that confirms that "IRL" speech with "intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten" is a felony? If so, then just because it's online, doesn't mean you can get away with it.
I can see "defraud" (I promise a 15% return on your investment) and "threaten" (Steal my girl and I'll cap your knees) as speech types that aren't protected, but I'm not so sure about "harm" and "intimidate". We'll just have to see. One things for certain, it'll make an interesting case to watch.
I void warranties.
third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person
LOL, by that standard, the entire fucking state of Texas should be arrested for the shit I see them say every day about the President. Don't mess with Texas!*
*And by "mess" we mean to consider a democratically and validly elected official office legitimate, and especially if you know, he ain't your kind of bigot.
Why punish based on medium rather than content? Is it any different from posting paper threatening messages on a school bulletin board? Again, lawmakers think Internet has some scary magic powers rather than being a new communication medium for old humans.
She should be on death row by Monday morning.
"The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein," - Joe Theisman
Here's the text. Basically all it targets are people who harass others online assuming another person's identity. One girl creating a profile for another, where she claims to be a homosexual drug user who steals to support her habit would fall under this. Generic harassment doesn't. About the only thing that is far-reaching, and it's likely based on ignorance, is the "domain address" language which could be twisted by a prosecutor.
Perhaps the law goes too far on the punishment side, but it doesn't prohibit any behavior which is protected by the first amendment. Only a moron would say "there are first amendment issues" since this law is little more than a double whammy on libel and slander.
The caption here is somewhat deceptive. I believe that the law that's being referenced is as follows:
Sec. 33.07. ONLINE HARASSMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses the name or persona of another person to create a web page on or to post one or more messages on a commercial social networking site:
(1) without obtaining the other person's consent; and
(2) with the intent to harass, embarrass, intimidate, or threaten any person.
If that's the case it's really the misappropriation of identity that's the problem. Without that element there's no way this survives constitutional challenge (can't turn protected speech to a felony just because it's published). To be honest I'm so fed up with all forms of identity theft I have no sympathy for offenders.
/. should try to get a volunteer prosecuted for violating a Term of Service in a hilarious manner. Try to get some free legal counsel for both sides from civil liberties group or from a law firm looking for publicity and then run the sham law suit as far as possible in the court system.
I think it's critical to set precedent by addressing the issue directly rather than via an emotionally confused case. By the same token, I think it would be fun to run a few sham software licence related law suits through the courts. Come on! It'll be fun!
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
I happen to know that the Commander's relationship with farm animals is a completely enlightened and fulfilling one for all parties involved. It's narrowed minded individuals like yourself which sullies these otherwise warm and positive relationships. Kirk on the other-hand was clearly a sexist (as was the writers which always wrote into the universe aliens which had all the necessary parts to get him hot and bothered).
However, unlike your comment and mine, its easy to differentiate "reality". What has happened on in these cases that they are attempting to address is that the attack on the individual is such that a peer does believe the tripe. At the age we're talking about, both males and females, many are particularly vulnerable. Their friends and what their peers think of them is massively important.
whether we can legislate politeness is another matter. I don't believe that teens are any more villainous than before, its more that the internet allows a wider audience to attack while the anonymity makes it more difficult to defend oneself (though I would at the same time believe that net anonymity is massively important, though I'll post this, non-anonymously).
What she should have done is get her victim to sign up to some app with small print in the "Accept" opting in to the harassment emails. After all it worked for Toyota.
We should really look at the emotional/psychological reasons that these kids are attacking each other and come up with strategies for treating those issues rather than arresting children for mistakes they make online.
How can that be?
Does this mean I can't threaten people on EVE for ransom money?
FTFA
It seems the goal of the new law was to discourage using the name or persona of another person to create a Web page.
It seems like there is a movement to make it difficult to pretend to be somebody you're not on the internet. I *think* this is a good thing.
harassment is not the same as trolling i hope.
I can get to be a really nasty troll on craigslist messageboards, I don't threaten anyone, I just really snide with four letter words (really really snide and cuss like a drunken sailor)
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
It might hurt my feelings and then you goto jail.
Hurt feeling is a stupid basis for anything my wifes feelings get hurt if I tell her to wake up in the morning. And if I text her back that I'm not going to the bar to get her wings at midnight then her feelings are hurt. Well she is 250 LB because since we got married she does nothing but eat and sit on her ass. And any effort to get her to do anything hurts her feelings so she has to eat more just to show me she can get even fatter.
Hurt feelings are stupid people need to grow up and stop being such wuussies.
The force is not with you and you are not a jedi.
Wow, go to the news story and read the comments. What a bunch of idiots, saying she deserved it. Does free speech exist anymore?
I love how these people are so willing and eager to give up their rights, to protect some peoples 'feelings'. Anyone that made a comment saying it wasn't right or too harsh (Felony for hateful speech on the internet? Haha...) got mass thumbs down.
Ah well, it's Texas I guess, so I'm not surprised. That place is fucked up anyways.
What part of intent don't they understand?
a third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person.
Clearly, "joking" indicates an intent to humor, to cause laughter, not an intent to harm.
This is one giant leap down a path that leads to no good. These types of new laws makes me angry. How much power do I lack in my own life if one cannot say another is stupid in a fictitious cyber world.
So what is the legal definition of a social networking site anyway. Is Slashdot a SNS?
The moment overprotective parents and eurosocialist progressives realized the Internet existed, we have had a huge boom of twits who think they can just join in and start passing laws. For christsake, I've been on the Internet since AOL was metering dialup usage -- you weren't here, ignorant masses, and neither were your ignorant oppressive laws. If you don't like our Internet, get out.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
The south of the U.S. has a higher proportion of ignorant people than other areas.
Yet people keep moving there because they can actually afford to live in the South without being taxed and regulated to death. As someone who was born, raised and still lives in the Northeast, let me assure you that it's no paradise.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Only problem is you yanks keep coming down here and taking local public offices and running up the taxes. I knew the town I lived in was doomed the second roundabouts started showing up as intersections.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, that is the problem, isn't it? I've toyed with the idea of moving to New Hampshire (live free or die baby) but I'm told that so many Boston ex-pats are moving to the state that it's soon going to become Massachusetts-lite. Mores the pity.
Where are you in the South? I spent four years living outside of Hickory NC before moving back to NYS.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It appears the charges have already been dropped.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/64444412.html
Why does this need to be a felony? Support your claim with evidence.
I believe your parent was making a statement of opinion.
You want them to prove their opinion is correct? What does it even mean for an opinion to be correct?
One can reasonably ask for reasons why people hold the opinions they hold, or whether they have any evidence for what the consequence of enacting a particular law might be (that is a factual claim), but I think you're using dirty debating tactics if you ask people to prove their opinions.
(you might ask people to prove that they actually hold the opinions they claim to hold, but that's a different thing---basically lie detection.)
Your parent is asserting his opinion very strongly, though, as if it's an absolute truth. Questioning anything claimed to be an absolute truth, backed up only by the strength of the assertion, is a good thing. But ask the right question---they make for a better debate and you tend to learn more* about the people you're conversing with ;-)
(*no, I don't have any evidence for that, and yes, it's a factual claim. I, like fate, am not without a sense of irony.)
...all crimes, no matter what, are felonies and the only punishment handed out is death?
Pick a social networking site, and make a public announcement on your "wall" (or whatever they call it) as follows:
"Anyone who reads this need not necessarily feel neither unoffended nor unharassed notwithstanding their lack of failure to misconstrue its import."
It's plain English, plainly stated, and clear enough to about 1% of the population. Obviously, it would intimidate the 99% of Americans who cannot parse or comprehend it, and many of them would feel both offended and harassed as well as insulted. They might feel that it must have been posted with the intention of offending or intimidating them.
So would this sort of thing be against the law in Texas?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
It seems like the perfect sort of thing to be categorized as a misdemeanor. Not something that sticks with you for the rest of your life, but something where you are given a fine and maybe community service. A felony (even third degree) seems like an excessive response to an imaginary problem.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I live in NH, most of the people who move there from MA do so to get away from MA politics the rest of them just vacation here (traveling north on Friday nights or South on Sunday nights is a real hassle)... it's still less screwed up than any other state I've ever been to. As much as I hate the weather here, there's no other place I'd rather live.
Collector's Edition
How can one message be harassment?
Its more political then fair. If you have a tough sentence then you get headlines and people think your laws are making a difference. The tough sentence is argued as a deterrence for others which most people will accept. It "reduces the number of court cases"(not really in practice) so it is beneficial to the already over taxed court system. Removes that argument when passing such a broad and aggressive law, like this one. That is how it happens. What the parents should have done is sit them down and talk it out. The courts is not the way to go. If that failed they could have easily gotten a peace treaty(Canadian Law, not sure if there is an analog in the States). It is like a reduced restraining order which makes sense. Making this law really superfluous.
Will this law ever make it past the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals?
It looks really overbroad. I can say something with the intent to harm you that is totally legal and absolutely protected by the First Amendment. I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your business interests (by advancing mine at your expense); I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your political interest (to get your sorry ass out of office); and I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your religious interest (because your religious influence is heretical).
It also appears (from the lame summary and article) that truth is no defense. So, that if I harm you with the truth--I can go to prison.
And that's only some ideas from the point of view of the POSTER.
The social networking sites themselves are getting screwed over, here. What is the COMPELLING governmental reason for jacking up the criminal speech regulation on social networking sites and not on blogs and newspapers????? There is no compelling reason for such a limitation on free speech and my bet is that some lawyers are going to have an easy, fun, and lucrative time taking this law DOWNTOWN.
Anyway, thanks very much to the Texas legislature for providing another money-stream to the lawyers. They'll be the only ones having fun with this dog of a law!
Having been a victim of such harassment in the past myself I agree wholeheartedly [should be felony] I reported it to the police however they fairly resoundingly didn't appear to give a toss.
Do you believe this girl deserves a minimum stint of 2 years in jail with a maximum of 10 plus a fine up to $10,000?
It might be possible for the police force to actively and vigorously enforce a particular law and still have punishments that are reasonable taking the nature and consequences of the actual crime (or misdemeanor, or miscellaneous bad deed) into consideration.
Hypothetically, at least ;-)
Would that perhaps be a good thing?
(I think) I believe people should be protected from harassment if it really damages them. It should be enforced, but the punishment should fit the crime.
It's maybe somewhat analogous to stupid enforcement of child porn laws. Anything without mutual informed consent is bad; whatever people do in their own homes that stays there and doesn't harm anyone is not something I should have any say about, and I defer having an opinion about the remaining 0.1% of the cases. That would be a decent set of principles to enforce. But punishing two mid-teen adolescents for having sex with each other (with mutual consent) and taking pictures of it (with consent) is just stupid.
Protect people, enforce good rules, but don't banish people from society just because they call others a poopface.
Restraining orders, house arrest, surveillance... they might be a good start?
The weather can't be that much worse than Upstate New York :) How hard is it to find IT and teaching jobs up there?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Anyone who reads this need not necessarily feel neither unoffended nor unharassed notwithstanding their lack of failure to misconstrue its import."
My brain halts half way through that, every time I try to understand it (needed hard boot from GF to recover). It caused serious psychological damage, and I'm gonna sue!
Thanks. porno seyret
It was AOL joining the Internet that STARTED the problem, you newb.
When kiddies from the Eternal September are acting like crunchy old fogies, something is very wrong.
Back when Internet Access was something you got under the table, THEN it really MEANT something.
20-30% of Slashdot responses could cause prosecution in Texas, if the site qualifies as a "social networking". Note, that you don't have to actually successfully intimidate, you just have to intend to, however pathetic your attempt may be...
I know, I'm guilty on, at least, several counts...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As a nation ages, there is a steady increase in the degree to which the behavior of the civilians is regulated and enforced.
This isn't due to some conspiracy or power-play on the part of judges or government. This is just a consequence of how our lawmaking system operates. Wherever society feels any pain, the push is to pass more laws to ease that pain.
Plenty of the laws are absurd. Like this one. They seek to regulate things that are logically and intuitively beyond the jurisdiction of the nation's laws. But there is a large enough segment of the population that wants the laws passed, and they push them through, and the rest of us then have to live with them.
The voice of sanity invariably finds itself fighting a perpetual uphill battle. Getting laws removed is much harder than getting them passed...as the presence of "protective" laws tends to make the common man feel safer (even if the laws actually, in effect, make the common man more vulnerable to unjust legal persecution).
Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution to this problem.
I respectfully request that you support your statement that "people keep moving there because they can actually afford to live in the South" by making yourself one of those people.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
I lived there for a few years. Moved back to NY to be closer to family. I'll probably wind leaving again soon because I'm rather sick of paying out 50% of my wages in taxes and not being able to exercise my 2nd amendment rights.
Mores the pity, because I actually like it here. It's one of the most beautiful places on Earth. Too bad that the whole state is being run into the toilet by a handful of powerful asshats from New York City.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
... think about the children? Thank you.
No, I didn't say think about civil liberties - stop that. Think about the children. Keep thinking about them. No, don't think about checks and balances. Listen to me, just think about the children. There. Good man.
No. Texas implies harsh penalty.
Do you want the government micromanaging your life, or don't you? Please make up your friggin' minds. You fickle mush heads seem to sway with the breeze...
"these dag-blasted kiddies think they know it all! and they think theyre soooo special! Sometimes they have the gall to do weird things i dont approve of and they dont want to listen to my complaining! these confounded kids call the sheriff when theres a disagreement instead of just fighting like i did back when i was a kid! I live in a peppridge farm commercial where nobody needs the police and you only call the sheriff when mountain justice wont work! "
mod parent down...just becuse you use big words doesnt mean you suddenly become insightful.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I own two of them, I know.
What part of the South? Because the "Bible Belt" has the worst violent crime, teen pregnancy, abortions, least income, most government hand out per capita than the rest of the USA.
From what history has shown, the "South" seems to have bad education and they make horrible laws based off of false assumptions.. not to say ANY politicians are better, but these laws seem to be more supported by the people down there.
They drafted the law so Gov. Perry can attack people who point out his obvious signs of teh ghey.
"But your honor, my intent was not to 'harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person.' My intent was to make a mockery out of H.B. 2003. As you can see from the clear wording of the statute, mocking the statute does not violate the statute."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Whether we can legislate politeness is another matter.
Yes, but we can make goat fucking legal now! Free Captain James T. Kirk!
That is all.
Well, being that 16 still counts as a "minor" would the charges not reflect that, and/or the record be expunged/sealed when she becomes an adult?
The south of the U.S. has a higher proportion of ignorant people than other areas.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't live in the southern US. Which makes this post top contender for Ironic Statement of the Year.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
The problem is that we - as geeks - understand that just because you tack on "on the internet" to something it doesn't change the fundamentals in many cases.
However, those in the legal system may or may not have as much understanding of the internet as those with technical knowledge. For example, posting a couple of nasty things during an argument on an online chat or whatever is not really different from doing so during a playground scuffle, and can probably be quickly forgotten as such unless the "bully" is continually following somebody around online for the purposes of said harassment.
Starting a fake blog that indicates that person X has a fetish for little boys or some other such thing is much more serious, more akin to putting up leaflets or something of the like.
Having something in law that might address the differences between different mediums might not be such a bad thing. The problem is the rate at which new mediums spring up and which category they fall under. Perhaps an actual "panel of experts" might be needed in such cases if those in law lack the technical knowledge to differentiate them, so that proper precedents can be set.
If just writing "John C is a c*** s*****" in a heated moment of gaming is enough to get you put in jail... that's not good, and courts do need to recognise the differences between both situations and media of communication.
At the moment you have a 50-50 chance that a serious issue is going to be overlooked (no enforcement), or a non-serious issue is going to be overstated (excessive/unnecessary enforcement), because things aren't really understood in an internet venue.
... really? We need laws for this?
People (in Texas) ... this is an *opportunity* ... to teach your children how to use the site tools (such as blocking/ignoring) used to prevent this behavior. Sure, they might make "dummy" accounts, but keep track of the accounts and report all the accounts to the site admins (they can learn who it is and either boot or block them permanently).
No - instead we opt for more laws. That's it - I'm pushing my kids towards law (they'll be happy to take your money)
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
most government hand out per capita than the rest of the USA.
what are you basing this on? last I heard California had the highest percentage of welfare recipients in the country something along the lines of 30% http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/us/07califwelfare.html
...Judge, he needed killing, and my family is involved!
Everyone is stupid and selfish, its just that you get better at hiding it as you get older.
Welfare is not the only government run program that gives out federal money. And I believe Alaska is the state that receives the most federal money per capita compared to what they contribute. (Those bridges to nowhere aren't just going to build themselves you betcha.)
"But this one goes to 11!"
It's called a restraining order
You obviously have never been involved in a case where a restraining order was issued. The types of people who have these issued against them, never follow the order. They manage to go just far enough as to not violate the order but still make people's lives miserable.
I grew up in the South so I can absolutely testify that it does indeed have the highest concentration of idiots that it was ever my displeasure to live around. The real estate is cheaper simply because no one wants to live there, at least until they retire. And then it is mostly white people living in almost all-white neighborhoods. And taxes in places like North Carolina are actually not that much less than New England. Plus, you don't get jack squat for your taxes. I'll take somewhat higher taxes if it lets me live where people are actually somewhat civilized and have at least two working brain cells.
Oh, and in the South, when they fuck something up (*when*, not *if*) they try to act there is something wrong with *you* for trying to get them to fix it. I've even had a cashier who screwed up scanning items (because we know how horribly complicated bar code scanners are to use) and almost overcharging me say "It's only four dollars" when the manager had to come over and fix her screw up.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
What constitutes 'harm'? What constitutes 'intimidation'? Laws like this are so broad in their language that they inevitably lead to absurd abuses of individual rights.
A personal example that comes to mind are the idiotic 'zero-tolerance' policies in our public schools. My brother had to meet with the principle of my nephew's school because my nephew defended himself when three kids tried to jump him at school. My brother had to stand there and explain to the principal (who was rightly embarrassed by having to enforce this ridiculous policy) that the day he tells his son to stand there and take an ass whipping will be the day that hell freezes over.
In contrast to the aforementioned ridiculous and pathetic situation, before society lost its mind in search of a world of wall to wall safety bumpers, I offer a more personal example. One day in the 5th grade, a larger, older kid started picking on me on the way to the learning resource center. I told him to lay off. He persisted. I chased him down (he ran when I turned on him) and whipped his ass. After I explained to the principal what had happened, I got sent back to class and the little punk got three days suspension.
I learned that day that standing up for yourself in the face of unwarranted abuse is right and proper and the other kid learned that screwing with people has consequences - and that's as it should be.
My nephew was taught a very different lesson. He was taught that self-defense is a crime and that the authorities will punish you for defending yourself - even in the face of imminent bodily harm and/or death!.
Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
God, I love /. humor.
What?
No, the south has the most babies born to teens. Up north, abortions are more common. South Carolina may be an exception; teen pregnancy is simply out of control down there.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Citation needed.
Common sense needed.
Funny, traveling the South, the highest concentration of idiots I found was in Louisiana, in particular in majority-black cities like New Orleans and Pineville/Alexandria.
Mostly white people living in almost all-white neighborhoods.
God forbid people should move out of crime-ridden, vermin and drug-infested neighborhoods like, say, this piece of crap or that piece of crap given the ability to go elsewhere... keep in mind that so-called "white flight", which actually involves (because it's economic and not race-based) middle-class (often asian and white, but even middle-class latinos and blacks who don't want to be around the crime being brought in to their neighborhoods) people fleeing their neighborhoods when they start seeing the neighborhood go downhill, is a universal phenomenon and doesn't just happen in the US - there are great examples in Africa (where it's about rival tribes), India, and Europe.
Kids are getting shot and fighting in parking lots. Physical assault happens a lot more in school, with kids getting punched/kicked/pushed all the time in the hallways. If harassing online deserves jail time, why isn't locking a nerd in a locker a federal offense? You're doing a lot more psychological damage/etc. Kids act like vicious little bastards towards each other because they don't get the same protections adults do. If a 40 year old grabs a 80 year old man and shoves his head into a toilet and flushes, that's serious assault and jail time. If 12 year old does it to a 10 year old, most school teachers just look the other way. What I don't think is productive is this new 'cyber bullying' bull. That's just unfairly targeting computer bullying just because we don't understand it. There needs to be a universal effort to stop harassment of all kinds among children.
Well when you say most cities that have a high percentage of blacks are filled with idiots, that says a lot more about you than it does about the cities. Yeah, yeah, I know, you aren't a racist (you just don't like minorities), you have black friends, etc.
An important detail that's been left out was the cheerleader issue. In Texas, and many other states, the cheerleader is always right. So if either girl is a cheerleader, the other one is going to be in deep trouble.
If the cheerleader test fails, there are other tests such whose daddy tithes the most. Or if any of their parents are registered Democrats, they automatically lose.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Did I say most? I mentioned the two cities I saw that were the absolute worst. Unsurprisingly and uncoincidentally, these two cities also had (a) very high unemployment rates, (b) very high crime rates, (c) very bad public schools and correspondingly bad academic achievement (also a constant "brain drain" whereby the few decent academic achievers each year get the hell out and never came back), (d) very high rates of teen pregnancy, unwed motherhood, and mothers who do not know who the father(s) of their child(ren) are, and (e) a high percentage of "generational" receivers of various public assistance programs.
It is no coincidence that this is the case. The "best and brightest" of these communities are smart enough to get the hell out. The rest, to a large extent, live off of government subsidy and either are in fear of, or participate in, organized crime of some sort. I can show you any number of small towns/cities in Mexico that are similarly afflicted. If you go out to California, you will find them - and they will still be majority-latino. If you go to Canada, you will find them (though not in as great number simply because it is harder to be an indigent mooch in colder, less hospitable climates, which also contributes to the fact that cities in more southern climates have a larger homeless population), and they will be majority-white.
It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with economics, but I was pointing it out in contrast to the GPP's racist-bitch-whine "waah I hate the south because it's all full of whites and I hate whites" bullshit.
Heretic! Unclean! You are not of the body!
What?
We thought you people up there were supporting these laws.
So, who is supporting these laws?
That's "battery".
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
sticks and stones!
linky
top 10 net recipients of federal tax money (dollars received per dollars contributed):
New Mexico $2.03
Mississippi $2.02
Alaska $1.84
Louisiana $1.78
West Virginia $1.76
North Dakota $1.68
Alabama $1.66
South Dakota $1.53
Kentucky $1.51
Virginia $1.51
The only southern states that contribute more than they recieve are Texas and Florida, at 94 and 97 cents on the dollar respectively. What this really means is that southern states are poorer than Northern States, which we've known since before there were two Carolinas... It also means that if rational self interest guided one's politics southerners would be screaming for higher federal tax rates - unfortunately that all ended with the civil rights movement and Nixon's southern strategy.
The south of the U.S. has a higher proportion of ignorant people than other areas.
Citation needed.
Why? Nobody from the south could read it. What's the point?
Everyone should check this out. A group called Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC) ran a website that supported putting the seriously nasty Huntington Life Sciences animal testing corporation out of business. They were quite successful but now the SHAC7 are getting crushed via the ridiculous Animal Enterprise Terrorism laws & etc. This seems a lot worse than the Texas situation because this is about anti-corporate political websites rather than simple social networking harassment. See http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/shac-7-conviction-upheld-on-appeal/2307/ . A really, really dangerous appeals court ruling came out that should scare the hell out of anyone that wants to effectively organize against corporate trolls via the Internet:
Another thing happening is extreme Grand Jury fishing expeditions against green activists - we had a grand jury thing go down in Minneapolis just this week. See http://tc.indymedia.org/ for the latest on this.
--hongpong.com
p.s. California is number 43 receiving only 78 cents out of every dollar it sends to Washington.
1. knew her victim
2. created a sustained longterm effort
3. involved trickery and lying and emotional manipulation
4. was an adult preying on a child
5. knew the child had emotional problems
that's pretty specific
any law crafted after the lori drew case would work fine to punish future lori drews if its language zeroed in on these highlights. anything more broad of course, is avenue for inapplicability
an adult preyed on emotionally disturbed child they knew, for a day? thats not longterm
another child preyed on an emotionally disturbed child they knew in the longterm? it wasn't an adult committing the crime
an adult preyed on an emotionally disturbed child they didn't know over the longterm? they didn't know them
etc
if the law is specific enough, no problem
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
shocking that there are impoverished and crime ridden minority areas in states that legally had sundown towns until 40 years ago...
Suburban sprawl is an economic effect - the fact that one ethnic group is wildly over represented can only be explained by racial causes. No one chooses to live in a ghetto, if only white people have the resources to get out - that's a racial problem.
Um, moron, I am white. I never said *anything* about hating white people. YOU assumed that. I was simply complaining about all the mono-racial neighborhoods and the fact that tons of white people move into these nearly all-white neighborhoods in the South. The kind of attitude that engenders is similar to yours. It's people like that who would shout "Nigger lover!" at me from the back of their pickup trucks for simply being out with some friends, a few of whom were not white. As the AC GP stated, your response says more about you.
Oh, and white people aren't moving into all-white Southern neighborhoods because of "white flight". That's another one of your baseless assumptions (have you even been out of the South before???). What they are doing is selling the $800k houses whose mortgages have finally been paid off and moving where they can pay $200k in cash for new construction. It gives them over half a million right off the bat for retirement money. Plus, the places they are moving to have very retiree-friendly tax codes.
Anyway, I should have more properly referred to the neighborhoods as largely mono-racial rather than largely white since Southerners tend to segregate themselves more. I guess it is because of all the racial hatred down there brought about by, well, people like you. If I go with my wife to some place like Seattle or New York, *no one notices us*. We're just another couple. If I visit relatives in the South, however, the *best* we get is tons of stares if we go anywhere together. Again, from people like you who then make a bunch of assinine comments to their friends about us while somehow thinking that sound does not travel beyond the person you intended to hear it.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
This really sounds like the sort of things parents and school principals should be handling, not the "justice" system. Felony charges are a bit much. Police involvement is a bit much.
If it really has gotten bad, I'll bet that if the sheriff showed up with a restraining order for her and her parents to sign off on, that would have made a sufficient impression that this was a serious issue without messing anyone up for life.
I'll buy them off of you for a good price.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
and he can just take your book and press it to your face and say hear is your facebook!
I grew up in a Midwestern city on Lake Michigan. More than 3/4 of my somewhat long life was spent there. Survived the existence of commie Frank Zeidler's rule as mayor. You might have heard of us - we're the city that made Beer famous.
The people that we hang out with? Let's see... white guy married to latino woman. White guy married to latino woman. White guy dating black girl. Black guy married to white woman. White guy married to white woman. White guy married to white woman. Latino guy engaged to white woman. Indian (dot, not feather) woman dating black guy. Asian guy who I can remember dating every single race at one point or another.
You were saying again?
Why the fuck would I shout "nigger lover" or anything of the sort? Why would I shout anything at all? The truth is, you get a black woman dating a white or latino or asian guy, and you watch the screams and stares and racist shit that comes out of the "black folk"'s mouths about them "takin' our wimmin." It'll equal anything you claim to have heard in the other direction.
Here's a hint: Chris Rock had it right. Get the hint: if you are hateful, it doesn't matter what color you are. If you are a thug, if you are a criminal, if you're going to behave as a jerk to the rest of the world, I don't give a shit what color you are. "Race" doesn't cause problems in society, economics and people who are just assholes are the cause of problems in society.
Oh, and white people aren't moving into all-white Southern neighborhoods because of "white flight". That's another one of your baseless assumptions (have you even been out of the South before???). What they are doing is selling the $800k houses whose mortgages have finally been paid off and moving where they can pay $200k in cash for new construction.
Bull-fucking-shit. Who are they supposedly selling these $800k houses to then?
My current neighborhood, 5 years ago, was 30% white, 40% asian, 10% black, 20% latino. It's now 5% asian, 10% white, 40% black, 45% latino. There's also been a pair of "low income targeted housing" apartment complexes dropped in a mile down the street from us (average house price, prior to that construction, was ~$140,000). Crime, especially gang-related crime (drug busts, drug/gang-related fights, and arrests at the local high school) is now 4 times what it was five years ago.
Elim Garak: "I believe in coincidence. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidence." Tell me, what would YOU think of the situation above? What would you do, faced with a school system going to shit and trying to raise your kids? Probably the same thing all the asians except for the elderly/childless few in the neighborhood did, hmmmm?
"Anyone who reads this need not necessarily feel neither unoffended nor unharassed notwithstanding their lack of failure to misconstrue its import."
*sound of call stack overflowing*
Moron. They are moving from places like Boston, New York, Northern Virginia, and so on where those prices for a house are *normal*. So, they sell their houses to other people in *that* area and then move to a *different* area where the prices are a lot cheaper. You really fail at reading comprehension. As to the rest of your rant, I was talking about the SOUTH, not the Midwest. If you really are from the Midwest, why are you going so apeshit about the South? I was not complaining in the least about the Midwest. I was complaining about the South and the problems that I personally have had there, along with many other people. Anyway, at least you admitted that the problem is poverty, and not race. So, again, why did you assume that I was not white? Why do you make such a big deal about the fact that the people in the areas you mention are black? There are plenty of vile shitholes riddled with crime that are primarily populated with white people. They just don't make the news. And, historically, white America has done all it could to keep black people in the ghettos, although fortunately that is changing in most places (La JP's notwithstanding).
And, I was not suggesting that black people cannot also be racist. But, we were dealing with the South and the problems therein. There is much racial hatred in the South on both sides. That was pretty much my point, if you had bothered to read. It makes for a very unpleasant atmosphere.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Stay out of my state Texans, or else!
(Is that still legal to say?) :)
FREEDOM OF.... sort of speech, as long as it doesnt say anything profound, offensive, or otherwise deemed inappropriate by the adulterous, corporate bribed, kid fucker traitors in Washington and your state government.
-$121700 seems fair. Your counteroffer?
No, HUMANS are stupid and selfish. It really has very little to do with age.
Please don't propagate ageism.
Oh, and no matter how young they are, your kids aren't your property. They are fully sentient individuals, and are generally capable of making their own decisions and learning from the bad ones all by themselves. The sooner you realize that, the better your relationship with them will be.
Knowledge != Intelligence
This is all very nice, but if you haven't noticed it's impossible to punch someone over the internet, which is what the article is about.
We haven't established that fact yet. Now shuddup and hold still this time.
Remember: You have to keep your eyes closed and sit no further than 2 inches from the screen.
Ready? one, two, three, ...
Only problem is you yanks keep coming down here and taking local public offices
Hey, we're just sending our rejects packing, it's *your* fault if you keep accepting them as one of your own, voting them into office, building them up then sending them back north stronger and just as dumb as ever.
*You've* got to stop voting for them, ok? You just never know where that might lead. I realize every now and then one of them will be a problem, but the way to save your baseball team *wasn't* to elect that guy as governor...
Not cool, The South. Not cool at all.
Kids are murdering each other in the street using something other than words... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/13/record-36-students-killed-this-school-year-across-/
Really this is the most sicking law I've heard of yet no I'm absolutely disgusted. If I was from Texas I would be ashamed that such a brainless law was passed in my state. I bet the waste of carbon atoms who wrote this law was fucking a goat while he/she drafted this steaming pile of dog flop. It's one is being pestered online it's not like being pestered in RL. It's not that hard to to block the fuckers emails and messages or just change accounts. If you are too dumb to do this then don't go online.
Yes it does run a ground of the first amendment and really should be the target of lawsuits. Really for once I'm tankful for lawyers.
And I hope nobody comes up with a way to treat that... Kids will do stupid shit, that's normal, and I think only in extreme cases, such as causing serious bodily harm to others, should the lives of those kids be damaged by including a jail sentence. Getting beat up by their peers, however, or in fact spanked by their parents, would provide a useful short-term feedback in many cases.
Yeah, Bill Clinton's from the South too...from Arkansas of all places. He's his own grandpa!
There goes my dreams of being harassed by 16 year old girls.
The south of the U.S. has a higher proportion of ignorant people than other areas. But in Texas the ignorant people are also angry, like George W. Bush.
Who was born in Connecticut. He just moved South, like oh so many people from the North, for the lower taxes, friendlier people, and nicer weather.