Slashdot Mirror
Texas Teen Arrested Under New Online Harassment Law
SpaceGhost sends in a story from San Antonio, TX: "Police have arrested a 16-year-old girl on charges of harassment under a new Texas law that took effect September 1, 2009. H.B. 2003 says a person commits a third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person. Police say the harassment went on for a few months and involved a dispute over a boy. ... Some people expect legal challenges to the constitutionality of the new Internet law.' The law is evidently a response to the Lori Drew case.
"I respectfully submit that the defendant is a Meanie-Head in the first degree!"
"My client wishes the court to know that the witness, in fact, 'started it'."
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.
Obviously Texas lawmakers are unfamiliar with the legal principle "Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" If I post online that Cmdr Taco is a goat fucker, have I really "harmed" him or his reputation in any way? It's not slander unless a reasonable person would believe it to be true, and no rational person believes Taco actually dates outside his own species (unlike Captain Kirk).
There's a big difference between saying "This person, IMHO, is an asshole" and "I'm gonna punch your face until you bleed from the asshole" (just an example, I have never ever said such horrendous things. I'm appalled that you would take me for that kind of person you fucking piece of shit! I'LL KILL YOU!)
But seriously, I tell my kid and other kids in my family - don't say anything you wouldn't say in person. And if you threaten someone in person, well that's assault.
People need to learn that being a SHITCOCK Internet Fuckwad is unacceptable. People also need to grow thicker skin, but when it truly hurts someone it's time to stop.
...make bad laws.
Of course, she's a minor being 16 so the punishment will most likely be up to the judge and expunged at age 18 but for you adults who like to poke and prod people online ... better think twice in states where these kind of laws are enforced lest you target the wrong person.
My work here is dung.
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".
Here's the new hot sport: intimidation bait!
Step 1: Write something so stupid and of bad taste that some people will just have to reply to intimidate or threaten you.
Step 2: See a picture of them in handcuffs in tomorrow's newspapers.
Can of worms, I dub thee COLOSUS!
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
I'm not so sure laws needed to be made for something that amounts to name calling. If the name calling extends to harassment we already have laws in place.
The only fix to this problem is proper parrenting and teaching kids how to respect and really communicate with one another. Even removing anonymity doesn't fix this problem (and I am completely against any attempt to remove it). I am aware that Anecdotes aren't evidence but I've been "bullied" online (if you want to call it that) by girls who went to the same school as I, they were well aware I knew who they were and they knew who I was. How did I respond? I walked up to them the next day and kindly asked them to continue calling me names now that we are face to face. They just slithered away muttering half apologies and never messaged me again.
Sorry to reply to myself but I found a list of felonies in the third degree for the state of Texas if you want to compare this new law to older laws resulting in the same degree of punishment. Apparently a third degree felony punishment (as noted in my parent post) can be meted out for anything ranging from arson to assault to conducting a game of bingo without a license.
My work here is dung.
I honestly think this is a good law. Case in point: a kid in my little brother's class created a myspace page using my brother's name and picture and put some truly disturbing stuff on there. We only found out about it because one of his classmates texted him asking about it. The headmaster of our school almost expelled him over it. This is a very serious thing. It can cause emotional damage to the victim, and can ruin their reputation. The kid who did it sent all kinds of rude and nasty messages to people who saw my brother's page and sent friend requests. This law is a good idea.
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.
"Think of the Children!"
"The Children are Trolls"
"Uh... I meant only think about SOME children SOME of the time... I think?"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Harassment online should be no different than harassment offline. If I send an email threating to break someone's leg how is that any different than a message over the phone or in person? Why do people make a big deal that otherwise illegal behavior is somehow legal online? Intimidation, coercion and other forms of threatening behavior are all readily accepted as illegal offline, this case has absolutely no defense in the first amendment (and I'm usually the one defending it).
If you go to the article, the article explains:
<i>It seems the goal of the new law was to discourage using the name or persona of another person to create a Web page.</i>
If she really did this, she should be punished. Now, there's a good point that a felony charge may be too strict and existing laws about libel and false light should cover it (though there could be loopholes that keep it from doing so), but the general idea that we shouldn't tolerate this behavior is pretty sensible. Contrary to popular belief, trolling isn't actually good, and the fact that you can get away with it doesn't mean you should get away with it. Harassment is wrong, and I have no problem with the law punishing it.
(And for the Slashdotter who said "she wouldn't be charged with a felony if this was done in person", exactly how do you put up a web page under someone else's name in person?)
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.
Is there any existing case law that confirms that "IRL" speech with "intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten" is a felony? If so, then just because it's online, doesn't mean you can get away with it.
I can see "defraud" (I promise a 15% return on your investment) and "threaten" (Steal my girl and I'll cap your knees) as speech types that aren't protected, but I'm not so sure about "harm" and "intimidate". We'll just have to see. One things for certain, it'll make an interesting case to watch.
I void warranties.
third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person
LOL, by that standard, the entire fucking state of Texas should be arrested for the shit I see them say every day about the President. Don't mess with Texas!*
*And by "mess" we mean to consider a democratically and validly elected official office legitimate, and especially if you know, he ain't your kind of bigot.
Why punish based on medium rather than content? Is it any different from posting paper threatening messages on a school bulletin board? Again, lawmakers think Internet has some scary magic powers rather than being a new communication medium for old humans.
She should be on death row by Monday morning.
"The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein," - Joe Theisman
Here's the text. Basically all it targets are people who harass others online assuming another person's identity. One girl creating a profile for another, where she claims to be a homosexual drug user who steals to support her habit would fall under this. Generic harassment doesn't. About the only thing that is far-reaching, and it's likely based on ignorance, is the "domain address" language which could be twisted by a prosecutor.
Perhaps the law goes too far on the punishment side, but it doesn't prohibit any behavior which is protected by the first amendment. Only a moron would say "there are first amendment issues" since this law is little more than a double whammy on libel and slander.
The caption here is somewhat deceptive. I believe that the law that's being referenced is as follows:
Sec. 33.07. ONLINE HARASSMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses the name or persona of another person to create a web page on or to post one or more messages on a commercial social networking site:
(1) without obtaining the other person's consent; and
(2) with the intent to harass, embarrass, intimidate, or threaten any person.
If that's the case it's really the misappropriation of identity that's the problem. Without that element there's no way this survives constitutional challenge (can't turn protected speech to a felony just because it's published). To be honest I'm so fed up with all forms of identity theft I have no sympathy for offenders.
/. should try to get a volunteer prosecuted for violating a Term of Service in a hilarious manner. Try to get some free legal counsel for both sides from civil liberties group or from a law firm looking for publicity and then run the sham law suit as far as possible in the court system.
I think it's critical to set precedent by addressing the issue directly rather than via an emotionally confused case. By the same token, I think it would be fun to run a few sham software licence related law suits through the courts. Come on! It'll be fun!
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
posts like yours would also constitute a felony, as I'd consider posting an asinine comment as harassment. how's that for equal logic?
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).
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
What she should have done is get her victim to sign up to some app with small print in the "Accept" opting in to the harassment emails. After all it worked for Toyota.
We should really look at the emotional/psychological reasons that these kids are attacking each other and come up with strategies for treating those issues rather than arresting children for mistakes they make online.
How can that be?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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. -
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
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. -
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.
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
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 what is the legal definition of a social networking site anyway. Is Slashdot a SNS?
The moment overprotective parents and eurosocialist progressives realized the Internet existed, we have had a huge boom of twits who think they can just join in and start passing laws. For christsake, I've been on the Internet since AOL was metering dialup usage -- you weren't here, ignorant masses, and neither were your ignorant oppressive laws. If you don't like our Internet, get out.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
The south of the U.S. has a higher proportion of ignorant people than other areas.
Yet people keep moving there because they can actually afford to live in the South without being taxed and regulated to death. As someone who was born, raised and still lives in the Northeast, let me assure you that it's no paradise.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?"
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.
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.)
hahaha
...
Pick a social networking site, and make a public announcement on your "wall" (or whatever they call it) as follows:
"Anyone who reads this need not necessarily feel neither unoffended nor unharassed notwithstanding their lack of failure to misconstrue its import."
It's plain English, plainly stated, and clear enough to about 1% of the population. Obviously, it would intimidate the 99% of Americans who cannot parse or comprehend it, and many of them would feel both offended and harassed as well as insulted. They might feel that it must have been posted with the intention of offending or intimidating them.
So would this sort of thing be against the law in Texas?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
It seems like the perfect sort of thing to be categorized as a misdemeanor. Not something that sticks with you for the rest of your life, but something where you are given a fine and maybe community service. A felony (even third degree) seems like an excessive response to an imaginary problem.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I live in NH, most of the people who move there from MA do so to get away from MA politics the rest of them just vacation here (traveling north on Friday nights or South on Sunday nights is a real hassle)... it's still less screwed up than any other state I've ever been to. As much as I hate the weather here, there's no other place I'd rather live.
Collector's Edition
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.
How can one message be harassment?
Its more political then fair. If you have a tough sentence then you get headlines and people think your laws are making a difference. The tough sentence is argued as a deterrence for others which most people will accept. It "reduces the number of court cases"(not really in practice) so it is beneficial to the already over taxed court system. Removes that argument when passing such a broad and aggressive law, like this one. That is how it happens. What the parents should have done is sit them down and talk it out. The courts is not the way to go. If that failed they could have easily gotten a peace treaty(Canadian Law, not sure if there is an analog in the States). It is like a reduced restraining order which makes sense. Making this law really superfluous.
Will this law ever make it past the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals?
It looks really overbroad. I can say something with the intent to harm you that is totally legal and absolutely protected by the First Amendment. I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your business interests (by advancing mine at your expense); I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your political interest (to get your sorry ass out of office); and I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your religious interest (because your religious influence is heretical).
It also appears (from the lame summary and article) that truth is no defense. So, that if I harm you with the truth--I can go to prison.
And that's only some ideas from the point of view of the POSTER.
The social networking sites themselves are getting screwed over, here. What is the COMPELLING governmental reason for jacking up the criminal speech regulation on social networking sites and not on blogs and newspapers????? There is no compelling reason for such a limitation on free speech and my bet is that some lawyers are going to have an easy, fun, and lucrative time taking this law DOWNTOWN.
Anyway, thanks very much to the Texas legislature for providing another money-stream to the lawyers. They'll be the only ones having fun with this dog of a law!
Having been a victim of such harassment in the past myself I agree wholeheartedly [should be felony] I reported it to the police however they fairly resoundingly didn't appear to give a toss.
Do you believe this girl deserves a minimum stint of 2 years in jail with a maximum of 10 plus a fine up to $10,000?
It might be possible for the police force to actively and vigorously enforce a particular law and still have punishments that are reasonable taking the nature and consequences of the actual crime (or misdemeanor, or miscellaneous bad deed) into consideration.
Hypothetically, at least ;-)
Would that perhaps be a good thing?
(I think) I believe people should be protected from harassment if it really damages them. It should be enforced, but the punishment should fit the crime.
It's maybe somewhat analogous to stupid enforcement of child porn laws. Anything without mutual informed consent is bad; whatever people do in their own homes that stays there and doesn't harm anyone is not something I should have any say about, and I defer having an opinion about the remaining 0.1% of the cases. That would be a decent set of principles to enforce. But punishing two mid-teen adolescents for having sex with each other (with mutual consent) and taking pictures of it (with consent) is just stupid.
Protect people, enforce good rules, but don't banish people from society just because they call others a poopface.
Restraining orders, house arrest, surveillance... they might be a good start?
The weather can't be that much worse than Upstate New York :) How hard is it to find IT and teaching jobs up there?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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. -
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.
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.
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. -
I lived there for a few years. Moved back to NY to be closer to family. I'll probably wind leaving again soon because I'm rather sick of paying out 50% of my wages in taxes and not being able to exercise my 2nd amendment rights.
Mores the pity, because I actually like it here. It's one of the most beautiful places on Earth. Too bad that the whole state is being run into the toilet by a handful of powerful asshats from New York City.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
... think about the children? Thank you.
No, I didn't say think about civil liberties - stop that. Think about the children. Keep thinking about them. No, don't think about checks and balances. Listen to me, just think about the children. There. Good man.
No. Texas implies harsh penalty.
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.
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. -
"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.
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.
I own two of them, I know.
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
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.
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.
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
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".
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.
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...
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. -
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. -
"But your honor, my intent was not to 'harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person.' My intent was to make a mockery out of H.B. 2003. As you can see from the clear wording of the statute, mocking the statute does not violate the statute."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Whether we can legislate politeness is another matter.
Yes, but we can make goat fucking legal now! Free Captain James T. Kirk!
That is all.
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
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;
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?
ahhhh... I see the problem here.
Now what is it you were saying about some little girl calling her names?
Walk with Music;
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.
The south of the U.S. has a higher proportion of ignorant people than other areas.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't live in the southern US. Which makes this post top contender for Ironic Statement of the Year.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
The problem is that we - as geeks - understand that just because you tack on "on the internet" to something it doesn't change the fundamentals in many cases.
However, those in the legal system may or may not have as much understanding of the internet as those with technical knowledge. For example, posting a couple of nasty things during an argument on an online chat or whatever is not really different from doing so during a playground scuffle, and can probably be quickly forgotten as such unless the "bully" is continually following somebody around online for the purposes of said harassment.
Starting a fake blog that indicates that person X has a fetish for little boys or some other such thing is much more serious, more akin to putting up leaflets or something of the like.
Having something in law that might address the differences between different mediums might not be such a bad thing. The problem is the rate at which new mediums spring up and which category they fall under. Perhaps an actual "panel of experts" might be needed in such cases if those in law lack the technical knowledge to differentiate them, so that proper precedents can be set.
If just writing "John C is a c*** s*****" in a heated moment of gaming is enough to get you put in jail... that's not good, and courts do need to recognise the differences between both situations and media of communication.
At the moment you have a 50-50 chance that a serious issue is going to be overlooked (no enforcement), or a non-serious issue is going to be overstated (excessive/unnecessary enforcement), because things aren't really understood in an internet venue.
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
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
Yes, and every school-yard scrap is assault and battery - even attempted murder. Sure.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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;
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.
...Judge, he needed killing, and my family is involved!
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
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. -
Everyone is stupid and selfish, its just that you get better at hiding it as you get older.
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.
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.
Why thank you! I will be here all week...
Walk with Music;
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!"
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
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.
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
I grew up in the South so I can absolutely testify that it does indeed have the highest concentration of idiots that it was ever my displeasure to live around. The real estate is cheaper simply because no one wants to live there, at least until they retire. And then it is mostly white people living in almost all-white neighborhoods. And taxes in places like North Carolina are actually not that much less than New England. Plus, you don't get jack squat for your taxes. I'll take somewhat higher taxes if it lets me live where people are actually somewhat civilized and have at least two working brain cells.
Oh, and in the South, when they fuck something up (*when*, not *if*) they try to act there is something wrong with *you* for trying to get them to fix it. I've even had a cashier who screwed up scanning items (because we know how horribly complicated bar code scanners are to use) and almost overcharging me say "It's only four dollars" when the manager had to come over and fix her screw up.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
What constitutes 'harm'? What constitutes 'intimidation'? Laws like this are so broad in their language that they inevitably lead to absurd abuses of individual rights.
A personal example that comes to mind are the idiotic 'zero-tolerance' policies in our public schools. My brother had to meet with the principle of my nephew's school because my nephew defended himself when three kids tried to jump him at school. My brother had to stand there and explain to the principal (who was rightly embarrassed by having to enforce this ridiculous policy) that the day he tells his son to stand there and take an ass whipping will be the day that hell freezes over.
In contrast to the aforementioned ridiculous and pathetic situation, before society lost its mind in search of a world of wall to wall safety bumpers, I offer a more personal example. One day in the 5th grade, a larger, older kid started picking on me on the way to the learning resource center. I told him to lay off. He persisted. I chased him down (he ran when I turned on him) and whipped his ass. After I explained to the principal what had happened, I got sent back to class and the little punk got three days suspension.
I learned that day that standing up for yourself in the face of unwarranted abuse is right and proper and the other kid learned that screwing with people has consequences - and that's as it should be.
My nephew was taught a very different lesson. He was taught that self-defense is a crime and that the authorities will punish you for defending yourself - even in the face of imminent bodily harm and/or death!.
Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
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.
God, I love /. humor.
What?
No, the south has the most babies born to teens. Up north, abortions are more common. South Carolina may be an exception; teen pregnancy is simply out of control down there.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't worry, you'll still be able to raid their cans and loot their salvage.
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;
What?
We thought you people up there were supporting these laws.
So, who is supporting these laws?
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!
That's "battery".
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
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. -
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:)
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.
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. -
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.
Everyone should check this out. A group called Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC) ran a website that supported putting the seriously nasty Huntington Life Sciences animal testing corporation out of business. They were quite successful but now the SHAC7 are getting crushed via the ridiculous Animal Enterprise Terrorism laws & etc. This seems a lot worse than the Texas situation because this is about anti-corporate political websites rather than simple social networking harassment. See http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/shac-7-conviction-upheld-on-appeal/2307/ . A really, really dangerous appeals court ruling came out that should scare the hell out of anyone that wants to effectively organize against corporate trolls via the Internet:
Another thing happening is extreme Grand Jury fishing expeditions against green activists - we had a grand jury thing go down in Minneapolis just this week. See http://tc.indymedia.org/ for the latest on this.
--hongpong.com
p.s. California is number 43 receiving only 78 cents out of every dollar it sends to Washington.
1. knew her victim
2. created a sustained longterm effort
3. involved trickery and lying and emotional manipulation
4. was an adult preying on a child
5. knew the child had emotional problems
that's pretty specific
any law crafted after the lori drew case would work fine to punish future lori drews if its language zeroed in on these highlights. anything more broad of course, is avenue for inapplicability
an adult preyed on emotionally disturbed child they knew, for a day? thats not longterm
another child preyed on an emotionally disturbed child they knew in the longterm? it wasn't an adult committing the crime
an adult preyed on an emotionally disturbed child they didn't know over the longterm? they didn't know them
etc
if the law is specific enough, no problem
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
shocking that there are impoverished and crime ridden minority areas in states that legally had sundown towns until 40 years ago...
Suburban sprawl is an economic effect - the fact that one ethnic group is wildly over represented can only be explained by racial causes. No one chooses to live in a ghetto, if only white people have the resources to get out - that's a racial problem.
Um, moron, I am white. I never said *anything* about hating white people. YOU assumed that. I was simply complaining about all the mono-racial neighborhoods and the fact that tons of white people move into these nearly all-white neighborhoods in the South. The kind of attitude that engenders is similar to yours. It's people like that who would shout "Nigger lover!" at me from the back of their pickup trucks for simply being out with some friends, a few of whom were not white. As the AC GP stated, your response says more about you.
Oh, and white people aren't moving into all-white Southern neighborhoods because of "white flight". That's another one of your baseless assumptions (have you even been out of the South before???). What they are doing is selling the $800k houses whose mortgages have finally been paid off and moving where they can pay $200k in cash for new construction. It gives them over half a million right off the bat for retirement money. Plus, the places they are moving to have very retiree-friendly tax codes.
Anyway, I should have more properly referred to the neighborhoods as largely mono-racial rather than largely white since Southerners tend to segregate themselves more. I guess it is because of all the racial hatred down there brought about by, well, people like you. If I go with my wife to some place like Seattle or New York, *no one notices us*. We're just another couple. If I visit relatives in the South, however, the *best* we get is tons of stares if we go anywhere together. Again, from people like you who then make a bunch of assinine comments to their friends about us while somehow thinking that sound does not travel beyond the person you intended to hear it.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
This really sounds like the sort of things parents and school principals should be handling, not the "justice" system. Felony charges are a bit much. Police involvement is a bit much.
If it really has gotten bad, I'll bet that if the sheriff showed up with a restraining order for her and her parents to sign off on, that would have made a sufficient impression that this was a serious issue without messing anyone up for life.
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
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
I'll buy them off of you for a good price.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
and he can just take your book and press it to your face and say hear is your facebook!
I grew up in a Midwestern city on Lake Michigan. More than 3/4 of my somewhat long life was spent there. Survived the existence of commie Frank Zeidler's rule as mayor. You might have heard of us - we're the city that made Beer famous.
The people that we hang out with? Let's see... white guy married to latino woman. White guy married to latino woman. White guy dating black girl. Black guy married to white woman. White guy married to white woman. White guy married to white woman. Latino guy engaged to white woman. Indian (dot, not feather) woman dating black guy. Asian guy who I can remember dating every single race at one point or another.
You were saying again?
Why the fuck would I shout "nigger lover" or anything of the sort? Why would I shout anything at all? The truth is, you get a black woman dating a white or latino or asian guy, and you watch the screams and stares and racist shit that comes out of the "black folk"'s mouths about them "takin' our wimmin." It'll equal anything you claim to have heard in the other direction.
Here's a hint: Chris Rock had it right. Get the hint: if you are hateful, it doesn't matter what color you are. If you are a thug, if you are a criminal, if you're going to behave as a jerk to the rest of the world, I don't give a shit what color you are. "Race" doesn't cause problems in society, economics and people who are just assholes are the cause of problems in society.
Oh, and white people aren't moving into all-white Southern neighborhoods because of "white flight". That's another one of your baseless assumptions (have you even been out of the South before???). What they are doing is selling the $800k houses whose mortgages have finally been paid off and moving where they can pay $200k in cash for new construction.
Bull-fucking-shit. Who are they supposedly selling these $800k houses to then?
My current neighborhood, 5 years ago, was 30% white, 40% asian, 10% black, 20% latino. It's now 5% asian, 10% white, 40% black, 45% latino. There's also been a pair of "low income targeted housing" apartment complexes dropped in a mile down the street from us (average house price, prior to that construction, was ~$140,000). Crime, especially gang-related crime (drug busts, drug/gang-related fights, and arrests at the local high school) is now 4 times what it was five years ago.
Elim Garak: "I believe in coincidence. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidence." Tell me, what would YOU think of the situation above? What would you do, faced with a school system going to shit and trying to raise your kids? Probably the same thing all the asians except for the elderly/childless few in the neighborhood did, hmmmm?
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
Moron. They are moving from places like Boston, New York, Northern Virginia, and so on where those prices for a house are *normal*. So, they sell their houses to other people in *that* area and then move to a *different* area where the prices are a lot cheaper. You really fail at reading comprehension. As to the rest of your rant, I was talking about the SOUTH, not the Midwest. If you really are from the Midwest, why are you going so apeshit about the South? I was not complaining in the least about the Midwest. I was complaining about the South and the problems that I personally have had there, along with many other people. Anyway, at least you admitted that the problem is poverty, and not race. So, again, why did you assume that I was not white? Why do you make such a big deal about the fact that the people in the areas you mention are black? There are plenty of vile shitholes riddled with crime that are primarily populated with white people. They just don't make the news. And, historically, white America has done all it could to keep black people in the ghettos, although fortunately that is changing in most places (La JP's notwithstanding).
And, I was not suggesting that black people cannot also be racist. But, we were dealing with the South and the problems therein. There is much racial hatred in the South on both sides. That was pretty much my point, if you had bothered to read. It makes for a very unpleasant atmosphere.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Stay anonymous.
You just got troll'd!
Stay out of my state Texans, or else!
(Is that still legal to say?) :)
FREEDOM OF.... sort of speech, as long as it doesnt say anything profound, offensive, or otherwise deemed inappropriate by the adulterous, corporate bribed, kid fucker traitors in Washington and your state government.
-$121700 seems fair. Your counteroffer?
No, HUMANS are stupid and selfish. It really has very little to do with age.
Please don't propagate ageism.
Oh, and no matter how young they are, your kids aren't your property. They are fully sentient individuals, and are generally capable of making their own decisions and learning from the bad ones all by themselves. The sooner you realize that, the better your relationship with them will be.
Knowledge != Intelligence
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!
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.
Only problem is you yanks keep coming down here and taking local public offices
Hey, we're just sending our rejects packing, it's *your* fault if you keep accepting them as one of your own, voting them into office, building them up then sending them back north stronger and just as dumb as ever.
*You've* got to stop voting for them, ok? You just never know where that might lead. I realize every now and then one of them will be a problem, but the way to save your baseball team *wasn't* to elect that guy as governor...
Not cool, The South. Not cool at all.
Kids are murdering each other in the street using something other than words... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/13/record-36-students-killed-this-school-year-across-/
Really this is the most sicking law I've heard of yet no I'm absolutely disgusted. If I was from Texas I would be ashamed that such a brainless law was passed in my state. I bet the waste of carbon atoms who wrote this law was fucking a goat while he/she drafted this steaming pile of dog flop. It's one is being pestered online it's not like being pestered in RL. It's not that hard to to block the fuckers emails and messages or just change accounts. If you are too dumb to do this then don't go online.
Yes it does run a ground of the first amendment and really should be the target of lawsuits. Really for once I'm tankful for lawyers.
And I hope nobody comes up with a way to treat that... Kids will do stupid shit, that's normal, and I think only in extreme cases, such as causing serious bodily harm to others, should the lives of those kids be damaged by including a jail sentence. Getting beat up by their peers, however, or in fact spanked by their parents, would provide a useful short-term feedback in many cases.
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. -
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. -
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.
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!