Slashdot Mirror
Disorderly Conduct Charge for Offensive Classmate Ratings
Hatta writes "A Chicago-area teenager who posted a demeaning list of female classmates on Facebook has been arrested for disorderly conduct. Is this an appropriate response to online harassment, or a threat to free speech?"
"The teenager is believed to be responsible for a list that ranked 50 female students — using racial slurs and ratings of body parts — that circulated around the school and on Facebook, police said. The teen is accused of handing out hard copies of the list Jan. 14 at various lunch periods and posting a copy online, according to police."
This list was spread both through Facebook and throughout the school. Is it valid to address this as an online harassment case when the article does not even make clear which distribution method the teenager is being charged with disorderly conduct for?
He didn't get arrested and charged because he posted it on Facebook, TFA says he distributed hard copies at school.
Things like this are becoming much more difficult for any rational person to reach a sensible conclusion on. My initial reaction would be that you don't censor or criminalize thoughts. Even mean or vile ones. As long as it is not libel, you just need to have thick skin and move the fuck on.
On the other hand, it's a different thing when it's something that has a global audience of potentially billions, will be archived and indexed by search engines, possibly have a longer life than the person it is about, come up in searches for that person for the rest of their life by future friends, mates, and employers and otherwise follow them around indefinitely. You can't graduate the internet and move away from the "attack" and you can't just go to a new town. You are stuck forever with whatever some ignorant idiotic juvenile wrote years ago or whatever some spiteful twat might write about you today.
If I had a kid and this happened pre-internet, I would tell them to ignore it and know they're better than that and that the words aren't true and to move on and eventually it will go away. With the internet, I don't know what I would do. As a parent, I think I would be helpless and stuck. How do you stick to the ideal that nobody should be able to dictate what you can do or say short of actual libel or threats and reconcile that with words or images that will be there under google for your name for decades to come?
Perhaps more importantly, how do we make sure that we deal with this in a rational way and don't just say "that pisses me off, so I'm going to make a blanket law about it" like with that stupid bitch and her family that drove that little girl to kill herself over myspace? A case where it was so tempting to have so much anger and hatred over the incident that even the completely logical person was tempted to say "fuck it, I don't care what the lasting legal consequences are for the rest of society, as long as we come up with a way to stick that bitch in a max security prison for life".
So a d-bag teenager put a 'demeaning' list of his fellow female classmates on-line and got arrested for it. Rather than the social stigma, female students, and student body appropriately handle this idiot, law enforcement decided to step in.
If this doesn't prove we've come full circle into a nanny state, I'm not sure what will. He's 17 for cry'in out loud, and in High School! How does an arrest benefit society here?
"Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs."
It only protects speech you like, right? Sorry, there is no free speech if it comes with strings attached. I might disagree with what they say - even find it sickening - but it is their right to say it, and not yours to say otherwise. Why? Redefining "free" to be only what you want is more despicable than anything a person could say.
Great Intellect...
Wait, what? That's the most batshit definition of "free" I have ever heard. So it only is a restriction on free speech if you do it beforehand, and call it that? Well, North Korea must be the freest fucking country on the planet - they just kill you after the fact if you say what they don't like!
Great Intellect...
Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs.
Oh yes it does. For instance, in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie the US Supreme Court ruled that the Nazis had the right to march through a predominently Jewish city. It's perfectly legal to call Hillary Clinton or Michelle Bachman (to pick a couple of random examples) a "cunt" or a "cracker" if you want to. And the various modern versions of the KKK can spew their rhetoric and have cross burnings all they like without government interference.
I'm not saying I approve of any of these, just that they are most definitely protected by free speech and assembly.
I am officially gone from
You are partially protected when it comes to libel: affected private citizens can sue you for it, but the government cannot bring criminal charges against you for it. It's solely a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
I am officially gone from
Laws restricting what you can legally say or placing penalties upon certain forms of speech are restrictions upon free speech. It is as simple as that, and I don't really see why the concept is so confusing to some people.
If it is an acceptable restriction on free speech is an entirely different discussion, although one that I personally believe should not be given serious consideration. However, it is, without question, a restriction upon free speech to create any laws regulating free communication. That's why it is called what it is. Once you cut out certain kinds of speech, it is far to easy to expand the definitions. We've seen it happen again and again across the world and right at home.
So please, be honest and say what you mean: you disagree with this particular freedom, at least to some extent. I find it offensive to the entire human race to go about redefining freedoms to only what you personally find acceptable.
Great Intellect...
You don't know what it is to lack free speech, because you've had it all your life. You're just a spoiled whiner who wants to be able to do literally whatever he wants, instead of almost whatever he wants.
When a reporter in Russia gets disappeared for saying the wrong things; when a man in Afghanistan gets his organs spread around town square for dancing with his wife; when an elderly Chinese woman is sentenced to a lifetime of hard labor for requesting a permit to protest at the Olympics... that is a lack of freedom.
When you are punished for leaking top secret documents, or copying other people's creations without payment, or spreading vicious lies about your peers... that is called living in an orderly society. You might think it's too orderly, but to claim you have no freedoms is fucking insulting.
"THis guy is just being an abusive idiot."
Perhaps, but a restriction upon free speech still is one. I am not necessarily saying it is wrong necessarily to have a law restricting it, but that it is wrong to lie about your intentions. Redefining free speech to not include what you dislike is dishonest and despicable.
"Outright abuse is another. Only an immature twit can't tell the difference."
Or a person who actually knows where this kind of thinking leads. Not long ago did we have committees to determine if you were a communist. It isn't immature to know that such a travesty is only a few "well intentioned" laws away from returning, especially with the constant assault on our freedoms from every angle. Neither political party cares about them, and people like you are too clueless to realize when they are at risk.
"Being permitted to say something does not protect you from the consequences of saying it. The typical example is yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre. That's illegal and I'm fine with that, not because I don't like free speech or only like some free speech, but because acting to harm others should be against the law."
Do you people have like a book you get this crap out of? People thinking that statement is an argument for why they can pick and choose what certain freedoms mean is way too common, especially here on slashdot.
Great Intellect...
I endured worse than what this kid is described as doing from more than a score of kids on a daily basis, and NO ONE in the school district rushed to my defense like this. Not a single one of my tormentors was ever arrested, suspended, or even disciplined.
I wonder: if this had been a GIRL shopping such a list about boys, would we have even had a Slashdot article to read about it? Would we even if it had been a boy with a list tormenting other BOYS?
Sigh.
IAAJBTINLA (I Am A Judge, But This Is Not Legal Advice) I have not yet seen the actual charges in this case, but I think this charge will be laughed out of court, and rightfully so (at least if it came before my judge).
In most states, 'Disorderly Conduct' is defined as a person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally: (1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct; (2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or (3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
None of the above apply to the conduct of this kid. And even if by some twist of logic they do contort the letter of lat to apply, it would still have to stand up to both due process and first amendment challenges, which set a VERY high burden for the prosecution.
"Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs."
It only protects speech you like, right? Sorry, there is no free speech if it comes with strings attached. I might disagree with what they say - even find it sickening - but it is their right to say it, and not yours to say otherwise. Why? Redefining "free" to be only what you want is more despicable than anything a person could say.
Fine, then you'd have no problem with people standing outside your house and yelling abuse at you day and night for weeks or months on end??? Because it's free speech right. You wouldn't bring noise pollution laws, or harassment laws to bear? No you'd defend them to the death. NONSENSE.
When's the last time you or someone you cared about was harassed to the point of being suicidal? If you have children are they fair game? Would you be fine if your children were disabled or mentally impaired? What if your wife/girlfriend/mother was on anti-depressant pills and suicidal?
People talk such NONSENSE and BUNK when it comes to free speech. No one decent human being would find the above examples acceptable or defensible. There is a reason that these things are illegal. There are reasons for harassment and stalking laws. These are good things even if they violate your overly broad view of what free speech means.
But hey sandlotters, continue to mod this drivel up!!! Because slashdot has come to mod up only mindless groupthink drivel. (The irony is these defenders of free speech will mod me down!!!!)
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
We've never had free speech in the US and probably never will, as long as people can make excuses to suppress it like "national security," "cyber bullying," and "copyright." So, how could anything be a threat to what we haven't got?
Why would you want to live in a place where someone could stand outside your door and hurl abuse day and night for weeks on end without any consequences?
Freedom does not mean the freedom to do whatever you like. If your actions harm others - whether it's as destructive as murder or as simple as a limited verbal assault, they should not be protected. That's not the kind of freedom I want. That's called the law of the jungle.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Wikipedia has a article on disorderly conduct.
Actually, I read this and think we are finally seeing officers of the law figuring out how the internet fits in.
Clearly, this is disorderly conduct in a couple of public places, and it sounds like the appropriately class of response is being pursued.
Misdemeanor, as opposed to felony. A bit more serious than a traffic fine, but not nearly on the level of being arrested for grand theft, even.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Freedom is not an absolute
What's with the straw man arguments? You've repeatedly said things such as this, and I've never even said anything about it. All I'm saying is that the constitution protects free speech and lists no exceptions. It doesn't say "freedom is absolute," but if it did, then that would be a poor constitution, and a majority of citizens would need to throw it out.
When your freedom of speech impinges on the liberties of others, that is crossing beyond your own freedom to express yourself without harassment (which I condone) and to your freedom to harass others (which I do not condone).
That's not what the constitution says. Probably because they knew that anyone could claim that any speech hurts them.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Well, as someone from the Chicago suburbs, particularly Crook County, I can tell you the cops around here always use "disorderly conduct" as a general bullshit catch-all charge for "we don't like you, or what you did, whichever". I know, I was in a local station lockup for about 12 hours on a complete bullshit disorderly charge.
I was guilty of being in the same car as a buddy who got into an argument with someone who turned out to be a an off-duty Chicago pig. And I use the word "pig" in the worst sense possible, this guy was a real asshole and everyone at the local station hated him and told us so. But the jerk turned out to be a fairly high ranking detective, so he had my friend arrested and when I went into the station to find him, he pointed at me and said "Oh, yeah I want him arrested too". Meaning me. I was like, "WTF? I did nothing...". The guys at the local station kept apologizing to me, telling me there was nothing they could do as long as Lt. Dickless wanted me arrested. Well, conveniently, the fax system was "down" and they had to hand-courrier our prints downtown to make sure we weren't wanted on other charges, which I'm sure the asshole told them to make sure we were kept in the cooler for a while, because we both had enough money on us to bail ourselves out.
Anyway, there's a sort of happy ending. We went to get the best damn shyster lawyer we could find, and we found a really good one - this guy was an crooked ex-judge who later got investigated in the Operation Greylord stings in the 80's - a big anti-corruption operation in Cook County, Chicago in particular. But when we knew him, he did us good - the lawyer found a nice obscure legal precedent that in order to be guilty of disorderly conduct you had to incite others to become disorderly! Great one huh? Basically, short of inciting a riot you can't be guilty of disorderly conduct. At this point the judge points to me and says "It sounds like you weren't involved at all" - I said "you're right, your Honor". And he dismissed my case and found the precedent sufficient to dismiss my buddy's case. Lt. Dickless was pissed!! Heheh.
The moral is the disorderly conduct charge in Chicago is a joke but popular because it's totally discretionary - it's the Officer's call if you are "disorderly" or not, like "Driving too fast for conditions", which can get you a ticket for going under the speed limit if the Cop thinks you are going too fast. These are bullshit laws but they exist as a catch-all to cover the gaps, I guess. The teen in question should be able to get out of the charge easily because he was not causing anyone else to be disorderly, if they get a good mouthpiece he should be able to get off easily.
Epilogue: My buddy and I went to Internal Affairs and filed a claim on the asshole for wrongful arrest, and we hoped thy would investigate him. Well one day, we were watching the local educational TV WTTW, and actually saw the jerk on a talk show! Except now he was Captain Dickless!! They actually promoted him. Words failed me at that point. Just as no good deed goes unpunished, I guess no bad one goes unrewarded.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
oh my god, all people are helpless little flowers. We have to do it FOR THE CHILDREN...
Give me a fucking break. If having your ass and breasts rated on facebook is horrible for the girls getting 1's and 2's, how about the girls getting 10's? I mean shit, you might as well go arrest Mark Z as well as the people at http://hotornot.com/.
No, the Constitution does not forbid restrictions of free speech. The First Amendment says that the government shall not make laws abridging the freedom of speech. The Constitution itself provides for promoting the arts and sciences by certain activities which would be restrictions on the freedom of speech if that freedom were absolute, even without the current ridiculously draconian (mis-?)interpretations of copyright and patent law.
The first paragraph of the Constitution specifies the purpose of the Constitution. The purposes include establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty.
Therefore, the Constitution provides for some things that take precedence over freedom of speech claims. I am sure you know this, even though you seem to chose to ignore it.
There is no way, in the real world, that the freedom of speech can be untangled from the other rights and responsibilities of citizens. If you talk about the rights of freedom of speech, you also have to talk about the responsilities, and citizens do have some responsilitiy to refrain from using the freedom of speech as an end-run around protections of another persons rights.
When opinions remain opinions, they are free. But when they are used to oppress other citizens, there are Constitutional means of recourse when those repressed are not fully able to defend themselves.
Sexual and racial slurs are often used as tools of physical and sexual abuse. The words, "prove it" are one of the cutting edges of the tool, in spite of abusers behaving as if they have the right of having something proved to them.
This is the line that is potentially breached by what the boy(s) here did. I say potentially, because we can't know whether it actually was breached without digging into the facts, but that is not our job. Misdemeanor charges are one way of providing both the offended and the accused an opportunity of trying to figure out whether the line was actually crossed. Sometimes it is appropriate to let a judge figure things like this out.
It is absolutely appropriate to have the option of pressing charges of disorderly conduct, particularly since the conduct was performed in two public places: in the school, made public because the passed the printed list around, and on-line because the forums they used there are public.
It is also essential that the courts be fair, and that is perhaps a question that should be asked, but, unless we have reason to believe the boy in question is not going to get a fair trial, we must recognize the option of arrest. From what we do know, it is very possible that the line was crossed.
I've said it elsewhere, but what is most appropriate here is that the people here are using existing law to deal with it, instead of attempting to use the more recent, very flawed laws that could have been invoked, under which this could have been charged as a felony.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
There is a massive difference between hotornot.com, a site where people post pictures voluntarily and people are rated by complete strangers they will never meet, and the kind of systematic bullying and abuse that can happen in a classroom to kids who are not emotionally fully developed as a result of things like this.
It is up to people in responsibility to show children how to act responsibly. The kind of "stand back and let 'em sort it out themselves" attitude you're advocating is not helpful in the slightest.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Yes, if "Kelly" doesn't want to be rated
So, if someone doesn't like a certain type of speech, it should be restricted?
It isn't a matter of simple preferences, and you know it isn't. Girls have a right to tell guys no. They don't have to be subjected to verbal abuse from boys who have been turned down, and they don't have to be subjected to the splashback when boys get their feelings hurt.
When a boy's opinion has been refused, and the boy persists too long in forcing his opinion on a girl, it becomes a tool of emotional abuse. Emotional abuse can be a reason for children to appeal to adults. If a boy further persists, it is abuse, and can become a wedge to enable physical forms of abuse. That is the point where this kind of thing crosses the line into criminal behavior.
that is a slur and a racial slur. Sexual slur, too.
And?
Racial and sexual slurs are most often used in precisely this way.
Seriously, what other reason would one have for using racial and sexual slurs, other than as an attempt to strip one's opponent of emotional defense?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
I may not agree with what he said, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it. In other words, it's a threat to free speech
You are a clueless idiot. You may not agree, but you'll defend to your death my right to say it. In other words, you're a clueless idiot.
Not so. He's willing to protect your right to call him a clueless idiot unto death (damned generous, I say!), but it does not follow from this that he's a clueless idiot. It is true only that you evidently think he's a clueless idiot. Your claim may or may not be true, but we will have to await a conclusive deductive proof to assess its truth value.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary