Texas Teen Arrested Under New Online Harassment Law

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Texas Teen Arrested Under New Online Harassment Law

Posted by kdawson on Friday October 16, 2009 @02:17AM from the play-nice-now dept.

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.

494 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Your Honor! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-10-16 02:19 · Score: 5, Funny

"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'."
1. Re:Your Honor! by Yvan256 · 2009-10-16 02:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Court room typist: How do you spell "DooDoo Head"?
2. Re:Your Honor! by Moryath · 2009-10-16 02:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Was that a transcript from the case or a transcript from the latest session of Congress?
  Seriously though... any time speech is regulated, there's a problem. Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to Free Speech is not absolute, but the prosecution of a girl for calling another girl names over a dispute over a boy? A matter for parents and possibly high school guidance counselors, or on the rare outside case for a psychiatrist, but not for the courts.
3. Re:Your Honor! by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-10-16 02:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "Enough! By the power vested in me by the State of My Mom's Dining Table, I sentence you to both... Kiss each other for 5 seconds!"
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
4. Re:Your Honor! by macbeth66 · 2009-10-16 02:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Sure it is. That way, if it can't be resolved through the means you suggested, it goes to court. Not everything goes to court, sometimes people talk to each and resolve their differences. But, when you can't, you let the court decide. But, you have to give the courts some teeth.
  These are the same kinds of laws that give people recourse for harassment and stalking. Something that the courts could nothing about until just recently. At least, in the USA.
5. Re:Your Honor! by Em+Emalb · 2009-10-16 02:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I miss the days when disputes were settled on the playground after school. *sigh*
  Seemed a much simpler time, didn't it?
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
6. Re:Your Honor! by LordAndrewSama · 2009-10-16 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  I think the good 'ol pistol duels, or the sword fights before them are more appropriate. but they just prove who's left, not who's right... more fun and less expensive though.
  
  heh, just thought: would make the court cases from the RIAA drones much more fair and definitely satisfying.
7. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  ...And say you're sorry.
  Like you mean it!
8. Re:Your Honor! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-10-16 03:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Depends on whether you were the stronger or the weaker of the disputing parties, I suspect...
9. Re:Your Honor! by Shakrai · 2009-10-16 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  I miss the days when disputes were settled on the playground after school. *sigh*
  I miss the days when society was sensible. I'm not that old but when I went to school we had a rifle shooting club on campus, complete with indoor and outdoor shooting ranges. It wasn't regarded as unusual if students carried pocket knives. Nowadays they suspend kids for having toy guns in their backpacks or pocket knives in their car. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.....
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
10. Re:Your Honor! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2009-10-16 03:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A matter for parents and possibly high school guidance counselors, or on the rare outside case for a psychiatrist, but not for the courts.
  This is where you are wrong. An entire generation or more has been raised to believe in its own innate and unearned importance, and bolstered with a solid and unshakable faith in its responsibility-less intrinsic rights. They truly believe that they are entitled to do whatsoever they please, whenever they please to, and that they are educated and savvy enough to inject their opinions in any arena they see fit, and how dare anyone presume to tell them otherwise. Their rights are absolute at all times, without qualification of any kind.
  If you disagree with them, or are simply in their way, they're not going to engage in productive discussion or debate. That would imply that you are somehow their equal. Instead, they will call upon the full force of the great edifice of the Law, which exists solely to defend their inalienable right to _make_ the world bend to their will. As free, intelligent and independent citizens, they have every right to bring the full force of the State to bear in crushing you and your impudent challenges to their unique and inestimable way of life.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
11. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Because might make right was such a good system?
12. Re:Your Honor! by hrimhari · 2009-10-16 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I concur. And I don't see why it was tagged "flamebait". Maybe the trap fit the mod.
  
  --
  http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
13. Re:Your Honor! by Plunky · 2009-10-16 03:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Depends on whether you were the stronger or the weaker of the disputing parties, I suspect...
  Respect can be given to a weaker person who, knowing they were weaker, went up against you for the principle. The ninny who goes and calls their dad to smack you down just proves that their dad is bigger than you and will never get any respect. Calling law enforcement is the same, its not about who is right and wrong but if you can carry your head high amongst your peers. It doesn't have to be about violence in the playground either, you can get your teams together and play baseball if you like but at the end of it you can respect each other no matter who wins.
14. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  Learn why they were not allowed to intrude into harassment in the first place. The US of A used to be full of hardarse motherfuckers who can settle their differences man to man, unfortunately they took away our natural lifestyle about the time Eisenhower gave his penultimate speech.'
15. Re:Your Honor! by madpansy · 2009-10-16 03:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There's already recourse for harassment or stalking. It's called a restraining order. I see no reason why we need special laws to guard against "special" cases like online social networks. I recall reading about a person being charged with violating a restraining order for "poking" someone on Facebook, so it appears at least one court understands how old laws continue to apply as society changes.
16. Re:Your Honor! by dfxm · 2009-10-16 04:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The law mentions "with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person." I didn't see the comment she left in TFA, so how do you know it was just "calling another girl names?" You don't know what the comments were, so don't them off as trivial.
  
  If this girl left threatening comments to someone with criminal intent, and the girl who read the comments honestly believed she would act on them, then does it matter how those comments were communicated? This is outside the scope of free speech.
17. Re:Your Honor! by dissy · 2009-10-16 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  I miss the days when society was sensible. I'm not that old but
  That's funny, I was just going to reply to say I am 500 years old and don't remember those days at all :P
18. Re:Your Honor! by jhfry · 2009-10-16 04:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sure they could... they would issue a restraining order, which if violated could result in criminal charges.
  This law is unnecessary and open to abuse, the old system of filing a complaint, getting the courts to issue a restraining order, and daring your enemy to violate the order so that they can get busted is much more fun... and more fair too.
  Essentially the old system said "Stop it, I'm serious and I have the law on my side"... the new system will punish harassers without giving them a warning to stop first. There are many circumstances where a harasser might not realize that things have reached the point where the harassed is feeling harassed. Especially in the case of children, where the child may be OK, but the parents see some kid saying mean things about their "baby" and they want retribution... even when their "little angel" has already laughed it off.
  
  --
  Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
19. Re:Your Honor! by Old97 · 2009-10-16 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  I love it that someone who is criticizing certain folks for being incapable of engaging productively with their fellow human beings or tolerating dissent being mod'd down as flamebait by one of those very people thereby proving his point.
  
  --
  Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
20. Re:Your Honor! by c6gunner · 2009-10-16 04:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because might make right was such a good system?
  Anything which prepares kids to deal with the real world is a good system.
21. Re:Your Honor! by hairyfeet · 2009-10-16 04:17 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Reminds me of a bit from one of my favorite movies "You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire; you build egos the size of cathedrals; fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse; grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green, gold-plated fantasies, until every human becomes an aspiring emperor, becomes his own God... and where can you go from there?"
  You mix the combination of giant egos with Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory and you end up with some seriously large douches. But the problem with laws like this is they ALWAYS get abused. Look at the 6 year old who was suspended and looking at being sent to a school for juvenile offenders for bring his cub scout multi-tool to school to eat lunch with. Laws like this will be badly abused, and the last thing we need is one of the last bastions of truly free speech turning into a place where you can't speak your mind for fear of getting arrested or sued. I for one would rather have free speech than some bureaucrat deciding whether or not something I said on a forum could take away my freedom, wouldn't you?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
22. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  A summary of how such a case would go, were I the judge:
  "YOU! Stop being an asshole to other people, or I'll let them beat the shit out of you. YOU! Stop being a pussy and learn to deal with conflict yourself. Case dismissed."
23. Re:Your Honor! by J4 · 2009-10-16 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Why should girls get a pass? Harrassment is harrassment.
  Felony is kinda harsh, but then again teenage girls can be
  pretty brutal.
24. Re:Your Honor! by hairyfeet · 2009-10-16 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Actually with the old musket pistol duels it was more a case of who had the bigger balls, as there was some strategy involved. Now you could be the first to fire, putting your faith in your fast draw skills that you can land a killing shot in that distance from a single round, but if you wanted to be sure to kill the other guy the smart money was to act like you were gonna fire first and hope he misses. After all once he has shot you can aim and make it a kill shot, but you have to be prepared to just stand there while he fires first at you and hope that he misses or just grazes you.
  So I would say the old musket pistol duels would be the way to go. After all even the smallest girl can fire one shot, and it comes down not to strength or speed, but pure raw nerve.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
25. Re:Your Honor! by PalmKiller · 2009-10-16 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  As an example, lock her parents up, then the parenting will start, think of the bandwidth saved once the parents of the teeny boppers get them off the social networks.
26. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  That's how the weak learn discretion. And how to throw a good punch.
27. Re:Your Honor! by tsm_sf · 2009-10-16 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  I believe this isn't the kind of behavior a restraining order is geared towards, but the article is pretty slim on details. You don't have to come into contact with someone to slander, defame, impersonate, and so forth. This seems like a legitimate use of a legitimate law, but I'm hoping that the result will be several hours of community service.
  
  The real problem here is that we're reacting to the way technology impacts our society rather than anticipating it. I think we'd all agree that putting up a billboard reading "Jenny Smith of 123 Mockingboard Lane is a FAT CUNT" would get you into hot water, but put that online and, like our patent system, everything is different. So, in my opinion, we don't need "new" laws to cover "new" implementations of old behaviors. We need meta-laws that say "online behavior is analogous to real-world behavior in these circumstances".
  
  --
  Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
28. Re:Your Honor! by NtroP · 2009-10-16 04:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Depends on whether you were the stronger or the weaker of the disputing parties, I suspect...
  Actually, I disagree. I realize in this oh-so-civilized and politically-correct world I'm a bit of a neanderthal, but as the weaker one in may confrontations growing up, there was a certain finality and satisfaction in just facing your tormentor or opponent and having it out. Many times I was left with the split lip or black eye, but was able to walk away knowing that I'd at least defended my honor. As stupid as it sounds, things were never left to fester long enough to get to Columbine-proportions let alone anything that would be considered a severe beating.
  I didn't fight often, but that was because I learned very quickly that my actions had consequences. I learned that it can sometimes hurt as much to punch someone as to get punched. I also learned that to avoid a physical confrontation, I needed to work on my diplomacy and many times my over-all prick-titude.
  Kids these days barely get the chance to use harsh-language against each other before an adult steps in. They see people on TV and in the movies getting in horrific fights that would quickly render a real person unconscious or dead, getting right back up again, ready for more. They've never experienced the fear and pain of defeat, let alone the fear and pain of victory. Without an early outlet for small disagreements some people bottle it up until they explode. Often, they just commit suicide, but sometimes they take the small hurts way too far, grab a gun and kill someone. We can sit on the outside, wring our hands and say "Why would someone kill someone else over a little thing like that?" Well, it's not a little thing when you spend your whole life feeling powerless.
  When I was a kid you'd never hear about someone shooting up their school. Why? For one thing, half the pickup trucks in the high school parking lot had a rifle in the back window. The kids actually hunted with them and had first-hand knowledge of the damage they did to flesh and what death and blood smells like. They'd never reach for a gun in a fight. They'd lose hand-to-hand first. Second, there was a spot, right off school grounds, that was the de facto fighting spot. You knew, when you were called out where to be and at what time.
  If you chose not to show up, you lost and were dishonored. If you showed up, defeated your opponent, and then proceeded to beat him while he was down, you were considered a loser, which was a bigger dishonor that not showing up. If you lost, at least it was over and you were respected for standing up for yourself. The strange part about that was, after the first time a big bully beat a smaller kid there, it rarely happened again. The big bully didn't get near the accolades they'd envisioned after beating up on a weaker kid in full public view of their classmates. In fact, it was usually the weaker kid who came out better in the eyes of their peers. Of course, if you didn't show up you weren't lauded for your passivity, you were scorned for not being willing to stand up for yourself. No one had any respect for someone who wouldn't stand up for themselves (or their girlfriends more often than not).
  I love when I hear naive people say "violence doesn't solve anything". Bullshit. Violence almost always solves the problem, one way or the other. It just may not be the best way to solve the problem. But when you've never known real violence, never dealt real violence, it all sort of becomes unreal. When you grow up your whole life being told that pacifism is so noble and everything can be resolved with talking and reason you lose touch with the grim, gritty reality that comes with getting that bloody nose. So when you find yourself in a situation when the other party won't just accept your reason and when you can't find any adults/officials to come to your rescue and make the other party see reason, your sense of frustration grows to the point where the violence you've never experienced takes on a seductive kind of
  
  --
  "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
29. Re:Your Honor! by NtroP · 2009-10-16 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Because might make right was such a good system?
  At least it's a system where you know where you stand and have a fightin' chance of changing it. ;-)
  
  --
  "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
30. Re:Your Honor! by elnyka · 2009-10-16 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on whether you were the stronger or the weaker of the disputing parties, I suspect...
  Meh, in my day, if you were weaker and still showed up (and even gave as much as he took), that'd really get you respect and almost certainty in never been bullied, harassed or gave crap ever again.
  It really did suck getting beat the crap out, but man, did it feel great after that, with all the kids telling you "you the man". Simpler times when we were younger, thinking our adolescent problems were really all that, and you resolved your disputes in fist fights (or hair pulling+bitch slapping for the girls.)
  Now, it's all 'ur mom!!!!' posts on mywhore comment pages and name calling on a society that frowns on getting physical (even to the point of not even letting pre-school kids tumble around in playgrounds for fear of Mr. Law$uit.
  So crap escalate out of hand because no ones ever has to face consequences; bullies get nastier and the weak gets weaker because OMG standing your ground is not proper. Then, one day, the emo kid with the save-the-whale trench coat goes Quake, the depressed girl hangs herself from the ceiling fan because someone send her a 'u r fat' text message, lawyers salivate as they prepare their briefings, clueless/overworked teachers saying I didn't see it coming (again), with those guilty of parental crying 'OMG!!! We did everything right! Blame it to Sex and the City/Obama/Bush/The Jew'... all on that on Fox News!
  Being serious, I'd support legislature that pursue online harassment with the purpose of causing great harm. Great (and real) physical/emotional harm, whether caused by physical or virtual means should be punished. The question here is that a prosecution should do the utmost to demonstrate the case merits pursuit. I haven't seen anything on this particular case that demonstrate this is/is not the case, however.
31. Re:Your Honor! by Wildclaw · 2009-10-16 04:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And what about all those who don't want to fight, not because they are weak, but because they don't like fighting. Of course, you don't have an answer to that. Because your attitude stinks of the fighter mentality. Your choice of words like "proving yourself" is very revealing.
  It is people like you who encourage young people to fight that is the problem. Perpetuating and encouraging violence in society is not a good solution.
  And yes, I have stood up for myself, but I will never be proud of it, and I will not respect those who I stood up to. Violence is not something to be respected for. At best it is a last resort when other things didn't work. But when kids are forced to resort to violence because of the inaction of adults, then it is a failure of the adults.
32. Re:Your Honor! by frank_adrian314159 · 2009-10-16 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Violence almost always solves the problem, one way or the other.
  Damn straight! That girl I beat up in grade school never bothered me again. Kept all the other bitches in line, too.
  
  --
  That is all.
33. Re:Your Honor! by j_kenpo · 2009-10-16 04:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You read that article and think "Name calling? The police state is violating that persons Freedom of Speech, thats a problem". I read that, see that its from Somerset, Tx, and I think "thats probably gang related or some cracked out trailer trash and they threatened to rape and kill that girl. Thats a problem".
  In both cases, none of us knows the specifics of the case, and are both talking out our asses. And even RTFA, given the PD cheifs in the San Antonio areas notoriety for spewing lines of BS, we won't in the immediate future.
34. Re:Your Honor! by shambalagoon · 2009-10-16 05:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You know, I think we could go a long way towards encouraging decent behavior if people were granted the right to slap people who insult or offend them. Think about it. Right now you can badger, harrass, defame, verbally abuse, and insult people with impunity. I realize there's libel laws but that's a huge and long endeavor, very much separated from the immediate situation. It's perfectly legal to be a complete douche and make someone's life a miserable hell and feel invulnerable because the victim can't touch you.
  
  So take away that immunity. If you insult and mouth off to someone, they can slap you, as hard as they want, as many times as they want, and it's legal. People would think twice before opening their mouth and letting loose with a stream of vitriol and verbal abuse if there was the possibility of an immediate response.
  
  It's behaviorism at its simplest. It's how the entire natural world works. Every social animal tests their boundaries, and if they go too far, they get bit. That's how boundaries get set. Our laws have created a consequence-free outlet for verbal abuse that is generating some truly out-of-control people.
35. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  As long as by "some bureaucrat" you mean "a jury of your peers".
36. Re:Your Honor! by corbettw · 2009-10-16 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Not everything goes to court, sometimes people talk to each and resolve their differences.
  That's only true when it's a civil matter. When it's a criminal matter, an overzealous DA can now make a name for himself through "stopping online bullying". I fail to see how this will help make things better.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
37. Re:Your Honor! by smoker2 · 2009-10-16 05:16 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  fuck off. Kids fight. Ever watched kittens or puppies ? they fight all the time. It's part of growing up. Except nobody goes through it these days, they call the police in instead, and consequently never GROW UP ! I really cannot get my head round kids complaining because somebody called them names. You may have noticed that this phenomenon is increasing not decreasing since corporal punishment was outlawed. Sometimes you need the fear of Dog put in you to teach you a lesson. Kids these days aren't getting that lesson. What kind of adults are they going to be ? Whiny self-important over litigious assholes, that's who.
  
  Society was a lot better off when simple ego conflicts were settled privately. Now we all have to abide by stupid laws thanks to weeners who can't or won't stand up for themselves. And when they're forced to act by circumstance, they have no sense of proportion and resort to guns and knives. It never used to be like that, so what's changed ? Human nature or interfering lawmakers doing it "for the children". I know several teens who really need a good slap to wipe the smile off their smirking idle, ignorant faces, but I can't give it to them, and nobody in authority will. So I just hope something really nasty happens to them instead. And I know it will because I'm one of the nice guys. I choose to control myself, others aren't so restrained.
38. Re:Your Honor! by Xaositecte · 2009-10-16 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Not really.
  I was usually the weaker party while growing up. For me, it was pretty motivating to work harder to become one of the stronger parties. In retrospect, getting picked on or even beaten up once in a while is a whole lot more effective at motivating you to grow a spine than any amount of coddling.
39. Re:Your Honor! by smooth+wombat · 2009-10-16 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  If you insult and mouth off to someone, they can slap you, as hard as they want, as many times as they want, and it's legal.
  
  Modification. They are given five slaps which can be administered at any time for all of eternity (last paragraph). This way you never know when you've insulted them to such a large degree that they'll retaliate. The five slaps are per insult which, depending on how stupid you are, could result in decades worth of slaps!
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
40. Re:Your Honor! by Plunky · 2009-10-16 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  And what about all those who don't want to fight, not because they are weak, but because they don't like fighting. Of course, you don't have an answer to that. Because your attitude stinks of the fighter mentality. Your choice of words like "proving yourself" is very revealing.
  Well I wonder what it reveals because I did not use that phrase or anything like it.. perhaps you should read my choice of words again? I advocated standing up for yourself and specifically mentioned that it doesn't need to be about violence..
  Fight is perhaps the wrong word (and you might note that I didn't use it), because it usually implies kicking and punching etc but you can fight (eg "for your rights") without violence. In the end, it is the fact that you respond personally that will engender respect in your detractors and you might note that I'm not asking you to respect them though if you can learn to then it will go better in the end.
41. Re:Your Honor! by Mendoksou · 2009-10-16 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  ...they are educated and savvy enough to inject their opinions in any arena they see fit, and how dare anyone presume to tell them otherwise.
  You mean like passing judgment on an entire generation? Don't for a second pretend that ego is a phenomena new to this generation. The simple fact is that every older generation in history has felt that the next generation was presumptuous and rude, and all too full of themselves. But what does that have to do with the law?
  Young people will be immature, and, since it is a forum on which they are a disproportional demographic, will be the majority of the forum trolls and flame-baiters and haters out there, and thus are most likely to get caught under this law (yes, I know the law doesn't cover trolling, but the trolls mentality is much closer producing threats than is the average mature person's). This does not change the fact that classifying threats online as illegal breaks with free speech precedent. Free speech does not include threats ONLY if it is backed by the threat of imminent violence, or if it is defamation (ok, most trolls fit here, but that's a civil matter, not a felony), or if it incites to riot. Threatening online matches none of these; no threat is imminent, as I'd have to get up, drive to your house, and THEN do whatever I said (in which case the prosecutable act is the physical one, the speech is peripheral and can only be evidence of forethought and intent, not a crime itself). So no, we are not claiming "responsibility-less intrinsic rights;" we are merely pointing out that the same rights that we enjoy elsewhere also should apply online.
  
  --
  DISCLAIMER: I am very rarely serious. If the above comment seems asinine makes no sense, it is most likely a bad joke.
42. Re:Your Honor! by KraftDinner · 2009-10-16 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  You have obviously lost complete touch with what the younger generation goes through when growing up. I've known too many people from high school that ended up committing suicide because beyond telling teacher/parent/school counselor there is little to no recourse.
43. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Then how about I kill you right now? It would solve all kinds of problems!
44. Re:Your Honor! by Obfuscant · 2009-10-16 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  The five slaps are per insult which, depending on how stupid you are, could result in decades worth of slaps!
  I've been insulted by everything you've ever posted to /., you insensitive clod. Post your address so I can come slap you silly, silly.
45. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 05:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is so unbelievably redneck, I'm at a loss for words. That attitude is something out of the 50's or earlier.
  Taught your kids, huh? Like, that violence solves things. You really think they heard that, warn once warn twice? No what they heard was Dad will back us up if we kick the crap out of someone. Whether that someone had it coming due to their over-all stupidity or not.
  And, btw, I was never in a fight in high school. Never had a cause and it wasn't because I was intimidating physically. I just had a knack for getting along with people; i.e. I tried to respect everyone.
46. Re:Your Honor! by ROU+Nuisance+Value · 2009-10-16 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  The ratings here seem to bear out grandparent post's remarks about the ignorance and rudeness of online posters generally: An adult, mature, sensible contribution like Mendoksou's is only +1 and the grandparent post's ignorant, reactionary pomposity is +5.
47. Re:Your Honor! by DaveGod · 2009-10-16 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  If you disagree with them, or are simply in their way, they're not going to engage in productive discussion or debate. That would imply that they are somehow your equal.
  Fixed?
  It should hardly come as a surprise that when a generation has been ignored, they will then behave as if they do not expect their attempts at debate to be productive. It's a response to the behaviour of the baby-boomer generation.
  If you want an example, look at "the environment" (which in my view/this context is an umbrella term for detrimental climate change, resource shortage [particularly energy] and so on). The whole thing was widely known yet completely ignored anything other than what affects the baby boomers (e.g. air quality). We engaged in productive discussion, you did nothing.
  So excuse me if we as a generation think you're all a bunch of greedy, self-serving wankers whom won't do anything counter to personal interest unless forced, but it's a lesson learned from your behaviour. We're growing up, it's our turn, we're taking control and we've got our work cut out sorting the mess you've left.
48. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  I agree with about everything you've said. However you have to remember "back in the day" in a small town you have only your community and circle to deal with. Now you lose a fight and its on youtube, video cameras everywhere -- constant reminder.
  Again, I think a lot of what you say is valid, but its apples and oranges now. We are so wired and high strung with the internet, fashion, riches, good college, etc that there is more stress. Is that an excuse for todays kids or to go kill people? No. However ignoring other factors in the equation is ignorant.
49. Re:Your Honor! by BJ_Covert_Action · 2009-10-16 06:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  An entire generation or more has been raised to believe in its own innate and unearned importance...
  That is quite a sweeping generalization. I am not sure which generation you are referring to, but if it is my own (I am 23) I would be inclined to disagree with you via a caveat. I will agree that, in general, there are quite a few folks who fit the description that you just posted. Nonetheless, I would caveat that there are some of us, in every generation (not just my own) that know without a doubt that we do not have unlimited entitlement and rights. There are even some of us that know that the Law is not an institution to be used for the abuse of personal gain. In fact, some of us, in every generation, outright abhor the strange exponential increase in the complexity of the Law in general.
  
  So, in principle, I agree that there are quite a few folk out there that think the way you mentioned, using the term, 'an entire generation' really does disrespect those of us that try to remain rational, calm, pragmatic, and realistic. Please, don't lump entire groups of people together as if we are all just walking stereotypes to be typified into a particular Aristotelian category. There are always shades of gray.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
50. Re:Your Honor! by Reziac · 2009-10-16 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Best dissertation on the subject I've seen yet. Hope you don't mind if it's spread far and wide. :)
  Another point is that when you tell your kid it is right to stand up fairly for himself, and that you're behind him all the way, he develops trust in you as the parent and himself as a competent person.
  But if your response to bullying is to take him out of harms way (eg. take him out of school), all he learns is that he's a loser (he must be, since you don't trust him to stand up for himself), and that's how others will now respond to him, too -- making matters worse, not better. And rather than being shown up for what they are, the bullies win by default, thus ENHANCING their social standing and sense of personal power -- again, making matters worse.
  It boils down to people (of all ages) are better left to settle as many disputes among themselves as possible, rather than making everything into a federal case. It may be harder on a few in the short term, but it's better for them and most everyone else in the long term.
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
51. Re:Your Honor! by nomadic · 2009-10-16 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  This is where you are wrong. An entire generation or more has been raised to believe in its own innate and unearned importance, and bolstered with a solid and unshakable faith in its responsibility-less intrinsic rights. They truly believe that they are entitled to do whatsoever they please, whenever they please to, and that they are educated and savvy enough to inject their opinions in any arena they see fit, and how dare anyone presume to tell them otherwise. Their rights are absolute at all times, without qualification of any kind.
  
  Every generation says that.
52. Re:Your Honor! by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2009-10-16 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  For some reason, every time I hear about some idiot attempting to stop bullying I feel an overwhelming desire to find them and beat some sense into them. I say that as a former victim of bullying. Anything done from the outside is doomed to failure, and usually just makes things worse for those being bullied.
  
  That said, there is a simple solution. I call it growing a backbone! Tried, tested and true.
  Step 1, Grow a backbone.
  Step 2, Walk up to Bully and look them square in the eye.
  Step 3, Break Bully's freaking nose!
  Step 4, Profit.
  
  You may still take a beating after this, but odds are it will be your last. The only think a bully respects is force.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
53. Re:Your Honor! by BJ_Covert_Action · 2009-10-16 06:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  To this day the most confident, rational, and competent people I know are the kids I grew up with which got their asses kicked across a parking lot at least once during middle school or high school. Every single one of them got in some good blows themselves and could sit there afterword bleeding out the nose or mouth smiling that they at least had a chance to 'shut that guy up' who wouldn't lay off of of them. It's completely anecdotal, but I have to say that I agree with what you posted in every respect. Tasting your own blood is a memorable and grounding experience in life that more people need to experience, in my opinion.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
54. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  the depressed girl hangs herself from the ceiling fan because someone send her a 'u r fat' text message,
  
  no way i know that fatty and a ceiling fan would never hold her LOL
55. Re:Your Honor! by Chris+Burke · 2009-10-16 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  This is a kangaroo court! You didn't even have them spin the bottle first!
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
56. Re:Your Honor! by Mister+Whirly · 2009-10-16 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  If you have a court order stating you should have zero contact with a person ever, why wouldn't contacting them via Facebook ("poking" someone is making contact) not be violating that order? Seems rather cut and dry to me. Just because you weren't actually face-to-face doesn't mean you can't violate a "no contact" order. It is no different that calling them on a phone. If the courts says you can't do it, you had better expect there to be consequences for breaking that.
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
57. Re:Your Honor! by VJ42 · 2009-10-16 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on whether you were the stronger or the weaker of the disputing parties, I suspect...
  Not really, I'm in my mid-twenties, and still only 5'4". Imagine what I was like at 13 or 14.
  
  The other guy asked "with or without weapons" I said with, and dropped hints that I had a gun licence (I live in the UK, you need to be licensed to have a gun here), and chose a location well away from school. Scared the bollocks off him, impressed some of the others and obviously neither of us even turned up. Didn't stop me from taunting him for a no-show the next day though. No one else ever wanted to "settle it after school" again. I survived school by playing smart, not hard. As long as you remember bullies are fundamentally stupid you can somehow survive.
  
  --
  If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
58. Re:Your Honor! by Moryath · 2009-10-16 06:21 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  The funny thing about that is that as left-wing and sissyfied as we've gotten, you'll likely be called a bully yourself, and given a major sentence (for me it was a full week in-school suspension while the bully had his mom call in sick for him all week, AND I got fucked over because the science teacher refused to give class notes or allow me to hand in the homework saying "if you're not in class too bad").
  Look at what we deal with. Foreign policy - we have bullies all over the place. Our "President" Black Jimmah Cartah Dah Messiah? Oh yeah, he wants to "sit down and talk" with the bully Ahmadammanutjob from Iran, just to start with.
  Sigh.
59. Re:Your Honor! by meringuoid · 2009-10-16 06:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  And what about all those who don't want to fight, not because they are weak, but because they don't like fighting.
  The existence of people like that endangers the whole system whereby respect and status are established by means of violence. Consider: an alpha male in the schoolyard has established his position against all rivals by means of fights. He now becomes aware of a subculture that does not respect him for this - they may fear him, but they don't admire him. These people are called 'nerds' and they admire and respect intellectual accomplishment. Or a large collection of Warhammer 40K figures. Either way, they neither admire nor respect the willingness or ability to engage in physical fights. Indeed, they openly disdain it.
  This completely undermines his position! This alpha male demands the respect due to him for being so masculine and violent! And so he expresses himself in the only way he knows how: he beats up nerds until he has established to the satisfaction of his peers that he will not tolerate disrespect from inferiors of zero status, from people who have no interest in violence at all.
  Looking back on it from a distance of fifteen years or so it's a fascinating sociological study. Thank fuck I'm no longer living in it.
  
  --
  Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
60. Re:Your Honor! by meringuoid · 2009-10-16 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  In retrospect, getting picked on or even beaten up once in a while is a whole lot more effective at motivating you to grow a spine than any amount of coddling.
  Eh. Motivated me at first to stay in the school library at breaktimes, where there were books and computers and stuff, and then later to find a group of other nerds, weirdos and other not-part-of-the-violence-hierarchy folks to hang around with.
  
  --
  Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
61. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  Was that a transcript from the case or a transcript from the latest session of Congress?
  Seriously though... any time speech is regulated, there's a problem. Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to Free Speech is not absolute, but the prosecution of a girl for calling another girl names over a dispute over a boy? A matter for parents and possibly high school guidance counselors, or on the rare outside case for a psychiatrist, but not for the courts.
  Freedom of speech, like all our freedoms, comes with a responsibility. That responsibility includes not harassing, threatening, or otherwise infringing on another persons right to the pursuit of happiness and freedom. It is not Carte Blanche to say whatever you feel like. That would be anarchy and the last time I checked we do have a somewhat regulated government (what regulates it remains to be determined, but it is regulated).
62. Re:Your Honor! by furby076 · 2009-10-16 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  I hate you all. You all suck.....hold on someone is banging on my doo-+ATDT1470,08456040875 NO CARRIER ERROR
  
  --
  
  I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
63. Re:Your Honor! by IRoll11!s · 2009-10-16 06:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
64. Re:Your Honor! by SleazyRidr · 2009-10-16 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Thing is, some people just don't deserve respect, and I won't give them any until they show me why I should. Violence might not always be the best way to solve something, but it's usually the fastest.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
65. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  Kudos
66. Re:Your Honor! by furby076 · 2009-10-16 06:40 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I didn't fight often, but that was because I learned very quickly that my actions had consequences. I learned that it can sometimes hurt as much to punch someone as to get punched. I also learned that to avoid a physical confrontation, I needed to work on my diplomacy and many times my over-all prick-titude.
  There is something to be said about the whole "yea he beat you, but really you asked for it". Society becomes a lot more polite when they realize a slug to the face won't land the hitter in jail. Now a days the winners are those who can subtely harass people - you know the people - those who can manipulate the words to antagonize someone but only the victim see's it and it is intended so only the victim see's it. Back in the day - the victim could say "Yea you may be smarter then me with words, but you know what" Story over. Now-a-days the verbal harasser laughs the entire way - and if he gets hit, he goes and cries to the cops and the lawyers.
  
  I am not advocating gun-violence, knifing, or rodney king style beatings - but a wise-ass getting slugged in the face will prevent said wise-ass from talking shit again. I think it may also reduce some gun-violence - ever hear the stories of how a person mouthed off to the wrong person and then got shot? That is probably because the guy who likes to talk crap has a sense of security that he can run his mouth off and not suffer consequences....then he encounters the person who doesn't give a crap about life or law and owns a gun. When people have a healthy respect (and fear) about consequences to their actions then they are a bit more likely to control themselves.
  
  --
  
  I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
67. Re:Your Honor! by cptdondo · 2009-10-16 06:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  An entire generation or more has been raised to believe in its own innate and unearned importance, and bolstered with a solid and unshakable faith in its responsibility-less intrinsic rights. They truly believe that they are entitled to do whatsoever they please, whenever they please to, and that they are educated and savvy enough to inject their opinions in any arena they see fit, and how dare anyone presume to tell them otherwise. Their rights are absolute at all times, without qualification of any kind.
  You know, I'm getting a bit tired of this. It's the same crap that's been heaped on the younger generation for ages. I remember it when I was a kid.
  Kids today by and large are more responsible, if anything, than the kids in my generation were. They are under more pressure, in a more dangerous environment, than we were and they're dealing with it pretty well.
  There seems to be this bizarre "whack a mole" approach to dealing with kids... Let them do what they want, but once in a while take a kid out back and shoot him/her for being a kid as an example.
  No wonder the kids today are confused.
  They've been taught really good social skills, conflict resolution, sharing in school, and then they get hammered when they do something wrong.
  Some of the grownups need to attend those social skills classes instead of their kids.
68. Re:Your Honor! by WNight · 2009-10-16 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  And that would already be illegal. So the new law, what currently acceptable behavior does it limit?
69. Re:Your Honor! by WNight · 2009-10-16 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Threats to rape someone are illegal, as is planning it, regardless of the medium. If that had happened they'd have used existing laws...
70. Re:Your Honor! by himurabattousai · 2009-10-16 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  This Texas law sounds like so many of the speech codes found on college campuses today. Like those speech codes, this law intentionally restricts speech that has been consistently found to be constitutional. The reason for such asinine restrictions? We "have to protect our innocent kids from the real world." This, of course, is utter bullplop. All it does is create a generation of children who have no emotional stability. They never learn how to deal with the fact that not everyone will like them.
  The arrested girl may be a bully; if she is, there are laws already in place to deal with her. The problem with those laws, in some eyes, is that bullying requires a pattern of behavior. They want to eliminate all forms of verbal abuse so badly that they'll trample on our constitutional right to occasionally make fun of each other.
  Fortunately, this law is in the mold of so many that have been shot down, and shot down hard.
  
  --
  "osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
71. Re:Your Honor! by Xaositecte · 2009-10-16 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  There comes a time when you realize you can't just hide out in your own little clique, you have to be able to interact with other people. Now, as you grow older, physical violence becomes less and less acceptable, to the point where anyone throwing a punch in their late twenties or later is justifiably scorned.
  However, growing a backbone when you're young, and having the knowledge that if something came down to a physical confrontation (even though you know it never will) you'd be able to hold your own gives you a confidence that many people who spent their youths hiding from conflict or avoiding it will never possess.
  There's very little difference between the confidence needed to stand up to, say, a bully on the schoolgrounds, and your boss being abuse with their authority over you.
72. Re:Your Honor! by DarthVain · 2009-10-16 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Ya now some jerk brings a gun.
  I remember these bouts well, and while I was the target of some, generally speaking if you stand up for yourself each and every time they will find less prickly prey. I may have lost many, but I would always make sure the other guy knew he was in a fight.
  Bullies don't like to get hurt, its only fun if they don't fight back.
  That said there was always a pseudo code of honor (lol pardon the pun!) among everyone, from the kids directly involved, to those that inevitably come to watch, to the older kids who would occasionally look out for the younger ones. These days I expect it would be nastier and more fraught with danger.
73. Re:Your Honor! by silverspell · 2009-10-16 07:07 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  That said, there is a simple solution. I call it growing a backbone! Tried, tested and true.
  Step 1, Grow a backbone.
  Step 2, Walk up to Bully and look them square in the eye.
  Step 3, Break Bully's freaking nose!
  Step 4, Profit.
  You left out a few steps:
  Step 5, As you're walking away, hear a bullet whistle past your ear.
  Step 6, Break into a trot while suddenly realizing that the Bully is a sociopath who's willing to escalate things as far as necessary in order to win, including killing you, your family, and anyone you're close to.
  Step 7, After the second bullet misses you by a whisker, also realize that many Bullies have a hell of a lot less to lose than you do; a lot more experience with fighting dirty; and no scruples about using any possible tactic, fair or foul, to win.
  Step 8, In the course of these revelations, find yourself questioning the wisdom of assuming that people will always back down when confronted with a show of force.
  Step 9, Turn around and attempt to plug the Bully with the weapon of your choice, knowing that either you're about to die (if the Bully shoots you first) or spend the next couple years of your life dealing with the legal, psychological, and financial aftermath of having killed someone: something that will bother you since -- unlike many Bullies -- you have a conscience, inconveniently enough.
74. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  Any speech limiting law that specifically targets a single media is suspect to me. It's apparently ok for someone to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person via snail mail, ,e-mail, or telephone, but do it via Facebook, and whoa, you're breaking the law.
75. Re:Your Honor! by DarthVain · 2009-10-16 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Behind the hockey rink after school! Fighting spot indeed. Makes me wonder if such still goes on there.
76. Re:Your Honor! by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  And so to prove your superiority and show just how bad "baby boomers" are you do exactly what you accuse them of doing. You make large generalizations that have nothing to do with reality--all baby boomers are selfish jerks--as the only reason they could disagree with you on global warming is because they're idiots and selfish, and you couldn't possibly be wrong.
  Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a lot of people that don't buy into global warming, including a lot of scientists. Of course, you'll say they are just selfish baby boomers who have been bought off, but again, that's just another generalization on your part because you have no proof of that whatsoever.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
77. Re:Your Honor! by HungryHobo · 2009-10-16 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Putting "Jenny Smith of 123 Mockingboard Lane is a FAT CUNT" on a billboard would be a civil matter, not a criminal one. So actually this one of the cases where people are going "BUT THE INTERNET IS DIFFERENT!!!!!!"
78. Re:Your Honor! by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  An entire generation or more has been raised to believe in its own innate and unearned importance...
  That is quite a sweeping generalization. I am not sure which generation you are referring to, but if it is my own (I am 23) I would be inclined to disagree with you via a caveat. I will agree that, in general, there are quite a few folks who fit the description that you just posted. Nonetheless, I would caveat that there are some of us, in every generation (not just my own) that know without a doubt that we do not have unlimited entitlement and rights. There are even some of us that know that the Law is not an institution to be used for the abuse of personal gain. In fact, some of us, in every generation, outright abhor the strange exponential increase in the complexity of the Law in general.
  So, in principle, I agree that there are quite a few folk out there that think the way you mentioned, using the term, 'an entire generation' really does disrespect those of us that try to remain rational, calm, pragmatic, and realistic. Please, don't lump entire groups of people together as if we are all just walking stereotypes to be typified into a particular Aristotelian category. There are always shades of gray.
  Great post. I'd mod you up, but I'm active in this discussion.
  I'm glad to see there at least a few young people like you coming down the pike. You belong to what seems to be a dying breed amongst the sweeping sense of entitlement that so many young people have, but every once in a while I am very pleasantly surprised when one of you announce yourselves.
  Your parents should, rightly, be very proud of their child.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
79. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  And, btw, I was never in a fight in high school. Never had a cause and it wasn't because I was intimidating physically. I just had a knack for getting along with people; i.e. I tried to respect everyone.
  Translation: you're a pussy "yes man".
  That's okay son.. at least you won't get hurt in the boardroom with the other MBAs when I give you a directive as to how you're going to vote.
80. Re:Your Honor! by freeweed · 2009-10-16 07:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you insult and mouth off to someone, they can slap you, as hard as they want, as many times as they want, and it's legal.
  Great!
  I find your comment rather offensive and an insult to my way of thinking. Allow me to commence slapping you're bruised and bleeding, and you go down in an unconscious heap.
  What?
  Note: the secret here, is that insult and offense is 100% in the eyes and ears of the receiver. If you can't see where the problem lies here...
  
  --
  Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
81. Re:Your Honor! by Draek · 2009-10-16 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  And what about all those who don't want to fight, not because they are weak, but because they don't like fighting.
  Same thing that goes for all of us who don't like using a team of highly-paid lawyers to crush those who can't afford to fight, or who don't like to go and manipulate a mob to make your opponent a social pariah: tough luck, and make sure you're the one picking the battleground next time you fight.
  I may not have much respect for those who use violence to settle their conflicts, but I have even less for those who use their daddy's lawyers to do so, that's just pathetic.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
82. Re:Your Honor! by Labcoat+Samurai · 2009-10-16 08:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If we accept physical violence as a respectable method for resolving disputes, then women will be at a significant disadvantage (past a certain age). Or would you give different advice to a girl? What about to a boy who doesn't have the courage to fight? Does he deserve the harassment more than someone who does? Regardless, since there's no positive correlation as far as I know between being right and being tough, we potentially reinforce or encourage the behavior of jerks.
  
  Besides, I should be able to solve the problem without risking physical harm to myself. Adult disputes should not be solved through physical violence, so why should we teach our children otherwise?
  
  One qualification: I believe in defending yourself. If you are attacked as an adult or as a child, fight back with everything you have. Like the old adage about starting vs ending fights.
83. Re:Your Honor! by moeinvt · 2009-10-16 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  " . . . those who don't want to fight, not because they are weak, but because they don't like fighting."
  Guess they need to say their prayers, turn the other cheek, and hope that they'll be rewarded in the after-life for all the $#!T that they're going to have to put up with in this one.
  "... people like you who encourage young people to fight that is the problem."
  Big difference between encouraging someone to "fight" and encouraging them to defend themselves. I agree that kids being forced to resort to violence is a failure of the adults, but the primary failure is often bad parents and bad home environments that create the bullies. How do you fix that? Why should good kids from good homes have to suffer because of these bad parents? I'd like to know what life experiences shaped your world view. Mine was shaped by a bunch of idiots who were around 3 years older than I was making my life miserable throughout my early school years. What's your nice peaceful solution when some 10 year olds are verbally and physically abusing a 7 year old? Call the cops? Compel the bad parents to be better parents? Have the teacher verbally reprimand the bullies? Unfortunately, the only thing that most bullies understand is violence. I'm proud of the times I fought back, and ashamed of the times when I did nothing or ran away. Knowing what I do now, I would not only have fought back, I would have taken a tree branch and beat every single one of those assholes to within an inch of their lives.
84. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, 5secs! Enough time for me.
85. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  Geezer's disease; also known is "in my day" syndrome.
86. Re:Your Honor! by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2009-10-16 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  The funny thing about that is that as left-wing and sissyfied as we've gotten, you'll likely be called a bully yourself
  Sadly, you are probably right, and that is a sad commentary on the state of civilization. More and more often, I feel the urge to move to a cabin in the woods. At least 100 Miles from the nearest person.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
87. Re:Your Honor! by Draek · 2009-10-16 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  That goes for everything. Fortunately I was not only highly intelligent but also physically strong while growing up so I could solve any conflict that came my way easily and cleanly, but I know in a prolonged lawsuit my dad would've had to declare bankrupcy before my idiot classmates' rich parents began to resent their lawyer's bills, so I for one am thankful this form of bullying wasn't around when I was growing up.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
88. Re:Your Honor! by dnahelicase · 2009-10-16 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  To bad Amber Duick didn't live in Texas. They would have been able to arrest Toyota!
89. Re:Your Honor! by hairyfeet · 2009-10-16 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  BWA HA HA HA HA HA! Oh wait, you were serious? BWA HA HA HA HA HA! let me tell you a little something about juries, you know that saying "juries are 12 folks too stupid to get out of jury duty"? True story-
  My family has always taught us to do our civic duty, so when mom got called for jury duty she took her vacation time to go. On the last day she came in chalk white and said "NEVER have a jury! Always ask for a judge!" when I asked her what was wrong she gave me the story. The case was an arson case. The inspector admitted they couldn't find any evidence of arson, hell they didn't know WHAT had started the fire. they also admitted the guy didn't have enough insurance on the place to even cover his bills and had to declare bankruptcy. Wanna guess what the jury verdict was? Can you say 11 to 1 with only my mom keeping that man out of prison? And why was they so sure he was guilty? "Because he is Italian and they are all in the mob and burn things for insurance. haven't you ever seen Goodfellas?"
  So remember boys and girls and Anon cowards, it doesn't matter if one is guilty or innocent, all that matters is how good or bad your lawyer is and how stupid the jury is. I don't know about you but I'd prefer NOT to have to spend ever cent I've ever made keeping myself out of prison just because some prosecutor somewhere thinks busting my ass on a bullshit law like this might be good for his career. The law is already so complex that nearly anybody can lose their freedom if a prosecutor decides to go after you. Lets not give them anymore clubs to beat us about the head with, okay?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
90. Re:Your Honor! by pHus10n · 2009-10-16 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Happy Slapsgiving? :)
91. Re:Your Honor! by AndersOSU · 2009-10-16 09:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Your romanticization of violence sort of falls apart when you stop looking at flukes like Columbine where middle class disaffected teenagers have never experienced violence and start looking at the every day violence in the inner city. Kids don't get shot or stabbed downtown because they've been bottling it up too long.
92. Re:Your Honor! by couchslug · 2009-10-16 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  "This is so unbelievably redneck, I'm at a loss for words. That attitude is something out of the 50's or earlier."
  You are expressing that this attitude is incompatible with your emotional preference, not that it is illogical or unsupported by actual results.
  "And, btw, I was never in a fight in high school. Never had a cause and it wasn't because I was intimidating physically. I just had a knack for getting along with people; i.e. I tried to respect everyone."
  That's just adorable, but it doesn't work for many people who become victims. People, like other animals, establish a pecking order and often do so by force. The "redneck" attitude evolved because it "works", while submission does not. Your LUCK and social skills avoided you having to choose between "fight" or "flight".
  There are plenty of stories from the Hellmouth from people who were not so fortunate, and didn't have an effective "fight" option.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
93. Re:Your Honor! by mhajicek · 2009-10-16 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps nice in theory, at first glance. Take into consideration the following: 1. Person "A" slapping person "B" might be a slight annoyance, while "B" slapping "A" may cause permanent damage. 2. The people involved may be hundreds if not thousands of miles apart. 3. Who determines if something someone said was slanderous (already covered by law), honest opinion (protected by free speech), or bullying?
94. Re:Your Honor! by noundi · 2009-10-16 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  That said, there is a simple solution. I call it growing a backbone! Tried, tested and true.
  Step 1, Grow a backbone.
  Step 2, Walk up to Bully and look them square in the eye.
  Step 3, Break Bully's freaking nose!
  Step 4, Profit.
  You left out a few steps:
  Step 5, As you're walking away, hear a bullet whistle past your ear.
  Step 6, Break into a trot while suddenly realizing that the Bully is a sociopath who's willing to escalate things as far as necessary in order to win, including killing you, your family, and anyone you're close to.
  Step 7, After the second bullet misses you by a whisker, also realize that many Bullies have a hell of a lot less to lose than you do; a lot more experience with fighting dirty; and no scruples about using any possible tactic, fair or foul, to win.
  Step 8, In the course of these revelations, find yourself questioning the wisdom of assuming that people will always back down when confronted with a show of force.
  Step 9, Turn around and attempt to plug the Bully with the weapon of your choice, knowing that either you're about to die (if the Bully shoots you first) or spend the next couple years of your life dealing with the legal, psychological, and financial aftermath of having killed someone: something that will bother you since -- unlike many Bullies -- you have a conscience, inconveniently enough.
  Step 10, pro... fit... (?)
  
  --
  I am the lawn!
95. Re:Your Honor! by mhajicek · 2009-10-16 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  But it says "a jury of my peers"! My peers all have IQ's of over 130!
96. Re:Your Honor! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-10-16 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Live really does suck ass now.
97. Re:Your Honor! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2009-10-16 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  That is quite a sweeping generalization. I am not sure which generation you are referring to, but if it is my own (I am 23)
  
  Yours was the "or more", of which I'm not entirely certain about. The generation to which I was refering was the so called "Generation X", people currently in their late twenties to early fourties. I'm talking about people who would closer to the parents of these girls, not the girls themselves. Perhaps I wasn't very clear in the post. In fact I wasn't.
  Personally, I feel people in this age group typically, tend to be over-opinionated, underskilled, quick to litigate and generally shallow and emotional in their thinking and politics. Now, sometimes I find myself in agreement with them on many issues, but overall their attitudes, methods and discussions seem juvenile and ineffective. They don't really accomplish anything yet always behave as if they do and are entitled to more credit than they deserve.
  Basically, I'm talking about old Grungers.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
98. Re:Your Honor! by jihiggs · 2009-10-16 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Without knowing what was said, if threats were made, if this person actually had the ability to carry out these threats, it is difficult to judge whats right in this case. Name calling and stuff like that doesn't warrant an arrest in my opinion, but if there were legitimate threats made then the police were correct in arresting this person. You can not go around threatening to beat people up any more than you could go into a theater and yell "fire!". Punishing people in cases like this is not a violation of freedom of speech, its showing people there are consequences to their actions.
99. Re:Your Honor! by bigngamer92 · 2009-10-16 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  But then your forcing the other child to have to move. If they both go to the same school a restraining order would just be overkill. Of course this law is rather unnecessary and something a little more civil should be devised, but hey, its Texas.
  
  --
  Common Sense
100. Re:Your Honor! by jwhitener · 2009-10-16 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that the lack of 1950's 'noble' fighting is what leaves things "to fester long enough to get to Columbine-proportions"
  Rather, it is a much greater disparity in wealth between rich and poor, and a consumer culture that has nearly destroyed the core family unit.
  In the 50's, a single working father could buy a house, a car, and support his family. That is possible now, if you chose to live as simply as a 50's household did. Smaller house, no cable, no internet, chop your own firewood, get your own xmas tree, cook from scratch, etc..
  But society has changed. Massive advertising, mega corps, have convinced us that we need more. More to the point that now 2 parents must work full time, and even when the family comes home, they often watch TV instead of talk.
  This results in kids with less respect for each other, less respect for authority, etc...
  The inner city is the worst example of this, and that poverty culture radiates out into society, affecting music, games, styles, attitudes, etc.. And while it is not as bad as in inner cities, a suburban kid is also being raised with far less parental guidance than in the past, while being fed the extremist attitudes resulting from inner city poverty through pop culture, tv, radio, news reports, etc..
101. Re:Your Honor! by Jarik_Tentsu · 2009-10-16 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  I wish shit was still like that.
  In Melbourne, Australia, once upon a time at *all* ages, fights were about honour, pride. One on one, see who wins. These days, at school, you start fighting a person in a one on one fight, and if he starts losing, you'll be jumped by his mates. Or if he loses, he'll come back and attack you behind your back. There's no honour.
  At higher ages, or after school, what started off as a fist fight will now lead to people pulling out knives. Hell, there was one instance here a while back where a bunch of Asians were ganging up on some guy outside a club. One completely seperate guy came and broke up the fight. The group of aggressors followed this guy to a convenience store and stabbed him to death in front of his girlfriend.
  This kinda shit happens way too often these days. Hell, people attacking people for no reason in numbers and nearly killing them.
  So yeah, I'd love to be in a society where I knew that if I stood up for myself and fought, the worst I was risking was a broken nose, or a black eye. But at the moment, at higher ages you're risking death and at younger ages you're risking being attacked by bigger numbers - and no one will really look down on that person as 'dishonourable' really.
102. Re:Your Honor! by pkphilip · 2009-10-16 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  I am sorry but I don't see much evidence to support your claim. I run a business and I have noticed the rapid deterioration on the communication skills of the young. Many don't even know the basics of professional courtesy - example: You don't refer to your boss as "hey man" in an email.
  You don't use SMS lingo in official communication. You don't sit and listen to your ipod during office hours. You don't send SMSs to your pals when a business meeting is in progress.
  Added to this is the greater sense of entitlement..and a sense of superiority - that is despite not having the skills to back it up. I am guessing this is a repercussion of over emphasis on the student's self-esteem in the educational system.
  Yes, I do agree that each generation has seen the next generation as clueless, reckless and irresponsible. But it is also true that much has changed in the past 20 years - at a much faster pace than the decades before it. The growth of the internet and the pervasiveness of media, advertising, entertainment etc has had its toll on the young - the young want to be constantly entertained now; to remain in a high at all times and they believe it is the world's responsibility to keep them in that state. So attention spans have dropped - people multi-task much more but don't do any single task well.
  And so, I don't think that the youth are getting "really good socials skills" training in school.
103. Re:Your Honor! by celle · 2009-10-16 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  "Thank fuck I'm no longer living in it."
  Think you're not do you? Look around, many governments alone are this way. Economies as well, starting with our favorite. Anyone know any non-corrupt local sheriffs, school boards, parents not-killing each other over the accomplishments of their children. Let's not forget religion. I'm sure there's plenty of examples in the everyday news to remind us how little everything has changed. Civilization does have more opportunities and virtualizes the effects away from just life and death and in many ways its better for that. In some ways its worse, somehow I can't find it all that civilized to knock someone down, keep them down, and then make them live with it for the rest of their natural life. In the old days, you died or they killed you, end of torture. The latter seems a little more humane to me somehow.
104. Re:Your Honor! by celle · 2009-10-16 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  You left out something. Once they realize you are weaker they don't stop harassing you simply because they know they can harass you. Because there's a fight, win or lose, doesn't mean it will stop there, and often just escalated everything. I don't know the kind of fights you had but 30 years ago a fight, single or gang, often ended in hospital time for the loser and/or target. Honor??!! Get this, it's not about honor or the locals, just whatever ego/control game the jackass(es) is(are) playing.
105. Re:Your Honor! by StuartHankins · 2009-10-16 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  I wish you were wrong.
  
  MOD PARENT UP...
106. Re:Your Honor! by jawahar · 2009-10-16 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  And Machiavelli Was Right
  
  --
  Slashdot = Sarcasm
107. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 17:43 · Score: 0
  
  Respect is earned, not given away for free.
  
  You are a friend whore with 1200 friends on your facebook, but you don't really know any of them.
  
  Too scared to say what you really think, so everyone manipulates you.
  
  Stand up for yourself.
108. Re:Your Honor! by ImYourVirus · 2009-10-16 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  So if I kill you online then I should be tried for first degree murder then? Cut the comi bullshit, the internet has made a mockery of people for years, just because someone calls you a 'cunt' or a 'dickhead' or whatever on the internet doesn't mean shit and should be taken with a grain of salt, just like in real life. Grow up.
  
  --
  Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
109. Re:Your Honor! by ImYourVirus · 2009-10-16 18:41 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't really make anything better, if someone was calling me names and I didn't like it, then that's what ignore/block/un-freind is for, stop making these ignorant laws, I mean do the people that makes these laws even have the slightest inkling what goes on, *on* the internet, I mean hell there are sites devoted to just making fun of people and calling them names, should we ban those too, thats what the internet is, I mean next we are going to hear they made it illegal to 'kill' people on the internet, give me a break.
  
  --
  Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
110. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 20:02 · Score: 0
  
  I see that too, in my generation it was basically that the parents gave the restricions outside of that nobody cared a shit, and if something went wrong our parents dealt with us. Suddenly we have a nanny state and the parents have to deal with their kids themselves, and to the worse the states/countries smack the kids for doing something wrong from time to time openly instead leaving it to the parents and enforcing rule after rule on those poor teenagers.
  I for one having a baby boy will see it as my future responsibility to protect my boy from the country to give him as much freedom as possible, that includes doing shit, but also showing him the borders of his doing myself. No country can do it, and teenagers need that freedom to becom e responsible adults. What happens here is that an entire generation is fucked up by old people who think that the they have to take over the responsibilities of parents by enforcing laws left and right.
  God help us all that we can reverse that once our generation comes into the position of having responsibility over the society in age.
111. Re:Your Honor! by tsm_sf · 2009-10-16 20:42 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  So if I kill you online then I should be tried for first degree murder then?
  
  I can't fully comprehend the confusion of mind that would lead to this sentence.
  
  --
  Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
112. Re:Your Honor! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 22:52 · Score: 0
  
  Kids in America grew up like this, and the US called itself a "civilized" country?
113. Re:Your Honor! by shiftless · 2009-10-17 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  So you won't stand up for yourself because you're afraid some big bad middle school meany might take a shot at you? Not only is this the stupidest and most realistic chain of events I've ever seen in my life (99.99% of bully ass whoopings don't end in gunshots), but you're essentially saying that you're a coward. A wise man once said that from time to time the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots. He who is too much of a pussy to spill some blood in the name of freedom (from being harassed and bullied, in this case) won't ever have liberty and doesn't deserve it anyhow.
114. Re:Your Honor! by DaveGod · 2009-10-17 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  A generation is a broad body of varied people and thus can only be described in broad generalisations. It does not require each member to behave that way, and it does not describe any one member (except by chance). It's an average - the selfishness of the jerks outweighs the others.
  Just like the general body of scientists are in support of global warming. By the way, I said detrimental climate change, resource shortage [particularly energy] and so on, not "global warming", which is just one possible cause.
115. Re:Your Honor! by silverspell · 2009-10-17 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  The chain of events I depicted was deliberately cartoonish, but is no more unrealistic than the oft-repeated idea that "if you just stand up to a bully, he'll turn tail and run."
  
  Sometimes that's true, and sometimes it's the right thing to do. But sometimes the bad guy has more firepower, and cathartic macho fantasies tend to wither rapidly when one is confronted with a loaded gun. Middle-schoolers used to be safe from that sort of thing, but these days I'm not so sure. Even when I was in high school, there were students reputed to keep pistols in their cars.
  
  Also, when exactly was the last time you gave a beatdown to a gangbanger, or a member of organized crime, or even a well-connected and malevolent politician? Where's your bravery then? Or do "bully ass whoopings" only count when you already know that the other person isn't a real threat to your existence?
  
  We've been trained by movies and other propaganda to think that bravery is confronting the bad guy, mano-a-mano, and giving him a beatdown; anything else is being a pussy. Sometimes that's the right approach, especially if taking a stand in public will potentially galvanize a community. But sometimes that approach is just plain stupid, and the best thing to do is either to retreat, to defuse the situation through diplomacy, or if necessary, to take clandestine measures to neutralize your opponent.
  
  That may not earn awards for bravery, but often the important thing isn't to be popular, or to enjoy the pleasant catharsis of macho chest-beating, but simply to win. You should read Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, to name but two authors who offer excellent advice on how to achieve victory, and who will tell you that a frontal assault is often a great way to look good and die young.
116. Re:Your Honor! by ImYourVirus · 2009-10-17 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you don't play any online games, or understand sarcasm.
  
  --
  Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
117. Re:Your Honor! by gmanterry · 2009-10-17 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  As to your hope that the punishment will be several hours of community service; in Texas the punishment for a 3rd degree felony is: Third-Degree Felony – If you are convicted of a Third-Degree felony, the punishment range increases from two (2) to ten (10) years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. Community service would be for a misdemeanor crime like a traffic violation. This is a serious law with very serious consequences. Terry
  
  --
  Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
118. Re:Your Honor! by iamhassi · 2009-10-17 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  "the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to Free Speech is not absolute, but the prosecution of a girl for calling another girl names over a dispute over a boy? A matter for parents and possibly high school guidance counselors, or on the rare outside case for a psychiatrist, but not for the courts."
  
  RTFA: "Details of the incident weren't made available, but police say the harassment went on for a few months and involved a dispute over a boy."
  
  This is a bit more than just a girl posting OMG UZ STOLEZ MY BF U IZ BIATCH!!!! Also at 16 years old she's hardly a "girl", as I'm sure you heard about the 15 yr old who lit a teen on fire over $40 and laugh about it or the four teens who beat a 16 yr old bystander and honor roll student to death and recorded it on a cellphone.
  
  I'm glad police are taking this seriously and doing something about it, teens should not be burned alive or beaten to death.
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
119. Re:Your Honor! by corbettw · 2009-10-17 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  Just the fact that you were modded Flamebait proves your central thesis: that standing up to bullies (or supporting those who do) gets you labeled a bully.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
120. Re:Your Honor! by corbettw · 2009-10-17 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  A coward dies a thousand times. A brave man dies only once.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
121. Re:Your Honor! by Xiaotou · 2009-10-19 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  I firmly believe that every male should have the crap kicked out of him at some point... we (males) tend to grow up thinking that we are made of plastic and, as you so correctly pointed out, that we are impervious to damage, just like the guys we love to watch on TV.
  My "epiphany" occurred in the 4th grade, when I, the bully, larger than everyone else in my class, got his butt kicked by a classmate's big sister, publicly, in the school playground.
  That took the wind out of my little bully sails. After that, I saw things much differently.
122. Re:Your Honor! by tehcyder · 2009-10-19 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  If you insult and mouth off to someone, they can slap you, as hard as they want, as many times as they want, and it's legal.
  
  Fierce!
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
123. Re:Your Honor! by tehcyder · 2009-10-19 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Tasting your own blood is a memorable and grounding experience in life that more people need to experience, in my opinion.
  
  You're so macho, I'm sure if I was female I'd conceive just by reading your words over the internets.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
About time by zoomshorts · 2009-10-16 02:19 · Score: 0

Such stuff needs to be a felony.
1. Re:About time by Thelasko · 2009-10-16 02:28 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Such stuff needs to be a felony.
  In which case, the state of Texas is going to be busy with all of the anonymous vs. anonymous cases.
  
  --
  One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
2. Re:About time by qortra · 2009-10-16 02:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why does this need to be a felony? Support your claim with evidence. At the risk of sounding heartless, teen suicide is not sufficient evidence on its own; there is plenty of that when neither the internet nor harassment is involved.
  
  More than that, can you show that this particular instance should be a felony?
  
  Details of the incident weren't made available, but police say the harassment went on for a few months and involved a dispute over a boy.
  That seems pretty vague to me. Should we throw every middle school student into the hoosegow? Typically, middle school is 3 years of constant harassment, and it definitely involves boys.
  
  I'd bet money that this particular instance is a non-issue. The parents of the "victim" probably knew the sheriff.
3. Re:About time by maudface · 2009-10-16 02:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Having been a victim of such harassment in the past myself I agree wholeheartedly, I reported it to the police however they fairly resoundingly didn't appear to give a toss.
  Given how common it is for one's name to be googled by others these days online harassment can be every bit as damaging as real life harassment, it caused me quite serious upset for some months. This wasn't merely some childish dispute but an ex looking for revenge over every medium possible, creating profiles on facebook, bebo, myspace and various other websites with the specific intent of causing me as much damage as possible.
  While I'm in no means in favour of putting the internet under any form of state control this sort of activity warrants police attention and needs to be against the law. It strikes me as insane that so much focus is put on policing the internet to stop file sharers as opposed to protecting the individual.
4. Re:About time by poetmatt · 2009-10-16 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  posts like yours would also constitute a felony, as I'd consider posting an asinine comment as harassment. how's that for equal logic?
5. Re:About time by jimbolauski · 2009-10-16 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  I just wonder when the warrant will be issued for AC.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
6. Re:About time by BlackSnake112 · 2009-10-16 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Such stuff needs to be a felony.
  If that is so, then a whole lot of slashdot posters are going to jail.
  Anyone remember the old saying "sticks and stone will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" It went something like that. The point is words, unless written into laws are only words. As long as no one acts on those words, do not get worked up over it. Also laws like this are to far reaching. If they stopped at harm and defrauding I would have agreed with the law. Those are things that can be proved easily. The others are harder to prove. There is a huge difference between saying words to threaten someone and pointing a gun in their face. Both are threats or methods of intimidation one is clearly more forceful.
7. Re:About time by DrLang21 · 2009-10-16 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What I don't understand is why is this not covered under previous harassment laws?
  
  --
  I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
8. Re:About time by mathx314 · 2009-10-16 02:51 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  4chan was so much better before that Anonymous guy showed up.
9. Re:About time by erroneus · 2009-10-16 02:59 · Score: 2
  
  Because if it doesn't deprive one of the right to vote and the right to bear arms, then this additional law to criminalize everyone is useless.
10. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  I am going to kill all of you people that thinks this is a felony. Good thing I don't live in Texas!
11. Re:About time by qortra · 2009-10-16 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Good point. Also, if the profiles that the grandparent's ex created contain lies about him, they might fall under existing defamation laws. From what he said, that might be his larger concern.
12. Re:About time by ChefInnocent · 2009-10-16 03:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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? We don't know the details, but regardless, the State of Texas will destroy her life for something she did when she was 16. Our country doesn't rehabilitate people, she won't end up with simple counseling, she will end up in prison for what amounts to stupid shit. The brain is not fully developed by 16, hormones are definitely unstable at 16, and yet she has been charged with a felony for saying something stupid.
  
  By the time her "victim" is in her mid-20's she will likely think nothing of it, but the "assailant" could still be in prison. And because of our wonderful penal system, she will likely be black marked for life and moving in and out of the criminal system. Why this couldn't be stopped at a much lower level, I don't know, but by using this method instead of others our "victim" and "assailant" will very much reverse roles.
  
  Hopefully, she can get a good judge who will she the long term effects of charging her as a felon and reverse course, but I don't have that sort of faith in humanity.
13. Re:About time by ElSupreme · 2009-10-16 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  I see what you did there.
  You threatened some people online.
  Thus this would be 3rd degree felony.
  But you only threatened people that think what you wrote is a felony.
  So in order for this TO BE a felony, someone would have to think it was a felony first.
  But if it is a felony, it should be a felony.
  
  --
  My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
14. Re:About time by cbreaker · 2009-10-16 03:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The punishment doesn't even matter. If she has a felony conviction she's fucked.
  
  Almost every company out there now does background checks. While most of them claim "This won't necessarily disqualify you from this position" it most certainly will.
  
  It's a scarlet letter that keeps people that made some mistakes in their lives down. I have a few friends that are really decent people that made some stupid mistakes when they were 19/20/21 and such, and now 10 years later they still can't get work at a lot of places. Basically, they did what a lot of kids did, but they got caught..
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
15. Re:About time by rahlquist · 2009-10-16 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly right. My often repeated favorite train of thought is that words have no power you do not give them.
  If I say hookadookie is a racist slur that demeans Joe Red neck I have given that word no power. But if Joe Redneck accepts that definition and allows his emotions to say that word is painful/harmful to him then he has empowered the word.
  Words are a conceptualization, as such they have no power.
  
  --
  Sick of stupidity? http://www.patentlystupid.com
16. Re:About time by cbreaker · 2009-10-16 03:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I agree with you that this is no laughing matter. It's libel, and defamation of character. And, I DO agree that this girl should be punished if this went on ruthlessly for months.
  
  But a felony conviction for a kid? She'll live with that on her criminal record for the rest of her life and she'll have a hard time getting good work..
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
17. Re:About time by mcgrew · 2009-10-16 03:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  So is Missouri. The Texas case isn't the first by any means; the Lori Drew case was in Missouri, and they passed such a law posthaste. I submitted a story about the first arrest for online stalking under the new Missouri Lori Drew law several months ago, I guess there were different people looking at the firehose then.
  Texas ain't the first.
  
  Missouri legislators passed a cyberbullying law after the 2006 suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier of St. Charles County. Megan killed herself after an Internet hoax that drew international attention.
  Binder said that law would not apply in this case because both the suspect and the victim are juveniles. He did not know the suspect's specific age. The new law prohibits adults from cyber harassment of children.
  Under the harassment law that took effect in August 2008, a cyberbullying offense can be charged as a felony if a victim is 17 or younger and the suspect 21 or older.
  The first person charged under the new law was 40-year-old Elizabeth Thrasher, also of St. Charles County. She was accused in August of posting photos and personal information about a 17-year-old girl on the "Casual Encounters" Section of Craigslist after an Internet argument. The posting included the teen's picture, e-mail address and cell phone number and suggested the girl was seeking a sexual encounter.
  An "Anti-Bullying Week" is planned for Troy's ninth graders later this month. Huddleston said the week was planned before the allegations in the case surfaced.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
18. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  But I'm innocent!!
  Attika! Attika!
19. Re:About time by GargamelSpaceman · 2009-10-16 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  And walking up to another kid, and shoving them against the lockers, telling them "After School, On the Playground, You're Dead!" should get you in at least as much trouble.
  
  --
  ...
20. Re:About time by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 03:23 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I agree with you that this is no laughing matter. It's libel, and defamation of character. And, I DO agree that this girl should be punished if this went on ruthlessly for months.
  But a felony conviction for a kid? She'll live with that on her criminal record for the rest of her life and she'll have a hard time getting good work..
  This girl's parents should have thought about this. It's their responsibility to teach their kid decent values and respect for other people. Why should she not have her life ruined when that's exactly what she tried to do someone else? If she has so little respect for other people that she engaged in this behavior at her age, then what makes you think she will ever learn differently unless she suffers some pretty severe consequences?
  She's old enough now to know the difference between right and wrong, and she obviously doesn't care about it. That's something that needs to be learned early in life--by the age of 5 or 6, or it's often never learned at all.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
21. Re:About time by Lemmy+Caution · 2009-10-16 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, bummer about that. Maybe it'll be effective deterrence.
  Sorry, but I am a lot more sympathetic to teens who get records for non-malicious behaviors, like having consensual sex with their peers or getting caught with weed. The kind of behavior we're talking about can be as destructive as a beat-down.
22. Re:About time by Lemmy+Caution · 2009-10-16 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  And walking up to another kid, and shoving them against the lockers, telling them "After School, On the Playground, You're Dead!" should get you in at least as much trouble.
  So, if you should tell your school bully, "could you send me that on Facebook?"
23. Re:About time by GargamelSpaceman · 2009-10-16 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  hahaha
  
  --
  ...
24. Re:About time by Dog-Cow · 2009-10-16 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. I have a friend who works, I think, for Office Max. He can't get promoted because of some stupid felony charge from before he ever worked for Office Max. And this is a Navy veteran, to boot.
25. Re:About time by ThePlague · 2009-10-16 03:49 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  First of all, if they committed a felony, then that speaks poorly of their character. Felonies are serious business, so just doing them for grins is something that they should carry for the rest of their lives. I know I wouldn't trust anyone with a felony conviction. Secondly, even if you argue that the particular misbehavior didn't deserve a felony conviction, then they were stupid for getting caught, so who would want stupid employees?
26. Re:About time by hrimhari · 2009-10-16 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  The problem here is not the power *you* give them, it's the power *others* give them. A good defamatory speech sticks like a thousand anecdotal evidences. That's why there are libel laws and, in my opinion, this one should be measured under the same rules.
  
  --
  http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
27. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Of course you are the purest of souls and have never in all your wild teenage years have done something that if caught for you would be just as fucked over, if not worse.
  The US police state hands out more felonies per capita than anywhere else in the world. You are simultaneously the most over policed and most criminalized society on the globe. Most of these felonies are for non-violent crimes, like the one in TFA. You have misplaced your trust, most felons are innocent of any violent or irrational crime.
  You really think a 16 year old girl needs a felony conviction for hassling her friend just like every other fucking teenager on the planet does?
28. Re:About time by misexistentialist · 2009-10-16 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Teenage girls defaming one another over boys is unlikely to lead to the ruination of lives. While these amateurs force professional defamers like journalists lawyers and politicians to simulate outrage, the real crime of stealing boyfriends is ignored. The so-called victim in this case clearly wasn't taught about virtue by her parents, and should be removed from society with the other incorrigible degenerates like copy-right offenders and smokers.
29. Re:About time by cbreaker · 2009-10-16 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  But is that the world you want to live in? Where we hand out felony convictions to teenage girls because they're spreading rumors against each other online?
  
  Yes, kids are old enough to know right and wrong, but it's proven time and time again that they also don't think enough about consequences. That's why so many of the dangerous sports like BMX biking, dirt bike MotoGP and such are dominated by kids these days. They don't think about how much they could ruin their lives with a single error.
  
  She shouldn't be let off the hook - but I don't agree with the ridiculously harsh felony status of the law.
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
30. Re:About time by DM9290 · 2009-10-16 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  What I don't understand is why is this not covered under previous harassment laws?
  it probably is. but politicians need to pass new laws in order to appear "tough on crime".
  
  --
  No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
31. Re:About time by cbreaker · 2009-10-16 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Deterrence doesn't work with kids. Not like it does with adults. Kids don't think about the weight of the consequences like adults do. It's not an excuse by any stretch but you should take it into account when writing law - which historically it has been.
  
  And I don't know why you can't be sympathetic to both? I mean, I think pot should be legal but by the same token, those kids do get caught with an illegal substance - no matter how stupid it is for it to be illegal.
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
32. Re:About time by Tryle · 2009-10-16 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Are you kidding me?
  How exactly should the girl's parents "have thought about this." when they probably weren't even aware of it? How exactly do you infer that the girl's actions are a direct result of the parent's lack of trying to teach their child morals, values, and manners?
  You obviously are not a parent. I, however, am one and I can assure you that you teach your children the best you can and in the end they make their own decisions be it good or bad regardless of the upbringing you had for your children.
  Up to this incident, this girl's worst punishment was probably being grounded and her computer/TV taken away from her. This isn't like a kid was busted for assault or drugs and may spend some time in juvenile detention and still end up with NO RECORD. This girl posted some text on a social website and now will be punished by ruining her life with a FELONY. This is beyond ridiculous.
33. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  "4chan was so much better before that Anonymous guy showed up."
  Someone has stolen my identity!!! I have NEVER been on 4chan.
34. Re:About time by cbreaker · 2009-10-16 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  And what really sucks is that CHARGES show up on background checks - even if they were dismissed or not yet processed in court.
  
  It's bullshit.
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
35. Re:About time by Gerafix · 2009-10-16 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's also amazingly hypocritical, if they are going to treat these youngsters like adults let them make choices like adults as well. If they're willing to throw you in prison to get raped I think you should be able to smoke and drink like any other adult, etc etc.
36. Re:About time by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you don't observe much of what goes on in our society these days. One of my granddaughters has been a victim of this type of harassment and it's done her a lot of harm.
  She's a shy, mild-mannered, nice kid who doesn't go out of her way to harass others, or do other people harm. She also is not a very self confident person as her father is an abusive asshole. So, the vicious personal attacks that came her way really harmed her. Her entire personality changed for months. She didn't want to go to school. Her grades suffered badly. It's been more than a year now and she still isn't back to the person she was before all this started.
  What did she do wrong? Nothing. Some guy that another girl liked, but was not dating, started paying attention to her. As shy as she is I know, as would anyone else who knows her, that she wasn't the assertive one in the relationship with the guy in question. However, none of that mattered to the other girl. This gal, who wasn't even dating the guy, was going to do her best to destroy my granddaughter just because he began talking to her.
  There has to be consequences for this type of negative behavior. Nobody has the right to screw with someone else's life like that. The nasty girl's parent's won't do anything. The school system won't do anything. I'd get thrown in jail for kicking the little bitch's ass. So, what's left to deter this type of behavior? The legal system is the only avenue left.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
37. Re:About time by NeutronCowboy · 2009-10-16 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because all laws resulting in felony convictions are only for serious crimes. It couldn't possibly for something as meaningless in the long-term as an online girl-fight.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
38. Re:About time by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  See my post above. These attacks go far beyond "spreading rumors". They are highly personal, vicious attacks that do a lot of harm to the person being attacked.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
39. Re:About time by Thelasko · 2009-10-16 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and there's a civil case in Illinois too.
  
  --
  One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
40. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  A felony conviction will also prevent you from obtaining a security clearance, so it instantly bars you from a number of government jobs or jobs with government contractors. Harassment should never be a felony; there are existing laws which cover severe types of harassment including assault, impersonation, and tampering/destruction of property.
41. Re:About time by Lemmy+Caution · 2009-10-16 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Because the online harassment is vicious and malicious, and is about hurting someone else, not about "free expression." So yes, I am not sympathetic to someone who gets convicted for it. I'm not generally sympathetic to malicious people who want to hurt others.
42. Re:About time by dyingtolive · 2009-10-16 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Your concepts of right and wrong and belief that morality should be legislated cause me fear and anxiety. My lawyer will be contacting you shortly. Hope you like working at gas stations.
  
  Standard disclaimer because this story reaffirms that the world is full of dangerous fuckwits: The above post should be used for entertainment purposes only. Any amount of emotion felt as a result of this post is purely coincidental and does not reflect the beliefs or opinions of dyingtolive. Your choice of a lawyer should not be based upon advertisement alone.
  
  --
  Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
43. Re:About time by cbreaker · 2009-10-16 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, but it was a 16 year old girl doing it!
  
  Suspend her from school! Send her to summer school! Whack her with a misdemeanor and community service!
  
  Instead, you'd rather send her to jail, make her pay $10,000, and have a felony convicion?
  
  Let me tell you, I had my share of bullies picking on me in school, particularly middle school or freshman of High School. I fucking hated it, and it could be bad sometimes. I don't want them to have convictions on their records for things they did when they were 15. I'm friends with some of them now!
  
  I realize things have changed somewhat with the Internet and stuff like that, but c'mon, don't be a cold bastard shithead.
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
44. Re:About time by cbreaker · 2009-10-16 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I never said anything about free expression, and I've mentioned a few times now that she SHOULD be punished. It's wrong. But a felony conviction? Give me a fucking break. She's 16, not 30.
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
45. Re:About time by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason deterrence doesn't work is because it's not applied consistently.
  If everyone knew that every time they indulged in negative behavior they would get punished for it they would avoid it. However, if they see lots of people getting away with the negative behavior and a only a few being punished for it, then no, they won't think that they will be punished and so deterrence doesn't work.
  It's well-established fact that occasional punishment only increases bad behavior as the perp always thinks that THIS time they won't get caught and punished. That doesn't mean that deterrence doesn't work. It only means that "occasional" deterrence doesn't work.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
46. Re:About time by cez · 2009-10-16 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, if they committed a felony, then that speaks poorly of their character. Felonies are serious business, so just doing them for grins is something that they should carry for the rest of their lives. I know I wouldn't trust anyone with a felony conviction. Secondly, even if you argue that the particular misbehavior didn't deserve a felony conviction, then they were stupid for getting caught, so who would want stupid employees?
  
  Riiiight... but if they had the money to hire a descent lawyer and turn that felony charge into a misdemeanor plea... those people are perfectly fine to trust?
  Mistakes are mistakes, and everything is relative, except hopefully your significant other.
  
  --
  Walk with Music;
47. Re:About time by cez · 2009-10-16 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  She's a shy, mild-mannered, nice kid who doesn't go out of her way to harass others, or do other people harm. She also is not a very self confident person as her father is an abusive asshole. So, the vicious personal attacks that came her way really harmed her. Her entire personality changed for months. She didn't want to go to school. Her grades suffered badly. It's been more than a year now and she still isn't back to the person she was before all this started.
  
  ahhhh... I see the problem here.
  Now what is it you were saying about some little girl calling her names?
  
  --
  Walk with Music;
48. Re:About time by ThePlague · 2009-10-16 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  You want to call it "an online girl-fight", but it's harassment. Big difference there.
49. Re:About time by ThePlague · 2009-10-16 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  Well, they at least pass the "no felonies" test. That doesn't make them trustworthy, of course, but it doesn't make them unworthy of trust either.
50. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  At 19/20/21, you are buy every social and legal definition, an adult. So if you don't want a criminal "past" haunting you for the rest of your adult life, then you should ACT like an adult and not BREAK THE LAW (don't give me this "made stupid mistakes" B.S.).
  If you play with fire you get burned. Should have learned that as a child, let alone an adult...
51. Re:About time by Alpha830RulZ · 2009-10-16 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  And it's pretty sad that the above isn't labeled assault and battery. We'll punish mean words, but not actual violence.
  
  --
  I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
52. Re:About time by guruevi · 2009-10-16 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  The issue is that there need not be any more laws than there already is for this. The example you give us is different, it's called soliciting/offering sex with a minor and there are severe punishments for it. It's not just a 'joke'. The Lori Drew case is of course something that went out of hand. It's similar to the Columbine shootings and a host of other shootings that happen - harassing of somebody that's already depressed and can't cope, they kill a bunch of people and then kill themselves, some people just kill themselves because they don't have the guts to kill a bunch of people.
  Quite honestly, if you can't cope with the pressures at school how are you going to cope with the pressures at work in the real world. I have been harassed, bullied and beaten up in school because I was different but that's nothing compared to the stuff you have to go through on a daily basis if you work especially if you work in a support-type or cubicle-oriented organization.
  Of course people shouldn't be harassing each other and it's just bad to do, but it's going to happen. People kill themselves everyday because somebody said something wrong or broke up with them. Do you want to put all those people in jail too? It's not because it's online that it makes it any worse. The fact that the mob wants to punish those people is because they identify themselves with the victim and they want to set an example. If the media never picked up on the Lori Drew case, nobody would've cared, nobody would've gone to court or jail - it would just be another teenager not being able to cope with bad/no guidance from the parents committing suicide.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
53. Re:About time by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  That this person caused major damage to granddaughter. Yes, she was vulnerable because of her father, but that doesn't make the damage done to her any less real. It makes it worse.
  Anyway, I guess what you're saying is that if a kid is so stupid as to have chosen an abusive parent that they should be just left to suffer. The fact that they have been set up to be victim by their own parent lets all other assholes who abuse them off the hook.
  Great logic. You're a real class act.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
54. Re:About time by NeutronCowboy · 2009-10-16 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and every school-yard scrap is assault and battery - even attempted murder. Sure.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
55. Re:About time by cez · 2009-10-16 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just saying... the law is a many headed beast. I believe that everyone should be judged on their own merits and circumstances, not the resources they can muster or the loopholes they can exploit. 9 times out of 10, I'd take a roommate/co-worker/friend with a felony drug conviction over some asshat with a misdemeanor for beating his girlfriend.
  Obviously, YMMV
  
  --
  Walk with Music;
56. Re:About time by treat · 2009-10-16 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  And what really sucks is that CHARGES show up on background checks - even if they were dismissed or not yet processed in court.
  It's bullshit.
  Nothing looks worse on a background check than a charge that was dropped or otherwise resolved without a conviction.
  If you are charged with a felony and plead guilty to a misdemeanor, you have a misdemeanor record. If you are charged with a felony and the charges are dropped, employers will often consider this to be a felony record.
57. Re:About time by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, but it was a 16 year old girl doing it!
  Suspend her from school! Send her to summer school! Whack her with a misdemeanor and community service!
  Instead, you'd rather send her to jail, make her pay $10,000, and have a felony convicion?
  Let me tell you, I had my share of bullies picking on me in school, particularly middle school or freshman of High School. I fucking hated it, and it could be bad sometimes. I don't want them to have convictions on their records for things they did when they were 15. I'm friends with some of them now!
  I realize things have changed somewhat with the Internet and stuff like that, but c'mon, don't be a cold bastard shithead.
  Yeah, the poor bullies need to be protected. Just think, they might have their own lives ruined, as well as making many other kids lives miserable.
  As to you being friends with people who bullied you when you were a kid, that's well and good. But, what about those kids who never recover from the bullying? That is not an uncommon result. How about those that get so sick of it that they start killing? Columbine ring a bell?
  This is not something that is "victimless" or has only temporary results.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
58. Re:About time by cbreaker · 2009-10-16 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Well, nothing is worse than perhaps a felony conviction =)
  
  In some cases, if you're lucky, you can have the charges dropped/resolved without conviction and then petition to have them sealed by the court maybe 6 months or a year later. That assumes this was your first offense. Then, the charges will NOT show up on a background check, and can only come back if you commit another crime of similar type where someone (the DA) petitions the court to re-open the records to show a pattern or something.
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
59. Re:About time by cez · 2009-10-16 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  That this person caused major damage to granddaughter. Yes, she was vulnerable because of her father, but that doesn't make the damage done to her any less real. It makes it worse.
  
  From your own post, it appears the damage was already done by her father.
  "Why did one straw break the camels back? Here's the secret, the million other straws beneath it."
  -mos def.
  I'm truly sorry for her and I do wish her the best and hope she recovers and becomes a strong and kind person because of the torment she has seen... but to blame an emotional wreck on the negative attention of a peer is ignoring the underlying cause and setting her up for future failure.
  
  Anyway, I guess what you're saying is that if a kid is so stupid as to have chosen an abusive parent that they should be just left to suffer. The fact that they have been set up to be victim by their own parent lets all other assholes who abuse them off the hook.
  
  Actually, no. She is at no fault whatsoever, she is a minor. I'm saying that you are so stupid to know about and see an abusive adult, one abusive to your own granddaughter no less, and do nothing about it.
  
  Great logic. You're a real class act.
  
  Why thank you! I will be here all week...
  
  --
  Walk with Music;
60. Re:About time by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Ummm.... As I'm a grandparent I've obviously had at least as much, if not more, experience raising kids than you have. I've seen behavior patterns instilled many times over.
  And, yes, it's a parent's responsibility to raise their children to respect other people. If their kids do not respect others, it's learned behavior just like it's learned behavior when they do learn to respect others from their parent's training.
  This training has to start early in a child's life and be unfailingly consistent. You can't wait until they reach the teenage years, teach the lessons haphazardly, and expect to get any kind of results.
  Hell, when I was in my teens I rejected a lot of my parents values and started partying, but I never "unlearned" the idea that other people are to be treated the same I want to be treated. That's just basic, common decency that must be learned at a young age, and those are the values that a child doesn't reject as they become a part of their core character.
  It's only those mixed messages that parents send their kids that are normally rejected. I know that for a fact from my experience raising step children and from my own life.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
61. Re:About time by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Your concepts of right and wrong and belief that morality should be legislated cause me fear and anxiety. My lawyer will be contacting you shortly. Hope you like working at gas stations.
  
  Nice straw man.
  I never said morality, or even concepts of right and wrong, should be legislated as that is impossible. What I've been saying is that behavior that is harmful to people should be punished. If parents won't/can't teach their children that such behavior is completely unacceptable then the law needs to punish it for the good of society.
  We already have many laws with this thought in mind. Assault and battery laws are just one example. This idea that psychological damage is less harmful to the victim than physical damage is completely bogus. In many cases psychological harm lasts far, far longer than the effects any physical injury, and is much harder to overcome.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
62. Re:About time by Lemmy+Caution · 2009-10-16 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  There is a difference between arguing that a felony conviction is disproportionate and asking for sympathy for the offender. I think the death penalty is wrong, but I have little sympathy for murderers.
63. Re:About time by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  So, you feel sorry for her, but don't think she deserves any protection from bullying and vicious personal harassment that affects her far more than someone who's never been abused. Like I said, you're a real class act. In your eyes bullies and assholes are deserving of more protection than their victims. You do know that's a classic sign of an abuser don't you?
  Also, once again, your assumptions are completely wrong about me, personally. Both my wife and I have turned her dad, and her mother, in to the cops and DSHS as her mother suffers from battered wife syndrome and we wanted to get custody of her and her 5 siblings.
  Nobody in the legal system did anything. The end result of making legal complaints was to make it so we couldn't see our granddaughter for a few years. Her parents wouldn't let her, or her siblings, get anywhere near us if they knew we were in town. I still can't see my grandkids 5 years later because of her dad's hatred for me, but at least my wife gets to see them once in a blue moon now.
  You sure do make a lot of assumptions. How you can so consistently make wrong ones is pretty amazing. You must practice a lot.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
64. Re:About time by acohen1 · 2009-10-16 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  It sounds like the person harassing you was also committing lots of fraud which would have been a bit easier to prove and carries rather harsh penalties.
65. Re:About time by cez · 2009-10-16 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm glad to hear that you have indeed made attempts to improve the situation at home that is the root cause. My heart truly does go out for the both of you. I am not abusive in the least and never have been. In fact, I've been there for and stuck up for more then my share of individuals and would do so for anyone I was in the position too. My assumption is that your energy and outrage is wrongly focused.
  You care greatly for your granddaughter, that is evident and want only the best for her. I shouldn't need to tell you it is a rough world out there, when you are young it seems even more so with natural attenuation to seek approval and acceptance from your peers. But as sad and hard as it sounds, that will not change and can only be described as human nature. Regardless of why and how, there are those who are abusive out there, there are those who project their own inadequacies and fears onto others - we can't change that. I wish we could, but all the laws in the world won't help. I believe the opinion, especially at such young ages, that "he's a meanie, throw him in jail" will only make matters worse. It is highly likely that those causing your granddaughter such distress are abused at home themselves. I admit, harassment laws are there for a reason, blanketing that reason towards nominal juvenile teasing and negative attention not only discounts those who undergo real harassment, but it sets a unhealthy litigious example. Not only is charging them felonies a horrid band-aide on the root cause, it doesn't even address or seek to give them the help / therapy and nurture they need to get past and see the error in their ways, or allow one to grow a thick-skin, that unfortunate as it is, is needed in this world.
  The only thing we have the power to change is ourselves and how that harassment affects us. As others in this thread have said, words only have the power you give them. While yes, because of her previous abuse from her own father no less might, she is more susceptible towards the childish behavior of other children . Why should children be punished for being children? They should learn in their own right that such treatment benefits no one, but the law is not the way to do it. If you have a bone disease that makes your bones very brittle, who's fault is it when the person shaking your hand crushes it? Damn... wheres BadAnalogyGuy when you need him. My point is, treat the problem, not its consequences.
  And you say you have tried. For that I do respect you, and wish you had succeeded further, but it seems you are mis-focusing your frustration at the bulwarks you've run into with the law. Fix the law that created the problem, don't create more laws to attempt to mitigate the consequences.
  I wish the best of luck to you.
  
  --
  Walk with Music;
66. Re:About time by onemorechip · 2009-10-16 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  As one who certainly doesn't think "morality should be legislated" (a liberal from way back), I can't say I agree with you. I don't think this law is about morality, and I don't think that's what GP was saying.
  One may assert that a right to be free of harassment. Also, someone could assert that he has a right to harass whomever he pleases, and perhaps come up with arguments to support that assertion. We have many rights; just how many is more a subject of belief than of fact. Some rights are recognized by general society. Of those, some are protected, some aren't. None are guaranteed. (Can any system, other than physically isolating everybody from everybody else, guarantee that nobody will be murdered, for example?)
  What this is about is which of these rights (if either) is deserving of legal protection. In the case of Texas, they opted to give legal protection to the former. (I agree with the former assertion, but agreement does not equate to agreeing that the right is worthy of legal protection.)
  Recognition and protection of legal rights certainly belongs in the domain of legislative power, while "morality" does not. So in debating the merits of a law, if you want to frame it in terms of morality, then I don't care which side you are on, I'm not really interested in hearing it.
  
  --
  But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
67. Re:About time by cbreaker · 2009-10-16 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Woah, who damaged you, dude?
  
  How many kids do you think actually "don't recover" from being bullied? There were kids in my school that got totally fucking shafted by everyone, and I've seen them 10 years later and they're just fine. Married, kids, etc.
  
  So you think we should seek out and jail/fine/convict all bullies? We've all been a bully some time in our lives..
  
  Did you actually mention columbine? Let's bring things back to reality. Bring it in a little. Really, do you think convicting a few bullies is going to make that kind of kid - the kind that shoots people in a school- any different?
  
  Or are you saying the columbine shooters were the victims?
  
  Again, I agree there should be punishment for extreme bullying. But I don't think a 16 year old kid should pay for the rest of their lives for it.
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
68. Re:About time by the_one(2) · 2009-10-16 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  WTF! Is the right to vote taken away upon committing a felony?? That is among the most fucked up things I've heard. No wonder pot is not legalized in the US yet:)
69. Re:About time by cbreaker · 2009-10-16 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  I don't believe in the death penalty either - I don't feel as though we have the right to kill people any more than those people did. That, and the fact that death is too final for an imperfect courts system, we just shouldn't be killing people.
  
  Believe me - I have no sympathy for a 16 year old girl. 16 year old girls can be the most vindictive, evil little people out there. But I'm compassionate enough to realize that this person won't always BE an evil 16 year old girl (probably) and I don't feel as though she should be marred for life because of it. It IS disproportionate.
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
70. Re:About time by erroneus · 2009-10-16 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  When someone is convicted as a felon, they lose a lot. Being a felon is a life sentence in many respects. The right to vote and the right to bear arms is just two of the more significant ones, but in addition to that, there is never being selected for jury duty (some might consider that a plus) always having difficulty getting a job and probably lots of things I haven't thought of yet.
71. Re:About time by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Here you go again with your assumptions. How can any one person keep on making so many wrong assumptions?
  What makes you assume that my granddaughter was "teased"? Hell, every chance I get I tease her. That wasn't the problem. She was harassed and bullied unmercifully. It went on for a long time. It lasted for months and happened every day. There was no "teasing" involved.
  Also, don't try to instruct me on what happens when someone is bullied. I grew up in a very dysfunctional family. My older brother constantly bullied me my entire life until I slapped his face and wanted to fight him when I was in my 20's. I then moved away and stopped all contact with him. In response he wrote letters telling me that I am everything that's wrong with America.
  When I was 3, and my brother was more twice my age and size, he bullied me into pissing on an electric fence. You don't know what pain is until you've done that. It's something you never forget. I also can't tell you how many times he would bully me into doing something and then go tell the old man what I'd done so I'd get whipped.
  When I was in the 1st grade my old man forced me to shit my pants by refusing to stop somewhere so I could use the bathroom, and then tried to force me to get out of the car and mingle with my classmates at our destination. That same year he also whipped me and threw me out of the house one night for telling him that there's no difference between using dice and spinner to play a board game. If using dice was gambling then so was using a spinner. They both were a "game" of chance. Yes, I really did have that conceptual argument with him at 7 years of age.
  He'd also laugh and have a good time watching my brother bully me. Then he'd punish me when I'd fight back. He'd punish me every time I fought back, even when a bully's parents said he'd gotten what he deserved because they'd seen what happened.
  I know very well the effects of abuse and bullying. I've lived them. I also know the amount of effort and length of time involved in getting over it.
  My entire family set me up to be a victim, just like what's happened to my granddaughter. So, when you say victims don't really need extra support and protection you haven't a clue. You don't know how many times as a kid I'd cry myself to sleep at night wishing someone, somewhere, cared enough to help me. You have never seen the massive depression in my granddaughters eyes either.
  So, do I know enough about the problem of bullying and vicious harassment to understand the problem? You bet I do. I know exactly what the victims go through. I know exactly how cruel people can be and to what depths of viciousness they will sink.
  The punishment needs to fit the crime. You try screwing up someone's life just because you enjoy being an asshole? You pay big time. It's only fair and equitable. It's justice. It is anything but fair that the victims are the only ones paying a price while their abusers walk the streets and are free do the same thing to others.
  Lastly, what makes you think I think we need more laws? I've never said that. I've said we need to punish the bullies and stop the harassment. All that takes is the enforcement of our existing laws. All that requires is that people care enough act, to stand up and be counted and not just brush aside the bullying and vicious harassment that goes on as a minor problem. The damages are real. They can last for many years.
  Stop assuming psychological harm isn't as damaging as physical harm. In many ways it's far worse. And, yes, it's a cold, brutal world out there, and the victims of bullying and abuse know that far better than anyone else. They also need more help in dealing with it than anyone who has never lived in their shoes.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
72. Re:About time by david_thornley · 2009-10-16 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Except that's not what the law's about. It doesn't apply to you or me defaming each other on Slashdot, even if we both lived in Texas. It's about publishing under another's name.
  One thing that is different about the Internet as opposed to print or other media is that it's much, much easier to misrepresent yourself. When I set up my Facebook page, nobody asked me for any proof that I'm who I say I am. I put up information that identifies me, and anything posted on that account will be assumed to come from me. Since it's effectively impossible to remove stuff from the Internet, that's long-term plausible defamation, in a way that really can't be replicated in real life without a considerable amount of work and a considerable amount of other crime.
  If I call you, mis extentialist (if that's your real name) a dork, no problem. If I make up a Facebook account in your name, with information that identifies you, and post about the wonderful time at the Child Porn Club benefit ball for Osama bin Laden with the Sex with Clubbed Baby Seals theme, or (worse) something a bit more plausible, that's something that can cause you a serious amount of grief for a long time to come. It may make you less employable. It might get you investigated by unpleasant people. Much more serious that if we stole each other's boyfriends.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
73. Re:About time by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  As your post so eloquently says, you've never been bullied. You've just seen it, and years later seen that people have recovered enough to lead a "normal" life.
  That's a real statement of ignorance. How do you know what that person "could" have been without being bullied? How do you know they still don't suffer from the effects even though YOU think, from a great distance, that they have fully recovered.
  And, no, not everyone is a bully. Yes, we all have disputes with other people. Yes, we all have people we don't like. But, everyone bullies someone? That's a large stretch.
  As far as Columbine, all the kids admitted that those guys were bullied on a pretty constant basis. Does that mean that everyone would/could respond the same way? No. I didn't even come close to saying that. I pointed to it as one of the possible outcomes from extended bullying. To ignore it as a possible outcome is stupid.
  I can also see that you have never been bullied/abused on a regular basis. You have no idea of the anger that can fester. You've never experienced it yet think you are competent to understand it. I can assure you, from personal experience, that if you've never lived what some of the victims go through, you can never come close to understanding the effects.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
74. Re:About time by mathx314 · 2009-10-16 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Can I ask the mod who modded me offtopic exactly why that was offtopic? It was a joke in response to another joke about the same subject matter!
75. Re:About time by Criton · 2009-10-16 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes this is going to far she's just a kid and does not deserve such a punishment. It makes me sick what is happening to this country and what kind of idiot laws are being passed. It also it totally wrong to have a felony follow you for the rest of your life.
76. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 14:40 · Score: 0
  
  Texas it's like a whole nother country. A country like China or North Korea. BTW nother is not a word it's slang. Really the whole Texas government needs shot into the sun or dropped into a black hole.
77. Re:About time by cbreaker · 2009-10-17 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever dude. I quite clearly have been bullied, and very badly. In fact, one girl, when I was in middle school, was suspended for it. It was anot a good two years.
  
  Eventually, I decided not to give a shit, and by sophomore year in high school I was having a pretty damned good time. I was a pretty well liked person in my school by the time I graduated; at the very least, I was known by everyone, good or bad.
  
  I used to poke terrible fun at this kid on my school bus when I was a sophomore. We were absolutely ruthless. He took it, and never said a word. Eventually, I met him on a local BBS; didn't realize it was him. Discovered we were on the same bus, and we became friends and remain very good friends to this day. That was 16 years ago. He's married, has a newborn, is a director in the company he's in and makes $120K.
  
  So I guess before you assume you know something about someone, think about it a bit.
  
  For the rest of your post, go fuck yourself you arrogant pig fucker.
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
78. Re:About time by cbreaker · 2009-10-17 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely. Because records are so easily obtainable now, practically every job above burger flipper requires a background check.
  
  The justice system needs to take measures to protect people from unreasonable punishment, and more and more that means a Scarlett letter called a felony conviction.
  
  Perhaps there's some types of crimes where offenders tend to repeat (sexual crimes, etc) but the vast majority are drug crimes. (I used to work at a correctional institution and could look up statistics and demographics.) And, the majority of those people were users, and got in over their heads.
  
  Now they'll have felony convictions for the rest of their lives. I can't exactly blame some of these people for falling back into their old habbits when you can't even become a cashier at many major retailers without a background check. You start to think - what the hell am I busting my ass for?
  
  I don't really believe in prison for the majority of reasons people end up there, and especially not for drug charges. They might not be victimless crimes in the case of dealers but they're non-violent crimes and there needs to be a better way of getting these people on the level besides locking them up in these god forsaken places.
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
79. Re:About time by treat · 2009-10-17 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well, nothing is worse than perhaps a felony conviction =)
  This depends on the employer or how they do the background check. A felony charge and conviction all shows up in the documentation when they do the background check. It is worse to have a pending case (which is what a dropped felony charge looks like in certain databases) than to have a case that was resolved years ago.
  
  In some cases, if you're lucky, you can have the charges dropped/resolved without conviction and then petition to have them sealed by the court maybe 6 months or a year later. That assumes this was your first offense. Then, the charges will NOT show up on a background check, and can only come back if you commit another crime of similar type where someone (the DA) petitions the court to re-open the records to show a pattern or something.
  In the US, when doing an NCIC check, this is not always true. The charge still shows up. Even if the charges were sealed, this does not stop a brief summary of it from showing up on an NCIC records check done by an employer.
  While there may be some way to have it removed, the fact is that if you go through the process of having things sealed, and every lawyer and court clerk etc involved says it is sealed and can't be seen by anyone, this in no way means that it will not show up on an NCIC search. If there is a way to have it removed from NCIC, this is not commonly known by lawyers and people who get this done are in the minority.
80. Re:About time by mcgrew · 2009-10-19 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Quite honestly, if you can't cope with the pressures at school how are you going to cope with the pressures at work in the real world.
  First, teenagers aren't as well equipped to deal with life's pressures as adults (yes, some adults can't cope and some juviniles adapt well). More teenagres commit suicide than any other demographic.
  Secondly, my experience was far different than yours. Middle school was hell until I beat the crap out a guy twice my size who had been bullying me, and after that nobody gave me any grief -- expect the incompetent staff. High school was similarly hell, surrounded by narciccistic sociopathic brats and idiot teachers and administrators. That changed in college, and aside from the military I don't think I ever had problems with people like that.
  People kill themselves everyday because somebody said something wrong or broke up with them.
  Wrong. That's their excuse, but the reason is they're mentally ill. Sane people don't commit suicide.
  Do you want to put all those people in jail too?
  No, I think those laws are both insane and unconstitutional. If someone slanders you, there are already laws for that. And I never saw anyone's nose broken by an online bully, but school bullies get violent. There was a thing in a Chicago paper last week about a kid who got expelled for having a knife in his backpack even though it had been proven that the same kids who had been bullying him planted it there. It's hard to do something like that online.
  In the case I cited, it wasn't a minor iinm, at least she wouldn't have been in Illinois. However, there are surely laws against distributing naked photos of someone online or off, minor or adult.
  it would just be another teenager not being able to cope with bad/no guidance from the parents committing suicide.
  The role of parenting is grossly overrated. My kids turned out all righ, but I can't really take credit for that. My forty year old friend John is the nicest, most polite soul I've ever met, but his dad was never around when he was a kid and his mother is on probation right now; I doubt she was a very good parent.
  If someone is clinically depressed, no amount of guidance is going to help. Mental illness, like any other disease, needs medical treatment. If someone is suicdal, they have a medical problem, and if they do kill themselves it isn't your fault no matter how mean you've been to them.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
start them early by CaptainNerdCave · 2009-10-16 02:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:start them early by DrLang21 · 2009-10-16 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Online harassment is still harassment in general, which has been, rightfully so in my opinion, illegal for a while. The real question is, why does this need a special law to be prosecuted? How is online harassment any different in it's range of severity from harassment anywhere else?
  
  --
  I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Kids can say really, really nasty things. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:22 · Score: 0

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".
Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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).
1. Re:Idiocracy by Talderas · 2009-10-16 02:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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).
  Yet another reason that Captain Picard is the superior Captain compared to Captain Kirk, Goat Fucker.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
2. Re:Idiocracy by Cro+Magnon · 2009-10-16 02:42 · Score: 2
  
  Yet another reason that Captain Picard is the superior Captain compared to Captain Kirk, Goat Fucker.
  Meh! Kirk has a goat in every port. Who does Picard have to come home to?
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
3. Re:Idiocracy by Aldenissin · 2009-10-16 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  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).
  Like OMG, you know that dude that started that weird techy website /., or something? Yea him.. Cmdr Paco, sorry Taco. Well anyway you wouldn't believe because I know I didn't, but this guy named Anonymous Coward said that nasty mother fucker's a goat fucker. Why would anyone want to fuck a goat, ya know, that shit is just sick as fuck. Yegghhscreeeuk
  Ten minutes later... Yea Aldenissin said that Cmdr Taco is a muthering fucking goat fucker, like someone had pics or something he said. .. Of course it's true! You know they wouldn't believe it without pics or someone seen it! I'm not that stupid, but that shit is just fucking crazy, what sick people do.Blleechhh
  As time goes by, the words gets out, embelishes get maginfied more and more, and before you know it, wait hold on a second.. OMG I just heard that of all people fucking Cmdr Taco, that slashdot dude is a fucking goat fucker! WTF!
  
  --
  Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
4. Re:Idiocracy by santiagodraco · 2009-10-16 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  If you know the person and if the persons real name is used, then threats of bodily hard, whether in person or via a chat room/facebook or whatever, should be taken very seriously. There should be no difference in the law.
  When all parties are anonymous then it's a different story, obviously. I'm assuming that is not the case here.
  I still think Miss Whatshername (the mother that threatened the girl on behalf of her son online) and caused the girls suicide (or contributed to it) should have her ass in jail right now finding out what it's like to be "under threat".
  Goat fuckers aside.
5. Re:Idiocracy by Jeian · 2009-10-16 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Words don't hurt people, but they do cause some people to hurt themselves.
  Whether that should be illegal, in real life or online, is the question.
6. Re:Idiocracy by nomadic · 2009-10-16 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously Texas lawmakers are unfamiliar with the legal principle
  
  In Texas lawmakers tend to be unfamiliar with ANY legal principle.
7. Re:Idiocracy by kalirion · 2009-10-16 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Q. You know he wants it...
8. Re:Idiocracy by Rude+Turnip · 2009-10-16 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  So, he likes *those* kinds of kids too?! /s
  
  --
  Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
9. Re:Idiocracy by Thansal · 2009-10-16 03:16 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Meh! Kirk has a goat in every port. Who does Picard have to come home to?
  An acting career?
  
  --
  Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
10. Re:Idiocracy by MBGMorden · 2009-10-16 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Picard had a holodeck by his time. I doubt he really cares anymore.
  I mean really, if I could download the new Jennifer Aniston with Amy Adams holodeck experience, I don't think I'd care about a girl in every port either ;).
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
11. Re:Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously Texas lawmakers are unfamiliar with the legal principle
  In Texas lawmakers tend to be unfamiliar with ANY legal principle.
  s/In Texas l/L/
12. Re:Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:38 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  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).
  Your example is not accurate... it would be more like if you created a Cmdr Taco profile on another website and pretended to be Cmdr Taco and posted that you (ie. fake Cmdr Taco) like to fuck goats.
  This law is more about identity theft than mere harassment.
13. Re:Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Well he hasn't denied it, and I have a photoshopped^H^H^H^H^H^H^H picture of him and a goat.
  Besides, I've convinced several of my friends that he is and we're telling everyone, repeatedly.
  It's been repeated so often by so many people that it must be true. And since some of those people are hysterical, they must be traumatized by the sight, so it must be even more true since emotions prove the truth of a claim.
  A compliant has been made to PETA by me^H^H^H^H^H^H^H. So there is an official complaint against him.
  ---
  More seriously, words are important. What would happen if you moved to town a year ago and I told everyone that the reason you moved here is because you wanted to start fresh after being acquitted of molesting 10 children on a technicality like O J Simpson. In this case, the cops got evidence without a warrant. You escaped judgment from the law, but all the people around you knew you were guilty.
  What would happen then? Most people won't be able to confirm or refute the story. Most people would disbelieve the story, but keep you away from their children (at least unsupervised) and keep watch over you to check if you have any sexual deviances. Be careful when hugging a child, it may be taken the wrong way. A few nuts will believe the story outright and threaten your life.
  If you don't believe this, you don't understand human nature.
  Now I don't agree with the law. There is no need for an "online harassment law" since we have a perfectly good slander law. If its not covered under slander, then this shouldn't be covered either.
  IMO, this country has too many redundant laws, which end up being inconsistent. How on earth is a citizen supposed to obey the law if even lawyers, after several years of study, don't know them all? And you can be sure that Police officers don't have the time to learn all the nuances of all laws, let alone all laws and all the laws that have been dropped.
  Unfortunately that's the problem with democracy. If the country has all the laws it needs, politicians are redundant, so they need to show they are busy by creating new laws. What this country needs is to split the senate congress and senate in two. One set of politicians can thus be focused on making new laws. Another set of politicians can be focused on repealing old redundant laws or simplifying old laws. The two would balance each other out.
14. Re:Idiocracy by falckon · 2009-10-16 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  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).
  We all saw it, time to put out an affidavit for the arrest of Coward, first name Anonymous.
15. Re:Idiocracy by bconway · 2009-10-16 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously Texas lawmakers are unfamiliar with the legal principle "Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me!"
  Ask Megan Meier's parents how well that's working out for them.
  
  --
  Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
16. Re:Idiocracy by Gerafix · 2009-10-16 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Wesley Crusher.
17. Re:Idiocracy by Martin+Spamer · 2009-10-16 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  "Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" is false, bullying causes long term physiological and psychological harm including Post traumatic stress disorder.
18. Re:Idiocracy by Martin+Spamer · 2009-10-16 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  "Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" is absolutely false.
  Bullying causes long term physiological and psychological harm to the victim including Post traumatic stress disorder. Physical Bullying is illegal, we call it assault. It is immaterial to the victim if the bullying was conducted first hand or remotely, it is wrong and should be punished.
19. Re:Idiocracy by GiMP · 2009-10-16 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the parents that have been so busy blaming everyone else, that the haven't looked at themselves? The mother that told the girl to "go ahead" when she suggested killing herself?
  The fact is that while this girl's story is tragic, it had very little to do with being bullied over the internet. More so, I don't see the difference in this case of how the internet would have been any different than had she been bullied at school. Even the concept of faking a crush could have been done in analogue through locker notes and similar tactics. However, how the bullying was done has very little consequence on the end result. This girl had a fight with her mother and killed herself as a result of that fight. Furthermore, this was a girl that was already undergoing counseling for suicidal tenancies, her mother had been educated in suicide awareness and as a result of her own anger, ignored the signs.
20. Re:Idiocracy by operagost · 2009-10-16 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Shut up, Wesley!
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
21. Re:Idiocracy by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2009-10-16 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Ask Megan Meier's parents how well that's working out for them.
  If your child is so fragile that they commit suicide due anything that happens online, they are not going to make it, and as a parent you have done a terrible job of raising them.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
22. Re:Idiocracy by DinDaddy · 2009-10-16 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure he would not want a goat in his port.
23. Re:Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  An acting career?
  And he's been in what notable productions as of late?
  Didn't think so...
24. Re:Idiocracy by guyminuslife · 2009-10-16 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'd hate to be the guy who cleans the holodeck.
  
  --
  I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
25. Re:Idiocracy by MBGMorden · 2009-10-16 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Nonsense. When everyone leaves transporter lock on anything that's not supposed to be in there and once it's in the buffer let the pattern degrade.
  Now I feel particularly nerdy . . .
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
26. Re:Idiocracy by ZmeiGorynych · 2009-10-16 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  No, it never should. Besides, 'cause some peolple to hurt themselves' is meaningless, everybody is free to choose their own actions unless they are physically compelled or threatened physical harm - and even threats should have a fairly high threshold before they're taken seriously.
SHITCOCK! by e2d2 · 2009-10-16 02:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:SHITCOCK! by Locke2005 · 2009-10-16 02:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Agreed, actual threats of physical violence SHOULD be unlawful,,, but if you are threatening to kill someone, it doesn't really matter whether or not you are doing it online, does it? Making a law that ONLY applies to online behavior is assinine -- could she have printed the same statements out on paper and gotten away with it? Why is publishing them online any different?
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
2. Re:SHITCOCK! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  "if you threaten someone in person, well that's assault."
  No that's not assault.
3. Re:SHITCOCK! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  It can be assault, but it depends on the particular circumstances (emphasis added):
  
  the threat or attempt to strike another, whether successful or not, provided the target is aware of the danger. The assaulter must be reasonably capable of carrying through the attack.
  Taken from law.com Law Dictionary, "Assault".
4. Re:SHITCOCK! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  You're an ass. I just spent the last twenty minutes digging through your old comments; no horrendous threats.
  If I knew who you are in real life... for wasting my time...
  I'm going to be watching your posts from now on and talking shit about you. ... and there's nothing you can do about it.
5. Re:SHITCOCK! by e2d2 · 2009-10-16 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Uhm, actually it is. Unless you have another version you'd like to supply smarty pants.
  assault: A violent physical or verbal attack.
6. Re:SHITCOCK! by Interoperable · 2009-10-16 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  "I'm gonna punch your face until you bleed from the asshole"
  
  ...you fucking piece of shit! I'LL KILL YOU!
  
  But seriously, I tell my kid...
  Uh oh.
  
  --
  So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
7. Re:SHITCOCK! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong. Yes it is is.
  (With a few qualifications, the person being assaulted has to reasonably believe you will follow through and the threat has to be imminent. Saying "I'll kill you in two hours" doesn't count.)
  IANAL, but I am a law student.
8. Re:SHITCOCK! by e2d2 · 2009-10-16 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  What can I say? I have a sick sense of humor.
  Now fuck off
9. Re:SHITCOCK! by Dragonslicer · 2009-10-16 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Bullseye. Harassment is harassment, regardless of the medium used. Without knowing the details of the case (not like I'd read the article, but someone else here mentioned that details weren't released anyway), it's impossible to make a judgment about whether or not this really is harassment. If it was just some girl calling her classmate a bitch, then that's called high school. If it's a girl repeatedly posting false or misleading information with the intent to cause harm, then that's illegal, no matter how you spread that false information.
10. Re:SHITCOCK! by Ephemeriis · 2009-10-16 03:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Agreed, actual threats of physical violence SHOULD be unlawful,,, but if you are threatening to kill someone, it doesn't really matter whether or not you are doing it online, does it? Making a law that ONLY applies to online behavior is assinine -- could she have printed the same statements out on paper and gotten away with it? Why is publishing them online any different?
  That's my big problem with these laws.
  We already have harassment/stalking/whatever laws on the books. If I punch you in the face, it's assault. It doesn't matter if I do it at school, or at the local GameStop, or at a grocery store. We don't need special laws for each building in the nation - we just say "this is assault."
  Likewise, if I track your every movement for a week, snap pictures of you, film video of you, peek in your windows - it's stalking. Doesn't much matter if I'm doing it with a 35mm or a digital camera. Doesn't much matter if you're living in a trailer park or a fancy apartment. It's stalking.
  If I won't leave you alone, call you constantly, send you annoying letters, leave notes on your car - it's harassment. Doesn't much matter if I type those notes on a typewriter, or if they're handwritten, or if I use recycle paper. Doesn't matter if I'm calling you from my cell phone or a pay phone. It's still harassment.
  If I print lies about you in the local paper or run some ads or put up some signs it is libel. Again, it doesn't much matter if the sign is an 8.5x11 piece of paper I printed, or some nice cardboard thing the local printshop put together. It doesn't much matter if it's a free local paper, or a widely circulated periodical. It's still libel.
  Why do we need special laws for the Internet? If I call you using Skype or some sort of VOIP is it no longer harassment? Does it magically become some other kind of criminal mischief because my voice is being transmitted over the Internet?
  If I post lies about you on a message board is it no longer libel? Does the act of encoding those characters and transmitting them over a wire somehow change the nature of the offense? Are those no longer, technically, printed lies?
  Why do we need special laws for forums and social networking sites? Why can't our existing laws be applied?
  
  --
  "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
11. Re:SHITCOCK! by rahlquist · 2009-10-16 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  10 seconds in google can save you from a lifetime of shortsightedness...
  http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/
  In most places in the US a threat against a person is now considered a Terroristic Threat and is actionable.
  
  --
  Sick of stupidity? http://www.patentlystupid.com
12. Re:SHITCOCK! by Vovk · 2009-10-16 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  heh... I remember when it used to be you had to hit the guy... times are changin'...
13. Re:SHITCOCK! by Milkyfresh · 2009-10-16 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Because when it involves the magical internet box, we need new laws.
  People fear what they don't understand and lawmakers really don't understand tech.
14. Re:SHITCOCK! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  A threat is not an attack
15. Re:SHITCOCK! by e2d2 · 2009-10-16 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Are you high man? It means threatening them with violence (a verbal attack). That means if I say I'm gonna fuck you up, that's assault. Now stfu and go get ya shine box ya mafucking troll.
16. Re:SHITCOCK! by DrivingBear · 2009-10-16 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  but when it truly hurts someone it's time to stop.
  One of the difficulties with verbal abuse on the internet is the lack of feedback. Unless the victim posts some sort of response there is no way for the attacker to see how her words are impacting the victim. This is why we need to consider our words even more carefully on the internet or in email than in person. It's often difficult, if not impossible, to judge how our words are being interpreted on the other end the line and then even further how they are emotionally affecting the recipient.
  
  --
  How can that be?
17. Re:SHITCOCK! by Fortunato_NC · 2009-10-16 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Perhaps you could start us on the return trip to civility by eliminating homophobic nonsense like "SHITCOCK" from your own vocabulary.
  
  --
  Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
18. Re:SHITCOCK! by Belial6 · 2009-10-16 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, on the internet, the nerds are as, if not more, powerful than the football players. We can't have that. How will our schools function if we allow the natural order to become corrupted?
19. Re:SHITCOCK! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  While I agree for the most part, I do not agree that threatening someone = assault. It's not assault until blows are exchanged. Even then, I would not consider two kids fighting in the school yard "assault."
  The reality is that kids disagree, and call each other names, and "threaten" each other, and fight. I think too often we expect our children to behave like adults in adult society, when they are not. Name calling is not libel and slander (it's just name calling, and the kids will have to learn to deal with it).
20. Re:SHITCOCK! by Translation+Error · 2009-10-16 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  But seriously, I tell my kid and other kids in my family - don't say anything you wouldn't say in person.
  I think a better rule is not to say anything your wouldn't say while being recorded (which you are).
  
  --
  When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
Dear Sir by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:25 · Score: -1, Offtopic

FROM: Dr Altaka Yurmani
Central Bank of Nigeria
Lagos, Nigeria
01-658-21-2658
TO: Fill-in-your-mark-here
Everytown, USA
Dear Sir:
I have been requested by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company to contact you for assistance in resolving a matter. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company has recently concluded a large number of contracts for oil exploration in the sub-Sahara region. The contracts have immediately produced moneys equaling US$40,000,000. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company is desirous of oil exploration in other parts of the world, however, because of certain regulations of the Nigerian Government, it is unable to move these funds to another region.
You assistance is requested as a non-Nigerian citizen to assist the Nigerian National Petroleum Company, and also the Central Bank of Nigeria, in moving these funds out of Nigeria. If the funds can be transferred to your name, in your United States account, then you can forward the funds as directed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company. In exchange for your accommodating services, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company would agree to allow you to retain 10%, or US$4 million of this amount.
However, to be a legitimate transferee of these moneys according to Nigerian law, you must presently be a depositor of at least US$100,000 in a Nigerian bank which is regulated by the Central Bank of Nigeria.
If it will be possible for you to assist us, we would be most grateful. We suggest that you meet with us in person in Lagos, and that during your visit I introduce you to the representatives of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company, as well as with certain officials of the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Please call me at your earliest convenience at 18-467-4975. Time is of the essence in this matter; very quickly the Nigerian Government will realize that the Central Bank is maintaining this amount on deposit, and attempt to levy certain depository taxes on it.
Yours truly,
Prince Alyusi Islassis
Hard cases... by HanClinto · 2009-10-16 02:26 · Score: 1

...make bad laws.
1. Re:Hard cases... by Moryath · 2009-10-16 02:36 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And the necessary corrolary: Easy cases also make bad law.
  "Easy" cases make bad law because they allow for bad decisions - "the law says one thing, but Mr. Greasy-Haired Used Car Salesman is so obviously running a dishonest business..."
  "Hard" cases make bad law because they get decided on a very narrow point of law and set of facts, but then a thousand greasy shysters (er... "lawyers") cite them as precedent for cases that have almost no similarity at all.
  In fact, the current way our system is cooked up, the overall conclusion to make is probably that adherence to precedent in general makes for shitty law.
2. Re:Hard cases... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  While I do agree with you, I can't avoid pointing out to the fact that you, and seemingly, a great majority of people, think these stupid things that are set as precedents, or, in fact, used by lawyers as precedents, are the lawyers' fault.
  A lawyer has one of two jobs. Both involve winning by any legal means possible, if that means saying you smoke pot to make the jury believe you're a crazy psychopath, or, on the other hand, bringing you out to court with a shrink saying you were verbally abused for years and you killing your wife was just the last straw, so the jury can take pity and sentence you to a lighter sentence, he'll do it.
  The whole precedent asshattery is brought to you by juries, who choose to convict and by judges, who refuse to say "well fuck you, that precedent clearly doesn't apply here".
3. Re:Hard cases... by Moryath · 2009-10-16 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  A lawyer has one of two jobs.
  But a lawyer is not allowed to break basic ethical codes in doing their jobs.
  Every time I see one of these cases, I see a lawyer who should have their license pulled on ethical grounds.
4. Re:Hard cases... by SCHecklerX · 2009-10-16 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Remember this?
  http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
  Oh well.
Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by eldavojohn · 2009-10-16 02:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apparently Texas' penal code reads for felonies of the third degree:

12.34. THIRD DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. (a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years. (b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

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.
1. Re:Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by Cocoronixx · 2009-10-16 02:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is totally ridiculous... That news article reads as if it was posted on The Onion.
  
  --
  "Obscenity is the crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker." - cloak42
2. Re:Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by rwv · 2009-10-16 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  for you adults who like to poke and prod people online ... better think twice
  Thinking twice is generally good advise whenever the action that you are going to take can be perceived as "being a dick". While they can't make general rules against "being a dick", I think having enforceable laws like this is a good help.
  I'm not sure "2 years in prison" is a good punishment for this. I think 2 weeks in prison for "petty internet harassment" that doesn't have any serious outcome would be more fitting for MOST cases. Regarding the Lori Drew case, however, 10 years would seem fair.
3. Re:Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by AI0867 · 2009-10-16 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Like this one? I still can't believe that one either.
4. Re:Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by Jaysyn · 2009-10-16 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's a waste of taxpayers money. Lori Drew was harassing a minor child. There are already laws for that.
  
  --
  There is a war going on for your mind.
5. Re:Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by notarockstar1979 · 2009-10-16 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Screw you, goat fucker. And I'm from Texas!
  
  Now where's my sarcasm tag.....
6. Re:Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by rwv · 2009-10-16 03:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  But they didn't have proper laws to charge Drew with behavior that arguably resulted in the death of a teenager. She was guilty of that bad behavior, but the got acquitted because the judge didn't want to establish "breaking a website's terms of service" as precedence for violating the law. For whatever reason, there were not any "harassment" charges to levy against Drew.
7. Re:Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by Nerdfest · 2009-10-16 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  not more than 10 years or less than 2 years
  I'd totally take the 'less than 2 years' option. These people should think about using some parentheses or something ...
8. Re:Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by hemp · 2009-10-16 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  16 year olds are tried as adults in Texas and can even be executed. Records are not expunged at age 18.
  You must be from one of that them liberal states.
  
  --
  Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
9. Re:Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by cayenne8 · 2009-10-16 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  "It's a waste of taxpayers money. Lori Drew was harassing a minor child. There are already laws for that."
  Apparently not.
  They couldn't charge Lori Drew with anything related to he death of the girl...so, they tried to stretch a hacking law to get her...and that got overturned.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
10. Re:Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by Jaysyn · 2009-10-16 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  If they couldn't get her for harassment, it's because they were too stupid to try. It's their own fault that they charged her with the wrong crime.
  If she had done the same thing over the telephone, what do you think would have happened?
  
  --
  There is a war going on for your mind.
11. Re:Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by guyminuslife · 2009-10-16 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Also from Texas, and you beat me to it.
  Motherfucker.
  
  --
  I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
12. Re:Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by BobMcD · 2009-10-16 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  "It's a waste of taxpayers money. Lori Drew was harassing a minor child. There are already laws for that."
  Apparently not.
  They couldn't charge Lori Drew with anything related to he death of the girl...so, they tried to stretch a hacking law to get her...and that got overturned.
  I don't know. I mean, Lori Drew didn't actually kill the girl, did she? Was she truly culpable for a death?
  Harassment seems crystal clear. Endangerment, perhaps. But there's got to be some onus on the individual to refuse to kill themselves. Otherwise everyone who ever said 'DIAF' would be facing jail time.
  So maybe they didn't 'get' her because the law didn't allow it, and maybe that's for a semi-decent reason. Just because we hate one person's deplorable behavior doesn't mean we need to change the entire legal system to make ourselves feel better.
think of the trolls! by el_tedward · 2009-10-16 02:27 · Score: 0

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?!
1. Re:think of the trolls! by 4D6963 · 2009-10-16 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Stay anonymous.
  
  --
  You just got troll'd!
Is the internet different from being in person? by TheRealPacmanJones · 2009-10-16 02:27 · Score: 0

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
Forget trolling by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.
BEHOLD! by j00r0m4nc3r · 2009-10-16 02:30 · Score: 3, Funny

Can of worms, I dub thee COLOSUS!
1. Re:BEHOLD! by ArmyOfAardvarks · 2009-10-16 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Please do not harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten the Colossus. He is neither a can nor is does he contain of worms. Such remarks can be harmful to his self-esteem.
2. Re:BEHOLD! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  Do not taunt Happy Fun Colossus
Yes. I'm OK with this law. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:34 · Score: 0

Just leave the goatse/tubgirl redirectors alone!
Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

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
Hopefully this case is overturned on appeal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:36 · Score: 0

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.
Hmmm.. by windex82 · 2009-10-16 02:36 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Hmmm.. by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  How is this supposed to work when the parents are the ones teaching their kids to be assholes? My son-in-law actively teaches his kids to be assholes. He thinks it great to be an asshole and thinks his kids need to follow in his footsteps.
  Add to parents like him those parents who just don't care enough about their kids to discipline them, and then further add those parents who think that anyone who crosses their precious snowflake, even when their snowflake is the problem, is there to be abused. This isn't even taking into account those parents who are too afraid to discipline their kids.
  Society has long since degenerated past the point of being able to trust all, maybe even most, parents to want/be_able to instill positive character traits in their kids. I hate the idea of more government, but there has to be some way of making sure there are consequences for negative behavior as there are most definitely a lot of parents who will never do that job.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
2. Re:Hmmm.. by mcgrew · 2009-10-16 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  When I was in 7th grade there was no interent, and the only computers were mainframes. But nonetheless I goy bullied by a kid who was a good five inches taller than me and at least 40 pounds heavier. One day the punk slapped me, and I lost it and pummelled him GOOD.
  I got a swat for that, he got 18 swats (the teachers had seen the previous bullying). And nobody gave me any shit after that, in fact I got instant respect.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
3. Re:Hmmm.. by windex82 · 2009-10-16 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Lets simplify this a little bit,
  Law 1: Harassment will not be tolerated.
  Law 2: Harassment will not be tolerated online.
  How is anything better now that Law 2 has been created? How does this make parents care about raising their kids?
  There is nothing in your post that explains how we are now better off for spending the time and resources of dozens of people to create Law 2.
4. Re:Hmmm.. by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Tell that to the cops/prosecutors and see how far you get. They, not me, are the ones claiming that the "old" laws don't/won't work. I, personally, don't see a need for new laws and said nothing about us needing new laws, but I do see a need for the legal system to be used to stop online harassment.
  I was simply replying to the idea that parents are going to be the resource that will stop the harassment. Parents have the responsibility, but many completely shirk it, to teach their children to behave decently.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
5. Re:Hmmm.. by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · 2009-10-16 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  But please, won't SOMEONE think of the lawmakers' political campaigns? If they didn't have laws like this to point to and say "Yes, I supported legislation that makes our kids safer", how would they get reelected? [And no, brib^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions is not an accepted answer to the latter question.]
6. Re:Hmmm.. by hmar · 2009-10-16 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, that's two posts you've mentioned me in, ma, enough already!
7. Re:Hmmm.. by Nethead · 2009-10-16 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Damn straight! And those teachers with hack boards got respect too. Didn't finish your homework?, please step over here and grab you ankles.
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
List of Texas' Third Degree Felonies by eldavojohn · 2009-10-16 02:37 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:List of Texas' Third Degree Felonies by DaFallus · 2009-10-16 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well, bingo is technically a form of gambling. We all know how the government, state or federal, feels about gambling, especially when they aren't getting a cut...
  
  --
  No one cares what your captcha was
  
  Houston TX, USA
2. Re:List of Texas' Third Degree Felonies by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · 2009-10-16 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Of course we do.
3. Re:List of Texas' Third Degree Felonies by Chris+Burke · 2009-10-16 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Oh man, that's a triple-whammy on my illegal Arson Assault Bingo parlor.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
4. Re:List of Texas' Third Degree Felonies by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  By "conducting a game of bingo without a license" of course they mean illegal gambling. Yes, that's a felony.
5. Re:List of Texas' Third Degree Felonies by nedlohs · 2009-10-16 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  So don't ever post threatening messages to the a bingo forum about how you aren't letting Mary back into your bingo game.
Good Idea by Bagellord · 2009-10-16 02:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Good Idea by windex82 · 2009-10-16 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  There are already laws in place. We DO NOT need to create a duplicate laws just because the internet is involved.
2. Re:Good Idea by ckblackm · 2009-10-16 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  We may not need new laws.. but what we DO need is ENFORCEMENT of the old laws.
3. Re:Good Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah because children need to spend 2-10 years in prison for being douchebags...
  If anything these laws need to target the parents of the shit heads, not jail time but toss them a $300-500 fine for raising a little twat.
4. Re:Good Idea by R2.0 · 2009-10-16 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, but were you trying to be funny here? Aside from the fact that laws against fraud already exist, are you seriously advocating bringing the might of a state or federal judiciary system down onto the modern equivalent of a chain letter? Are your parents so weak that they couldn't demand accountability from the other kids parents?
  There's a post higher up about people who believe that the law should take care of their needs, whatever they may be. You might want to read that.
  
  --
  "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
5. Re:Good Idea by PitaBred · 2009-10-16 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  WHY DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING ONLINE? All of those actions that happened to your brother fall under intimidation and harassment laws already in place... why not use those? This law is not a good idea. There is NOTHING special about being a jackass online. It's the same as being a jackass anywhere else. It needs no special legislation that can be abused.
  
  --
  My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
6. Re:Good Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  It's every bit as good an idea as criminalizing all the other cruel, nasty things children do to each other.
  By which I mean to say it's idiotic. WTF are you thinking? Making it a crime to do things that, horrid as they are, we know to be part of normal human development?
7. Re:Good Idea by tsstahl · 2009-10-16 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  So, the kid should spend 2 years minimum in jail for being immature? Where is the freedom to explore in your world? The range of human conduct is not constrained to rainbow surfing and unicorn hugging. Adolescence is the epitome of exploration. Consequences should match the conduct, not be emotionally charged.
  
  Your argument is in essence a declaration that punks should go to jail because your little brother feels bad.
  
  Wouldn't an _administrative_ fine of say, 1500 bucks, to the parents send the appropriate signal that society is not going to tolerate that kind of conduct? And why expel the kid? You can make his life much more hellish by meting out punishment in school.
8. Re:Good Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  This law has nothing to do with the scenario you described. What are you saying "is a very serious thing"? Harassing someone online because that the law that's being discussed and not fraudulently claiming to be someone else or defaming someone online which is what you describe.
9. Re:Good Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Educating people about how not everything on the internet is true would be an even better idea.
10. Re:Good Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  yes, let's have the state of texas charge and convict the little menace with a 3rd degree felony, then squeeze him into our overflowing prison system.
  or
  the principle could simply expel the kid for breaking some rules.
  what seems more reasonable to you?
11. Re:Good Idea by 4D6963 · 2009-10-16 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that identity theft/fraud? That's very different and much more serious (not to mention defamation).
  
  --
  You just got troll'd!
12. Re:Good Idea by BobMcD · 2009-10-16 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  So, the kid should spend 2 years minimum in jail for being immature? Where is the freedom to explore in your world? The range of human conduct is not constrained to rainbow surfing and unicorn hugging. Adolescence is the epitome of exploration. Consequences should match the conduct, not be emotionally charged.
  Your argument is in essence a declaration that punks should go to jail because your little brother feels bad.
  Wouldn't an _administrative_ fine of say, 1500 bucks, to the parents send the appropriate signal that society is not going to tolerate that kind of conduct? And why expel the kid? You can make his life much more hellish by meting out punishment in school.
  This.
  A kid feels bad, gets over it, maybe learns from it, grows a thicker skin or whatever.
  Another kid does time in jail (avoiding rape, etc) and gets deprived of any chance at a normal life.
  Because of a MySpace page and some hurt feelings.
  This seems out of balance to me.
13. Re:Good Idea by Osinoche · 2009-10-16 12:58 · Score: 0
  
  Not the same dooohickey. We don't have headmaster's in the US. If we did we'd call the school Principles. Emotional trauma is covered under something called a Law Suit. Deal with it . SUE HIM SUE HIM SUE HIM. Him being Captain Picard, love of Goats.
  
  --
  Osi Osi Osi Osi Osi
14. Re:Good Idea by ZmeiGorynych · 2009-10-16 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Concur on all points
15. Re:Good Idea by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · 2009-10-17 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Schools should not be punishing kids for things done outside of school. End of story.
  
  --
  "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
Re:think of the trolls ... er by TaoPhoenix · 2009-10-16 02:39 · Score: 1

"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
What's the big deal by onyxruby · 2009-10-16 02:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

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).
1. Re:What's the big deal by Aladrin · 2009-10-16 02:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This wasn't 'a threat to harm', the message itself -is- the harm.
  People get up in arms about it because it's -really- hard to make text do actual harm.
  We don't have have -any- actual information about the case, so argument for either side are completely pointless right now.
  
  --
  "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
2. Re:What's the big deal by ffreeloader · 2009-10-16 04:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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).
  Why do people get upset about harassment over the internet? Because it's way out of line. It's rampant and the police/prosecutors refuse to do anything about it. It's also worse online because of the difficulty in finding out who is responsible for it.
  It's much riskier to walk up to a person and begin insulting them than it is to make online slurs as in person the possibility of getting your ass kicked for being a jackass is much, much greater. The perceived anonymity of the internet creates an atmosphere in which assholes are much more likely to think there will be no consequences for their behavior and so cross behavioral lines they wouldn't cross in person.
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
3. Re:What's the big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  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?
  
  Unless the email contains personal information such as their address or name, or they know each other, why would that be threatening? The sender is just one random anonymous dick from the internet with no idea as to who or where the person is beyond that email address. That's pretty much the case for offline as well, only there may be real cause for concern if they're not making threats from behind anything and therefore can actually act on it physically.
  
  Intimidation, coercion and other forms of threatening behavior are all readily accepted as illegal offline
  Since when? Hell, that pretty much covers the job description of our police officers.
4. Re:What's the big deal by drspliff · 2009-10-16 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's also an environment in which you can simply ignore stuff. Somebody is sending hurtful stuff that I don't like? Blocked.
Maybe this is as it should be by Jiro · 2009-10-16 02:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?)
1. Re:Maybe this is as it should be by windex82 · 2009-10-16 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  It seems the goal of the new law was to discourage using the name or persona of another person to create a Web page.
  Aren't there already laws in place that discourage one from claiming to be someone they are not? Why not use the existing law instead of wasting time and effort creating a new law because a web page is involved?
2. Re:Maybe this is as it should be by urulokion · 2009-10-16 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  The given intent of a law is irrelevant, for the most part, to police and prosecutors. They will prosecute you based on the wording of the law. And they'll bend the law to the breaking point and beyond if they want to nail you (Lori Drew case from California).
3. Re:Maybe this is as it should be by urulokion · 2009-10-16 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  It seems the goal of the new law was to discourage using the name or persona of another person to create a Web page.
  Aren't there already laws in place that discourage one from claiming to be someone they are not? Why not use the existing law instead of wasting time and effort creating a new law because a web page is involved?
  This is another thing that irks me. Creating new laws for specific cases which are already covered by other laws. For instance, the banning of text while driving. The name varies from place to place, but in my town it's called Inattentive Driving. You can get a ticket for eating, putting on make up, reading a map, texting while driving a car.
4. Re:Maybe this is as it should be by Jaysyn · 2009-10-16 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  That's identity theft, we already have laws for this. Texas is stupid if they think they need to make a separate set of laws for the internet.
  
  --
  There is a war going on for your mind.
5. Re:Maybe this is as it should be by jank1887 · 2009-10-16 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  full page add in the Times?
6. Re:Maybe this is as it should be by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  (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?)
  It wasn't me, but equivalent things could be...
  1) An add in a newspaper, signing the other person's name.
  2) Billboard, signing the other person's name.
  3) False rumors attributing to the other person.
  4) Identity theft.
  5) Graphitti, signing the other person's name.
  6) Fliers, signing the other person's name.
  There are probably more.
7. Re:Maybe this is as it should be by BobMcD · 2009-10-16 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  "You hurt my feelings! You therefore must avoid being raped in jail for the next two years."
  'Too strict' indeed. She'd get less time than that if she had actually put the other girl in the hospital.
  Why have we gotten to the point to where we take prison so lightly, and so willingly destroy another person's life over the simplest of offenses?
Bufford T. Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:41 · Score: 0

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.
Existing case law? by rayharris · 2009-10-16 02:41 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Existing case law? by Lord+Kano · 2009-10-16 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  "intimidate" is such a vague concept.
  If I tell someone that I will contact the police if they don't stop their dog from pooping on my lawn, my intent would be to intimidate them. I want them to be afraid of the consequences of their actions. In Texas, I would have just committed a felony. That's fucking idiotic.
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
2. Re:Existing case law? by orngjce223 · 2009-10-16 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the felony's "The next time I see that dog on my lawn, the shotgun comes out, and I'm not aiming it at the dog" sort of intimidating speech. This is, of course, assuming you have a shotgun. /sarcasm
  Really though, this is borderline ridiculous.
  
  --
  Note: I was 13 when I wrote most of this. Take with several grains of salt.
3. Re:Existing case law? by Lord+Kano · 2009-10-16 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Well, in Texas you're justified in shooting someone who is tresspassing (at least at night). There is no duty to retreat there.
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
LOL by jafiwam · 2009-10-16 02:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
1. Re:LOL by bertoelcon · 2009-10-16 02:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  Actually the "Don't mess with Texas!" line is about littering.
  
  --
  Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
2. Re:LOL by e2d2 · 2009-10-16 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  You read what everyone in the state of Texas says everyday? Where is this publication and how do I subscribe?
3. Re:LOL by jafiwam · 2009-10-16 03:03 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yes, I know. Which makes it even more amusing when it's used by Texans in a different way.
  See, humor and sarcasm have many layers....
  Most of which you seem unable to penetrate.
4. Re:LOL by e2d2 · 2009-10-16 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, you said penetrate.
  I just think it's funny that you call them out for having a skewed point of view. The entire state. See the irony?
  Now go get your shine box and shine those busted insults.
5. Re:LOL by SleazyRidr · 2009-10-16 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Sure it was /originally/ about littering, but I think it's a catchy line for use in any situation! For example, telling us when we can and can't say 'Don't mess with Texas':
  
  Don't mess with Texas
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
.... on internet by iamacat · 2009-10-16 02:43 · Score: 1

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.
Hell it's Texas by Kushy · 2009-10-16 02:43 · Score: 1

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
The law's not that bad, actually by MikeRT · 2009-10-16 02:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:The law's not that bad, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  They should be arrested for underlining the entire text of the law... my eyes are bleeding.
2. Re:The law's not that bad, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  So, the law forbids fraud?
  Or is it just specifically identity theft?
  Or is it just both of these things, but on a 'com-put-ter'?
3. Re:The law's not that bad, actually by Sarten-X · 2009-10-16 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'm no lawyer, but reading the text appears to do several things:
  1.a) Make fake accounts illegal. It's now a criminal offense to create an account using someone else's name, and use that to harass someone. The problem I see with this is simple ignorance. "I didn't know X was a real person" becomes an issue.
  1.b) Make referring to someone else illegal. If I quote someone (and I were in Texas), I would need their authorization, if the quotation could be considered harmful.
  1.f) Nothing at all. "The term does not include an electronic mail program or a message board program." Depending on how savvy the legal system is, it could be determined that all website messaging systems fall under the category of "message board programs". If not, then the exclusion pushes harassment to other media, such as instant messages, chat rooms, IRC, etc.
  To me (and again, I'm not a lawyer) it seems this law was written in a quick response to a widely-publicized event, but that little exception for message boards could, depending on a test in court, potentially make the law useless.
  Regarding the first amendment issues, the only thing I see is the requirement of authorization for a reference. As I read it, that subsection's supposed to prevent revealing someone else's identity, but I'd wager it could be abused easily to prevent whistleblowing. If you're trying to make public a company's practices, you can't mention any names without being very careful. If it appears the named person "authorized" the leak at all, you're committing a crime.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
4. Re:The law's not that bad, actually by PitaBred · 2009-10-16 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So... slander and libel are somehow twice as bad online as they are otherwise? And we need a special law for this? Why?
  
  --
  My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
5. Re:The law's not that bad, actually by tsstahl · 2009-10-16 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  MPU, MPU, MPU, MPU! Yes, you can assume that I agree, yet lack mod points today.
6. Re:The law's not that bad, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  A perfectly intelligent person can indeed say there are First Amendment issues. The First Amendment says in part that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". This applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. As Hugo Black used to say, "no law means no law", and I'm not sure you can call Black a moron. It's true that the US Supreme Court has limited the First Amendment, but it's not unreasonable to argue that the Court has gotten it wrong, and many have. I think it's perfectly fair to argue for a stronger interpretation of the First Amendment.
  Those who argue that it is a First Amendment issue vis-à-vis current jurisprudence are incorrect, of course.
7. Re:The law's not that bad, actually by BobMcD · 2009-10-16 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably to increase the value of a person's stated identity. This way we can just blindly accept everything we see on the internet as true, because only a felon would lie about who they really are.
Caption is misleading... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:45 · Score: 1, Interesting

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.
Let's have some fun with the law! by Interoperable · 2009-10-16 02:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

/. 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?
1. Re:Let's have some fun with the law! by sabt-pestnu · 2009-10-16 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Come on! It'll be fun!
  ... it'll be expensive.
  Even if the attorneys are working pro bono, there's court costs. And there's your OWN time (and that of your "victim") invested in the case.
  And when you finally DO get a case resolved, you THEN have to run it through an appeals court to have precedent set for the district. Good luck there.
  If you want the precedent to be more general (IE more districts), you have to run it up through the supreme court - and they don't take on just any case that comes by.
  And as you do this, keep in mind that appeals are based on issues of law, not issues of fact. The factors you can appeal depend on how the judge decides the case.
  Oh, and the final nightmare for ya: what if one or both sets of pro bono lawyers pull out? Do you continue (with a lawyer you're paying), or settle? Settle and you've not got your precedent (except perhaps some intermediate rulings on discovery, summary judgement, etc). Continue and you're on the hook for a LOT of expense.
2. Re:Let's have some fun with the law! by selven · 2009-10-16 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Playing the court system (unless you're part of a multimillion dollar conglomerate) is highly illegal and could result in a few lawyers losing their licenses.
Re:Idiocracy-Goat Love by gpronger · 2009-10-16 02:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.. by Chrisq · 2009-10-16 02:50 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:What she should have done.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Err...it hasn't worked yet. Just been attempted.
Approached from the wrong angle by DrivingBear · 2009-10-16 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?
1. Re:Approached from the wrong angle by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  1st offense warning about the behavior...
  After the warning any further action should be prosecuted.
2. Re:Approached from the wrong angle by NeutronCowboy · 2009-10-16 04:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That would require emotional stamina from the kids, involved parenting from the parents, toleration of lawsuit-generating situations by school officials... yeah right. I'm all for beating this particular drum until the cows come home, but I'm also not particularly confident that anything will actually happen.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
3. Re:Approached from the wrong angle by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  emotional/psychological reasons that these kids are attacking each other
  Bad parenting coupled with a heavily degenerating school system.
4. Re:Approached from the wrong angle by shambalagoon · 2009-10-16 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  While I agree with the main point of your post, your use of the term "mistakes" stuck me as bizarre.
  
  A premeditated and months-long online smear campaign including a defamatory web site with the victim's name is not an innocent "mistake".
5. Re:Approached from the wrong angle by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  It's much easier to toss the mouthy little bastards in jail for a short time.
  They will learn a very valuable lesson. The world does not respect abusive punks.
  Now get off my lawn.
6. Re:Approached from the wrong angle by 4D6963 · 2009-10-16 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Oh give me a break, people like you just love to pretend like any crime committed by minors can be completely averted with "better parenting" and that type of crap. It can't, because children are no better than adults, that's why there are laws.
  
  --
  You just got troll'd!
7. Re:Approached from the wrong angle by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  Because they're kids. That's what they do.
a girl calling another girl names? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:54 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Exactly. Good comment.

"new Texas law"

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.
1. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Shakrai · 2009-10-16 03:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Bruha · 2009-10-16 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Shakrai · 2009-10-16 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by twistedsymphony · 2009-10-16 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  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
5. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Shakrai · 2009-10-16 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by rockout · 2009-10-16 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
7. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Shakrai · 2009-10-16 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  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.
8. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:35 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  The south of the U.S. has a higher proportion of ignorant people than other areas.
  Citation needed.
9. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Bengie · 2009-10-16 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  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.
10. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by corbettw · 2009-10-16 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  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.
11. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  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
12. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Mister+Whirly · 2009-10-16 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  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!"
13. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Foobar+of+Borg · 2009-10-16 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  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
14. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by operagost · 2009-10-16 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
15. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  Citation needed.
  Common sense needed.
16. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Moryath · 2009-10-16 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  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.
17. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  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.
18. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Moryath · 2009-10-16 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  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.
19. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by JumpDrive · 2009-10-16 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  What?
  We thought you people up there were supporting these laws.
  So, who is supporting these laws?
20. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by AndersOSU · 2009-10-16 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
21. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  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?
22. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by AndersOSU · 2009-10-16 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  p.s. California is number 43 receiving only 78 cents out of every dollar it sends to Washington.
23. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by AndersOSU · 2009-10-16 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  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.
24. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Foobar+of+Borg · 2009-10-16 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  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
25. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Moryath · 2009-10-16 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  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?
26. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Foobar+of+Borg · 2009-10-16 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  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
27. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by node+3 · 2009-10-16 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  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.
28. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 22:48 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, Bill Clinton's from the South too...from Arkansas of all places. He's his own grandpa!
29. Re:a girl calling another girl names? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-19 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  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.
So... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 02:56 · Score: 0

Does this mean I can't threaten people on EVE for ransom money?
1. Re:So... by daveime · 2009-10-16 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, you'll still be able to raid their cans and loot their salvage.
discourage using somebody else's name online by rwv · 2009-10-16 03:00 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:discourage using somebody else's name online by LanMan04 · 2009-10-16 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Man, now everybody is going to find out I'm really a dog. Crap!
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
details man, i gotta have details by FudRucker · 2009-10-16 03:04 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:details man, i gotta have details by Tuss · 2009-10-16 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  harassment is not the same as trolling i hope.
  It depends on how you troll, I suppose. But I'd really hope it was. The Internet needs fewer trolls. A lot fewer.
2. Re:details man, i gotta have details by FudRucker · 2009-10-16 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  i just refute fallacies and inaccurate comments, i only troll when the person i am replying to is being chronically ignorant.
  
  --
  Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
You can't mod me down. by clandonald · 2009-10-16 03:09 · Score: 1, Funny

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:11 · Score: 0

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.
chief's words by mysidia · 2009-10-16 03:14 · Score: 1

"So, even if you're joking sometimes it can really hurt people and now it's against the law," said Chief Chavez.
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 law makes me angry. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:16 · Score: 0

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.
socialnetdef by muckracer · 2009-10-16 03:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

So what is the legal definition of a social networking site anyway. Is Slashdot a SNS?
1. Re:socialnetdef by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  That is likely to be one of the challenges to the law... though it is reasonable that a site could be considered a SNS based on the possibility or need to create an account and sign-in and the ability to directly message another user.
2. Re:socialnetdef by meyekul · 2009-10-16 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Considering I doubt that anyone here would actually want to meet or socialize with anyone else here, I'd say no. Slashdot is more like a big tree that we all like to piss on than a social networking site.
3. Re:socialnetdef by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  I'm glad I'm not in texas, so I can call you a bleeding cuntbag piece of dogshit asshole bated cumstain
  p.s. I hate you and your post sucks.
4. Re:socialnetdef by Nerdfest · 2009-10-16 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Historically it's been more of an anti-social networking site.
5. Re:socialnetdef by frank_adrian314159 · 2009-10-16 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Is Slashdot a SNS?
  Well, as social as they can be while they live in their Moms' basements.
  
  --
  That is all.
6. Re:socialnetdef by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 05:26 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  From the text of the law:
  1) "Commercial social networking site" means any
  business, organization, or other similar entity operating a website
  that permits persons to become registered users for the purpose of
  establishing personal relationships with other users through
  direct or real-time communication with other users or the creation
  of web pages or profiles available to the public or to other users.
  The term does not include an electronic mail program or a message
  board program.
7. Re:socialnetdef by apoc.famine · 2009-10-16 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's an ASNS, actually. Have you ever read the comments posted here?
  
  --
  Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
8. Re:socialnetdef by BJ_Covert_Action · 2009-10-16 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Not until they institute a '-1 VerbalTeabagging' moderation .... or should that be a +1?
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
9. Re:socialnetdef by Sarten-X · 2009-10-16 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter. All messages posted here are actually sent to a "message board program" so they're exempt from the law.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
10. Re:socialnetdef by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, shut up!
  Or I will send my brother over and he will make you.
I wish the Internet had never gone mainstream. by BlueKitties · 2009-10-16 03:17 · Score: 1

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]
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-10-16 03:28 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Charges have already been dropped. Just FYI by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:30 · Score: 0

It appears the charges have already been dropped.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/64444412.html
Evidence for an opinion---wtf? by jonaskoelker · 2009-10-16 03:31 · Score: 1, Informative

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.)
1. Re:Evidence for an opinion---wtf? by barbariccow · 2009-10-16 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  I believe your parent was making a statement of opinion.
  
  I'm assuming that you don't understand that a "felony" is different than other types of crimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony.
2. Re:Evidence for an opinion---wtf? by qortra · 2009-10-16 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  I stand corrected sir. "Evidence" was not the correct thing for which to ask. It was an honest mistake, and I had no intention of employing a dirty debating tactic.
  
  you tend to learn more* about the people you're conversing with
  In this context, I would prefer not to. In truth, I have no interest in personal anecdotal reasoning for peoples' opinions. I would prefer to hear cogent reasoning based on sound moral theory. Reasoning of the form, "I like [x] governmental policy because it benefits me" bores me deeply.
3. Re:Evidence for an opinion---wtf? by jonaskoelker · 2009-10-16 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Explanation accepted, good sir! :)
  
  Reasoning of the form, "I like [x] governmental policy because it benefits me" bores me deeply.
  Depending on whether or not it's bad for society at large or not, you get to call them a selfish bastard! ;-) ... or just introducing the idea of optimizing social welfare (maximizing the sum of how well-off each individual is) to their thinking.
  
  I would prefer to hear cogent reasoning based on sound moral theory.
  As would I ("you and I are not so different, you know..." :D). I just don't know that there are any axioms one can take for granted---and in any case, that probably becomes "I'm of the opinion that axiom set A is good/best/true/valid". The ", thus [...]" part might be great, though :)
  A good day to you :)
How long until.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:33 · Score: 0

...all crimes, no matter what, are felonies and the only punishment handed out is death?
Try this by AliasMarlowe · 2009-10-16 03:40 · Score: 2, Funny

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
1. Re:Try this by Schmorgluck · 2009-10-16 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  "Anyone who reads this need not necessarily feel neither unoffended nor unharassed notwithstanding their lack of failure to misconstrue its import."
  English is not my primary language, but I got the meaning of the sentence. Being a programmer gives an edge in handling double or triple negatives, I guess. That, or having been fond of games of logic since childhood.
  However, I'm perplexed by the verb 'need', here. Does English have some obscure grammatical rule that makes "Anyone who reads this" a plural pronominal phrase, even though "Anyone" is a singular pronoun?
  
  --
  There's nothing like $HOME
2. Re:Try this by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  I speaks good engrish and i don't know what you saying
3. Re:Try this by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  So would this sort of thing be against the law in Texas?
  Indeed it would be against the law, unless the judge was in the 1% who could understand it.
4. Re:Try this by imagoon · 2009-10-16 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  'reads' is not plural in this case, it indicates that an action happens but the time is undefined. IE 'Bob fishes here'. Bob might not be fishing there at that time, but we know that he does fish here. So 'Anyone who reads this' indicates an unknown person at an unknown time 'is reading'
  *I am not an English teacher, I am sure there is a name for it.
5. Re:Try this by Schmorgluck · 2009-10-16 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  I never suggested that 'reads' was plural. It's an obvious third person singular present conjugation of the verb 'to read'.
  What I wonder is why the verb 'to need' isn't conjugated third person singular present too, since it ultimately shares the same subject as 'to read'.
  In other words, personnally I would have written "Anyone who reads this needs not necessarily feel..."
  It's not that I want to go all grammar nazi: while I'm attached to proper spelling, I don't go hunting for random typos in online posts (well, except mines). But the correctness of the sentence in English was kinda part of the post's statement, so I felt entitled to indulge in some friendly nitpicking.
  
  --
  There's nothing like $HOME
6. Re:Try this by n+dot+l · 2009-10-16 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  The verb in the sentence isn't need, it's the phrase need not, meaning is not required to, or it is not necessary for (the sentence subject) to (the sentence object). "Need not" doesn't change in any conjugation. "He need not", "we need not", and "they need not" are all correct.
  It's a semi-archaic formulation that isn't used often, but it's still common in literature and formal speech.
7. Re:Try this by MalleusEBHC · 2009-10-16 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Any sentence that requires an application of De Morgan's laws to parse the unending stream of negatives does not count as "plainly stated" English.
8. Re:Try this by Schmorgluck · 2009-10-16 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, thanks, I get it. I should have known that.
  
  --
  There's nothing like $HOME
9. Re:Try this by AliasMarlowe · 2009-10-16 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  Any sentence that requires an application of De Morgan's laws to parse the unending stream of negatives does not count as "plainly stated" English.
  It does, in court. Plain language to one who works with intricate nuances of meaning (attorneys, lobbyists) can appear quite obfuscated to those who don't. And complex wording possibly exists in some of the license agreements you've signed or clicked through...
  
  Several chains of conditionally negated combinations of negatives, expressed as being additional or alternative to one another, can sometimes be the clearest unambiguous expression of a particular state. The alternative description would be a long paragraph containing sentences of "Jill & John" complexity, but whose aggregate meaning would still need to be assembled through their implied dependencies, and may suffer from ambiguity due to its wordiness. I agree that it does not happen often, and can often be circumvented by skillful choice of simpler phrases, but this situation can occur. At least, it sometimes does in my profession (engineer), where in some cases the shorter "complicated" phrasing is clearly preferable, because the simpler wording would actually introduce greater obfuscation (through length of expression and ambiguity of simplified terms). Of course, these cases are usually only for documents where a suitable level of reading comprehension can be assumed in the audience (design specifications, contracts, etc.). I would not use such phrasing in any user document.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
10. Re:Try this by imagoon · 2009-10-22 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I don't remember the exact rule. Then again it could be one of the English language's many "special cases."
Why not a misdemeanor or infraction? by OrangeTide · 2009-10-16 03:41 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:Why not a misdemeanor or infraction? by Criton · 2009-10-16 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Because that would actually make sense and would be fitting of the infraction. This is Texas we're talking about where logic does not apply. This law does run afoul of the first amendment freedom of speech. Besides it's not exactly hard to block a user from your site and delete any posts you are not happy with. In fact it's normal to have to do this on any social networking site. If this is too difficult then don't use them. Also do not put your personal info on a publicly viewed site.
"... one or more messages ..." by booyabazooka · 2009-10-16 03:44 · Score: 1

How can one message be harassment?
1. Re:"... one or more messages ..." by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  How can any message be harrasment when you have to actively seek out the message or choose to not block it? I mean these aren't phone calls. These are notes on your car windshield. These aren't flowers being sent to your place of work. These are messages posted online possible where people the "victim" will never visit...possible where people the "victim" does not even know will read it. How does this harm the victim in any way? In harrasment you have to show emotional of physical harm. You can't just say that person is mean to me do something about it...yet all these Barney children think like that. I wonder how gutless and cowardly people will be in the future. Seriously in the olden days this kinda crap wouldn't fly. The victim just whines to her dad and the dad goes to beat up the other girls dad...problem resolved.
Look Busy Work by Demonantis · 2009-10-16 03:48 · Score: 1

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.
Harmful? Are they kidding??? by MarkvW · 2009-10-16 03:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!
Vigorous enforcement doesn't imply harsh penalty by jonaskoelker · 2009-10-16 03:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?
I'll sue by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:52 · Score: 0

"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!
porno izle by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 03:56 · Score: 0

Thanks. porno seyret
You don't know what "mainstream" means. by argent · 2009-10-16 03:57 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:You don't know what "mainstream" means. by frank_adrian314159 · 2009-10-16 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Back when Internet Access was something you got under the table, THEN it really MEANT something.
  I think you meant to say "Back when giving someone internet access meant they gave me SOMETHING under the table, ...".
  
  --
  That is all.
2. Re:You don't know what "mainstream" means. by argent · 2009-10-16 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think you meant to say "Back when giving someone internet access meant they gave me SOMETHING under the table, ...".
  You do realize we're talking about people like Dilbert and Wally, right? o_O
3. Re:You don't know what "mainstream" means. by BlueKitties · 2009-10-16 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I meant to say "since before..."
  
  My folks needed Internet for work purposes (I don't even really remember what it was anymore.) But I've had Internet access since as long as I can remember. My dad also had one of the earlier cellular phones -- it was huge, and actually had a big curly cord. It was like a regular corded phone, but bigger. Still, as someone who can read COBOL, I reserve the right to act like an old phogie.
  
  --
  "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
Does Slashdot qualify? by mi · 2009-10-16 04:09 · Score: 1

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.
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.
It is the path of least resistence by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

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.
1. Re:It is the path of least resistence by Moryath · 2009-10-16 04:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
  All of a sudden it begins to sound reasonable... basic law should be written in normal language.
  Lawyers have invented legalese to make themselves indispensible, because no normally-functioning human can understand half the laws in the land. "Common law" and "precedent" dictate that nobody can even know what constitutes an infringement at a given time. In fact, not even the government can tell you how many possible felonies there are any more thanks to laws that are based on treaties, based on "you can't do this if it would violate the law of some shithole country whose government gets overthrown every 6 months but we have a treaty with them and a whole bunch of other countries" or based on "a regulation yet to be created by a government bureaucracy or shithead appointee to be named later."
  It may be time for a reset. Toss everything out, rewrite the laws to be clearly understandable, re-institute basic civics courses in public school, and go from there. I'd rather not have it get to the point where I have to consult a fucking lawyer before tying my shoes or using a public restroom, but it might one day come to that the way we're currently headed.
2. Re:It is the path of least resistence by nomadic · 2009-10-16 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  All of a sudden it begins to sound reasonable... basic law should be written in normal language.
  
  IAAL. Give me an example of a "basic law in normal language." And I will show how people will be able to either twist it or how it is so overly broad that it encompasses even completely inoffensive, harmless behavior, or I will link you to a similar law that actually IS written in simple language.
Everyone, can we just please... by jellybear · 2009-10-16 04:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

... 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.
Re:Vigorous enforcement doesn't imply harsh penalt by Tenek · 2009-10-16 04:21 · Score: 1

No. Texas implies harsh penalty.
You people are a bunch of schizophrenic morons by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:22 · Score: 0

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...
Translation: by nimbius · 2009-10-16 04:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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.
1. Re:Translation: by Runaway1956 · 2009-10-16 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  So, which of the big words did you have difficulty with? Maybe I can help you. You'll remember that Uncle (half brother, really) Rastius told you to stay in school. You should have taken his advice!
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Newsflash: Teenagers are stupid and selfish by ShannaraFan · 2009-10-16 04:34 · Score: 1

I own two of them, I know.
Re:Harmful? Are they kidding??? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 04:56 · Score: 0

They drafted the law so Gov. Perry can attack people who point out his obvious signs of teh ghey.
"My intent was to mock the statute" by davidwr · 2009-10-16 04:58 · Score: 1

"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.
Re:Idiocracy-Goat Love by frank_adrian314159 · 2009-10-16 04:59 · Score: 1

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.
Minors? by phorm · 2009-10-16 05:07 · Score: 1

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?
1. Re:Minors? by cbreaker · 2009-10-16 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, but not necessarily. Because the police made such a big deal about it, who knows. Since the police are there to catch people after they've done illegal things, instead of stopping crimes or protecting people, they'll push for the maximum possible sentence.
  
  It depends on the DA and ultimately the judge. Being 16 is a hell of a lot better than being 17 when it comes to these things.
  
  More likely, if convicted (or plead out, which is probably likely) she'll have this on the record and as long as she doesn't fuck up again in a few years she can petition the courts to have that particular charge or conviction sealed.
  
  --
  - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
2. Re:Minors? by treat · 2009-10-16 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  Haha.
  If you are 16, the courts decide whether to treat you as a minor on a case-by-case basis.
  A "sealed" record only means that the word "sealed" is printed on it somewhere.
  If you are 16 or under, get arrested for a felony, and it is handled under the juvenile system, your record will show a felony arrest (all the expungement and sealing in the world will not get rid of this). The expungement/sealing that takes place will prevent the record from showing that it was handled in this manner, and it will look like an open felony case. If an employer is generous, they will allow you to get the records - which being sealed, requires an in-person visit from the defendant. Either way, if you succeed you start off your employment in a bad light, and if you fail, you just quit your old job to take a new one that fired you in your first month due to background check issues.
Context and understanding by phorm · 2009-10-16 05:17 · Score: 1

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.
I feel you by abbynormal+brain · 2009-10-16 05:21 · Score: 0

... 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
But, but, but... by billybob_jcv · 2009-10-16 05:35 · Score: 1

...Judge, he needed killing, and my family is involved!
Re:Newsflash: Teenagers are stupid and selfish by saiha · 2009-10-16 05:40 · Score: 1

Everyone is stupid and selfish, its just that you get better at hiding it as you get older.
HAHAHAHAHA by macbeth66 · 2009-10-16 05:52 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:HAHAHAHAHA by Korin43 · 2009-10-16 07:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Then that seems to be a problem with the current law in all cases, not a need for a new law for a specific case.
There should be zero-tolerance for laws like this. by Dreadneck · 2009-10-16 06:05 · Score: 1

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.
plzdiethx Tag by aquatone282 · 2009-10-16 06:09 · Score: 1

God, I love /. humor.

--
What?
Physical Abuse? by tarlss · 2009-10-16 06:28 · Score: 1

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.
Need more details by Fujisawa+Sensei · 2009-10-16 06:52 · Score: 1

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.
You read the article? You read the LAW!? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 07:12 · Score: 0

Heretic! Unclean! You are not of the body!
nope... by onemorechip · 2009-10-16 07:43 · Score: 1

That's "battery".

--
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Re: by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 07:53 · Score: 0

sticks and stones!
The SHAC 7 case is a bigger deal, related by HongPong · 2009-10-16 08:11 · Score: 1

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:

The conviction of the SHAC 7–animal rights activists hit with “terrorism” charges for publishing a website and vocally, unapologetically supporting direct action–has been upheld by a U.S. appellate court. It is a landmark free speech ruling that lowers the threshold of what types of conduct are protected by the First Amendment, and upholds a law that is so broad that it targets civil disobedience as “terrorism.”
As a brief introduction: The “SHAC 7” of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty ran an effective campaign that had the sole purpose of putting Huntingdon Life Sciences, a notorious animal testing company, out of business. The campaign pressured corporations to sever ties with the lab. The SHAC 7 were never accused of breaking windows or releasing animals from labs, but they supported those who did. They published a website which posted news of both legal and illegal tactics, and supported all of it. The website had also posted names and addresses of individuals connected to the corporations targeted. ....Supporting and facilitating non-violent civil disobedience is not protected speech.
As part of their campaign, SHAC supporters were emailed about “electronic civil disobedience.” The email and message board posts included instructions on how electronically “sit in” on corporate web sites through emails, faxes and phone calls.
Now, one of the benchmarks in First Amendment law is what is called the Brandenburg standard. It holds that even the most controversial and inflammatory speech is protected as long as it not likely to incite “imminent and lawless action.” That is a very high threshold. In this court ruling—which, to the best of my knowledge and the attorneys I have spoken with is the first of its kind—the written word can be construed as promoting, or resulting in, imminent and lawless action.
To put it more plainly: Vocally supporting civil disobedience, explaining what it involves, and encouraging/facilitating people to take part is not protected speech.
This is so important let me say it again, another way: People who write about civil disobedience and encourage people to take part can be found convicted of a crime even if they do not take part in the civil disobedience.
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
lori drew: by circletimessquare · 2009-10-16 08:18 · Score: 1

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
Surely felony is a bit much by sjames · 2009-10-16 08:41 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Surely felony is a bit much by Criton · 2009-10-16 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  I can't agree more really this should be small potatoes. A standard restraining order would have done the job. But it's seems school faculty have no spine and the intelligence of a seaslug anymore no that would be an insult to gastropods.
Re:Newsflash: Teenagers are stupid and selfish by guyminuslife · 2009-10-16 08:59 · Score: 1

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 you by Joe+The+Dragon · 2009-10-16 09:01 · Score: 1

and he can just take your book and press it to your face and say hear is your facebook!
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 09:26 · Score: 0

"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*
Texas sucks dick. Its run by crooked assholes. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-10-16 09:54 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Newsflash: Teenagers are stupid and selfish by selven · 2009-10-16 10:57 · Score: 1

-$121700 seems fair. Your counteroffer?
Re:Newsflash: Teenagers are stupid and selfish by Cassander · 2009-10-16 11:29 · Score: 1

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
Re:hold still dammit by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-16 12:25 · Score: 0

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, ...
Meanwhile in Chicago... by Bl4ckJ3sus · 2009-10-16 14:43 · Score: 1

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-/
Texas it's like a whole nother Country like Iran. by Criton · 2009-10-16 14:55 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Harmful? Are they kidding??? by Criton · 2009-10-16 15:01 · Score: 1

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.
Because they're kids by ZmeiGorynych · 2009-10-16 18:38 · Score: 1

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.
There goes my dreams by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-19 03:13 · Score: 0

There goes my dreams of being harassed by 16 year old girls.