Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Texas Teen Arrested Under New Online Harassment Law

Posted by kdawson on from the play-nice-now dept.

SpaceGhost sends in a story from San Antonio, TX: "Police have arrested a 16-year-old girl on charges of harassment under a new Texas law that took effect September 1, 2009. H.B. 2003 says a person commits a third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person. Police say the harassment went on for a few months and involved a dispute over a boy. ... Some people expect legal challenges to the constitutionality of the new Internet law.' The law is evidently a response to the Lori Drew case.

35 of 494 comments (clear)

  1. Your Honor! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I respectfully submit that the defendant is a Meanie-Head in the first degree!"

    "My client wishes the court to know that the witness, in fact, 'started it'."

    1. Re:Your Honor! by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Court room typist: How do you spell "DooDoo Head"?

    2. Re:Your Honor! by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Was that a transcript from the case or a transcript from the latest session of Congress?

      Seriously though... any time speech is regulated, there's a problem. Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to Free Speech is not absolute, but the prosecution of a girl for calling another girl names over a dispute over a boy? A matter for parents and possibly high school guidance counselors, or on the rare outside case for a psychiatrist, but not for the courts.

    3. Re:Your Honor! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Enough! By the power vested in me by the State of My Mom's Dining Table, I sentence you to both... Kiss each other for 5 seconds!"

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Your Honor! by macbeth66 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure it is. That way, if it can't be resolved through the means you suggested, it goes to court. Not everything goes to court, sometimes people talk to each and resolve their differences. But, when you can't, you let the court decide. But, you have to give the courts some teeth.

      These are the same kinds of laws that give people recourse for harassment and stalking. Something that the courts could nothing about until just recently. At least, in the USA.

    5. Re:Your Honor! by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I miss the days when disputes were settled on the playground after school. *sigh*

      Seemed a much simpler time, didn't it?

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    6. Re:Your Honor! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Depends on whether you were the stronger or the weaker of the disputing parties, I suspect...

    7. Re:Your Honor! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A matter for parents and possibly high school guidance counselors, or on the rare outside case for a psychiatrist, but not for the courts.

      This is where you are wrong. An entire generation or more has been raised to believe in its own innate and unearned importance, and bolstered with a solid and unshakable faith in its responsibility-less intrinsic rights. They truly believe that they are entitled to do whatsoever they please, whenever they please to, and that they are educated and savvy enough to inject their opinions in any arena they see fit, and how dare anyone presume to tell them otherwise. Their rights are absolute at all times, without qualification of any kind.

      If you disagree with them, or are simply in their way, they're not going to engage in productive discussion or debate. That would imply that you are somehow their equal. Instead, they will call upon the full force of the great edifice of the Law, which exists solely to defend their inalienable right to _make_ the world bend to their will. As free, intelligent and independent citizens, they have every right to bring the full force of the State to bear in crushing you and your impudent challenges to their unique and inestimable way of life.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:Your Honor! by madpansy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's already recourse for harassment or stalking. It's called a restraining order. I see no reason why we need special laws to guard against "special" cases like online social networks. I recall reading about a person being charged with violating a restraining order for "poking" someone on Facebook, so it appears at least one court understands how old laws continue to apply as society changes.

    9. Re:Your Honor! by jhfry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure they could... they would issue a restraining order, which if violated could result in criminal charges.

      This law is unnecessary and open to abuse, the old system of filing a complaint, getting the courts to issue a restraining order, and daring your enemy to violate the order so that they can get busted is much more fun... and more fair too.

      Essentially the old system said "Stop it, I'm serious and I have the law on my side"... the new system will punish harassers without giving them a warning to stop first. There are many circumstances where a harasser might not realize that things have reached the point where the harassed is feeling harassed. Especially in the case of children, where the child may be OK, but the parents see some kid saying mean things about their "baby" and they want retribution... even when their "little angel" has already laughed it off.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    10. Re:Your Honor! by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Reminds me of a bit from one of my favorite movies "You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire; you build egos the size of cathedrals; fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse; grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green, gold-plated fantasies, until every human becomes an aspiring emperor, becomes his own God... and where can you go from there?"

      You mix the combination of giant egos with Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory and you end up with some seriously large douches. But the problem with laws like this is they ALWAYS get abused. Look at the 6 year old who was suspended and looking at being sent to a school for juvenile offenders for bring his cub scout multi-tool to school to eat lunch with. Laws like this will be badly abused, and the last thing we need is one of the last bastions of truly free speech turning into a place where you can't speak your mind for fear of getting arrested or sued. I for one would rather have free speech than some bureaucrat deciding whether or not something I said on a forum could take away my freedom, wouldn't you?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    11. Re:Your Honor! by NtroP · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Depends on whether you were the stronger or the weaker of the disputing parties, I suspect...

      Actually, I disagree. I realize in this oh-so-civilized and politically-correct world I'm a bit of a neanderthal, but as the weaker one in may confrontations growing up, there was a certain finality and satisfaction in just facing your tormentor or opponent and having it out. Many times I was left with the split lip or black eye, but was able to walk away knowing that I'd at least defended my honor. As stupid as it sounds, things were never left to fester long enough to get to Columbine-proportions let alone anything that would be considered a severe beating.

      I didn't fight often, but that was because I learned very quickly that my actions had consequences. I learned that it can sometimes hurt as much to punch someone as to get punched. I also learned that to avoid a physical confrontation, I needed to work on my diplomacy and many times my over-all prick-titude.

      Kids these days barely get the chance to use harsh-language against each other before an adult steps in. They see people on TV and in the movies getting in horrific fights that would quickly render a real person unconscious or dead, getting right back up again, ready for more. They've never experienced the fear and pain of defeat, let alone the fear and pain of victory. Without an early outlet for small disagreements some people bottle it up until they explode. Often, they just commit suicide, but sometimes they take the small hurts way too far, grab a gun and kill someone. We can sit on the outside, wring our hands and say "Why would someone kill someone else over a little thing like that?" Well, it's not a little thing when you spend your whole life feeling powerless.

      When I was a kid you'd never hear about someone shooting up their school. Why? For one thing, half the pickup trucks in the high school parking lot had a rifle in the back window. The kids actually hunted with them and had first-hand knowledge of the damage they did to flesh and what death and blood smells like. They'd never reach for a gun in a fight. They'd lose hand-to-hand first. Second, there was a spot, right off school grounds, that was the de facto fighting spot. You knew, when you were called out where to be and at what time.

      If you chose not to show up, you lost and were dishonored. If you showed up, defeated your opponent, and then proceeded to beat him while he was down, you were considered a loser, which was a bigger dishonor that not showing up. If you lost, at least it was over and you were respected for standing up for yourself. The strange part about that was, after the first time a big bully beat a smaller kid there, it rarely happened again. The big bully didn't get near the accolades they'd envisioned after beating up on a weaker kid in full public view of their classmates. In fact, it was usually the weaker kid who came out better in the eyes of their peers. Of course, if you didn't show up you weren't lauded for your passivity, you were scorned for not being willing to stand up for yourself. No one had any respect for someone who wouldn't stand up for themselves (or their girlfriends more often than not).

      I love when I hear naive people say "violence doesn't solve anything". Bullshit. Violence almost always solves the problem, one way or the other. It just may not be the best way to solve the problem. But when you've never known real violence, never dealt real violence, it all sort of becomes unreal. When you grow up your whole life being told that pacifism is so noble and everything can be resolved with talking and reason you lose touch with the grim, gritty reality that comes with getting that bloody nose. So when you find yourself in a situation when the other party won't just accept your reason and when you can't find any adults/officials to come to your rescue and make the other party see reason, your sense of frustration grows to the point where the violence you've never experienced takes on a seductive kind of

      --
      "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
    12. Re:Your Honor! by Wildclaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what about all those who don't want to fight, not because they are weak, but because they don't like fighting. Of course, you don't have an answer to that. Because your attitude stinks of the fighter mentality. Your choice of words like "proving yourself" is very revealing.

      It is people like you who encourage young people to fight that is the problem. Perpetuating and encouraging violence in society is not a good solution.

      And yes, I have stood up for myself, but I will never be proud of it, and I will not respect those who I stood up to. Violence is not something to be respected for. At best it is a last resort when other things didn't work. But when kids are forced to resort to violence because of the inaction of adults, then it is a failure of the adults.

    13. Re:Your Honor! by Mendoksou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...they are educated and savvy enough to inject their opinions in any arena they see fit, and how dare anyone presume to tell them otherwise.

      You mean like passing judgment on an entire generation? Don't for a second pretend that ego is a phenomena new to this generation. The simple fact is that every older generation in history has felt that the next generation was presumptuous and rude, and all too full of themselves. But what does that have to do with the law?

      Young people will be immature, and, since it is a forum on which they are a disproportional demographic, will be the majority of the forum trolls and flame-baiters and haters out there, and thus are most likely to get caught under this law (yes, I know the law doesn't cover trolling, but the trolls mentality is much closer producing threats than is the average mature person's). This does not change the fact that classifying threats online as illegal breaks with free speech precedent. Free speech does not include threats ONLY if it is backed by the threat of imminent violence, or if it is defamation (ok, most trolls fit here, but that's a civil matter, not a felony), or if it incites to riot. Threatening online matches none of these; no threat is imminent, as I'd have to get up, drive to your house, and THEN do whatever I said (in which case the prosecutable act is the physical one, the speech is peripheral and can only be evidence of forethought and intent, not a crime itself). So no, we are not claiming "responsibility-less intrinsic rights;" we are merely pointing out that the same rights that we enjoy elsewhere also should apply online.

      --
      DISCLAIMER: I am very rarely serious. If the above comment seems asinine makes no sense, it is most likely a bad joke.
    14. Re:Your Honor! by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 4, Interesting

      An entire generation or more has been raised to believe in its own innate and unearned importance...

      That is quite a sweeping generalization. I am not sure which generation you are referring to, but if it is my own (I am 23) I would be inclined to disagree with you via a caveat. I will agree that, in general, there are quite a few folks who fit the description that you just posted. Nonetheless, I would caveat that there are some of us, in every generation (not just my own) that know without a doubt that we do not have unlimited entitlement and rights. There are even some of us that know that the Law is not an institution to be used for the abuse of personal gain. In fact, some of us, in every generation, outright abhor the strange exponential increase in the complexity of the Law in general.

      So, in principle, I agree that there are quite a few folk out there that think the way you mentioned, using the term, 'an entire generation' really does disrespect those of us that try to remain rational, calm, pragmatic, and realistic. Please, don't lump entire groups of people together as if we are all just walking stereotypes to be typified into a particular Aristotelian category. There are always shades of gray.

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    15. Re:Your Honor! by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Interesting
      And what about all those who don't want to fight, not because they are weak, but because they don't like fighting.

      The existence of people like that endangers the whole system whereby respect and status are established by means of violence. Consider: an alpha male in the schoolyard has established his position against all rivals by means of fights. He now becomes aware of a subculture that does not respect him for this - they may fear him, but they don't admire him. These people are called 'nerds' and they admire and respect intellectual accomplishment. Or a large collection of Warhammer 40K figures. Either way, they neither admire nor respect the willingness or ability to engage in physical fights. Indeed, they openly disdain it.

      This completely undermines his position! This alpha male demands the respect due to him for being so masculine and violent! And so he expresses himself in the only way he knows how: he beats up nerds until he has established to the satisfaction of his peers that he will not tolerate disrespect from inferiors of zero status, from people who have no interest in violence at all.

      Looking back on it from a distance of fifteen years or so it's a fascinating sociological study. Thank fuck I'm no longer living in it.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  2. start them early by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    we'd better get these young people used to the idea that everyone is a criminal, no sense in letting them think they ever were or ever could be innocent. after all, there's no way to rule law-abiding citizens.

  3. Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obviously Texas lawmakers are unfamiliar with the legal principle "Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" If I post online that Cmdr Taco is a goat fucker, have I really "harmed" him or his reputation in any way? It's not slander unless a reasonable person would believe it to be true, and no rational person believes Taco actually dates outside his own species (unlike Captain Kirk).

    1. Re:Idiocracy by Talderas · · Score: 4, Funny

      If I post online that Cmdr Taco is a goat fucker, have I really "harmed" him or his reputation in any way? It's not slander unless a reasonable person would believe it to be true, and no rational person believes Taco actually dates outside his own species (unlike Captain Kirk).

      Yet another reason that Captain Picard is the superior Captain compared to Captain Kirk, Goat Fucker.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    2. Re:Idiocracy by Thansal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meh! Kirk has a goat in every port. Who does Picard have to come home to?

      An acting career?

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
  4. SHITCOCK! by e2d2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a big difference between saying "This person, IMHO, is an asshole" and "I'm gonna punch your face until you bleed from the asshole" (just an example, I have never ever said such horrendous things. I'm appalled that you would take me for that kind of person you fucking piece of shit! I'LL KILL YOU!)

    But seriously, I tell my kid and other kids in my family - don't say anything you wouldn't say in person. And if you threaten someone in person, well that's assault.

    People need to learn that being a SHITCOCK Internet Fuckwad is unacceptable. People also need to grow thicker skin, but when it truly hurts someone it's time to stop.

    1. Re:SHITCOCK! by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed, actual threats of physical violence SHOULD be unlawful,,, but if you are threatening to kill someone, it doesn't really matter whether or not you are doing it online, does it? Making a law that ONLY applies to online behavior is assinine -- could she have printed the same statements out on paper and gotten away with it? Why is publishing them online any different?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  5. Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Apparently Texas' penal code reads for felonies of the third degree:

    12.34. THIRD DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. (a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years.

    (b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

    Of course, she's a minor being 16 so the punishment will most likely be up to the judge and expunged at age 18 but for you adults who like to poke and prod people online ... better think twice in states where these kind of laws are enforced lest you target the wrong person.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  6. Re:About time by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Funny

    Such stuff needs to be a felony.

    In which case, the state of Texas is going to be busy with all of the anonymous vs. anonymous cases.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  7. List of Texas' Third Degree Felonies by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry to reply to myself but I found a list of felonies in the third degree for the state of Texas if you want to compare this new law to older laws resulting in the same degree of punishment. Apparently a third degree felony punishment (as noted in my parent post) can be meted out for anything ranging from arson to assault to conducting a game of bingo without a license.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  8. Re:About time by maudface · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having been a victim of such harassment in the past myself I agree wholeheartedly, I reported it to the police however they fairly resoundingly didn't appear to give a toss.

    Given how common it is for one's name to be googled by others these days online harassment can be every bit as damaging as real life harassment, it caused me quite serious upset for some months. This wasn't merely some childish dispute but an ex looking for revenge over every medium possible, creating profiles on facebook, bebo, myspace and various other websites with the specific intent of causing me as much damage as possible.

    While I'm in no means in favour of putting the internet under any form of state control this sort of activity warrants police attention and needs to be against the law. It strikes me as insane that so much focus is put on policing the internet to stop file sharers as opposed to protecting the individual.

  9. The law's not that bad, actually by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's the text. Basically all it targets are people who harass others online assuming another person's identity. One girl creating a profile for another, where she claims to be a homosexual drug user who steals to support her habit would fall under this. Generic harassment doesn't. About the only thing that is far-reaching, and it's likely based on ignorance, is the "domain address" language which could be twisted by a prosecutor.

    Perhaps the law goes too far on the punishment side, but it doesn't prohibit any behavior which is protected by the first amendment. Only a moron would say "there are first amendment issues" since this law is little more than a double whammy on libel and slander.

  10. Approached from the wrong angle by DrivingBear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We should really look at the emotional/psychological reasons that these kids are attacking each other and come up with strategies for treating those issues rather than arresting children for mistakes they make online.

    --
    How can that be?
  11. Re:About time by DrLang21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I don't understand is why is this not covered under previous harassment laws?

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
  12. Re:LOL by bertoelcon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't mess with Texas!*

    *And by "mess" we mean to consider a democratically and validly elected official office legitimate, and especially if you know, he ain't your kind of bigot.

    Actually the "Don't mess with Texas!" line is about littering.

    --
    Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  13. Re:About time by ChefInnocent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you believe this girl deserves a minimum stint of 2 years in jail with a maximum of 10 plus a fine up to $10,000? We don't know the details, but regardless, the State of Texas will destroy her life for something she did when she was 16. Our country doesn't rehabilitate people, she won't end up with simple counseling, she will end up in prison for what amounts to stupid shit. The brain is not fully developed by 16, hormones are definitely unstable at 16, and yet she has been charged with a felony for saying something stupid.

    By the time her "victim" is in her mid-20's she will likely think nothing of it, but the "assailant" could still be in prison. And because of our wonderful penal system, she will likely be black marked for life and moving in and out of the criminal system. Why this couldn't be stopped at a much lower level, I don't know, but by using this method instead of others our "victim" and "assailant" will very much reverse roles.

    Hopefully, she can get a good judge who will she the long term effects of charging her as a felon and reverse course, but I don't have that sort of faith in humanity.

  14. Re:About time by cbreaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The punishment doesn't even matter. If she has a felony conviction she's fucked.

    Almost every company out there now does background checks. While most of them claim "This won't necessarily disqualify you from this position" it most certainly will.

    It's a scarlet letter that keeps people that made some mistakes in their lives down. I have a few friends that are really decent people that made some stupid mistakes when they were 19/20/21 and such, and now 10 years later they still can't get work at a lot of places. Basically, they did what a lot of kids did, but they got caught..

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  15. Re:About time by cbreaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with you that this is no laughing matter. It's libel, and defamation of character. And, I DO agree that this girl should be punished if this went on ruthlessly for months.

    But a felony conviction for a kid? She'll live with that on her criminal record for the rest of her life and she'll have a hard time getting good work..

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  16. socialnetdef by muckracer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what is the legal definition of a social networking site anyway. Is Slashdot a SNS?

  17. Translation: by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "these dag-blasted kiddies think they know it all! and they think theyre soooo special! Sometimes they have the gall to do weird things i dont approve of and they dont want to listen to my complaining! these confounded kids call the sheriff when theres a disagreement instead of just fighting like i did back when i was a kid! I live in a peppridge farm commercial where nobody needs the police and you only call the sheriff when mountain justice wont work! "

    mod parent down...just becuse you use big words doesnt mean you suddenly become insightful.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.