Texas Teen Arrested Under New Online Harassment Law 494
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.
Your Honor! (Score:5, Funny)
"My client wishes the court to know that the witness, in fact, 'started it'."
Re:Your Honor! (Score:5, Funny)
Court room typist: How do you spell "DooDoo Head"?
Re:Your Honor! (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.
Re:Your Honor! (Score:5, 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.
Re:Your Honor! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I can't fully comprehend the confusion of mind that would lead to this sentence.
Re:Your Honor! (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.
Re:Your Honor! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Your Honor! (Score:4, Interesting)
So take away that immunity. If you insult and mouth off to someone, they can slap you, as hard as they want, as many times as they want, and it's legal. People would think twice before opening their mouth and letting loose with a stream of vitriol and verbal abuse if there was the possibility of an immediate response.
It's behaviorism at its simplest. It's how the entire natural world works. Every social animal tests their boundaries, and if they go too far, they get bit. That's how boundaries get set. Our laws have created a consequence-free outlet for verbal abuse that is generating some truly out-of-control people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you insult and mouth off to someone, they can slap you, as hard as they want, as many times as they want, and it's legal.
Great!
I find your comment rather offensive and an insult to my way of thinking. Allow me to commence slapping you're bruised and bleeding, and you go down in an unconscious heap.
What?
Note: the secret here, is that insult and offense is 100% in the eyes and ears of the receiver. If you can't see where the problem lies here...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your Honor! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Your Honor! (Score:5, 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.
Re:Your Honor! (Score:4, Insightful)
An entire generation or more has been raised to believe in its own innate and unearned importance, and bolstered with a solid and unshakable faith in its responsibility-less intrinsic rights. They truly believe that they are entitled to do whatsoever they please, whenever they please to, and that they are educated and savvy enough to inject their opinions in any arena they see fit, and how dare anyone presume to tell them otherwise. Their rights are absolute at all times, without qualification of any kind.
You know, I'm getting a bit tired of this. It's the same crap that's been heaped on the younger generation for ages. I remember it when I was a kid.
Kids today by and large are more responsible, if anything, than the kids in my generation were. They are under more pressure, in a more dangerous environment, than we were and they're dealing with it pretty well.
There seems to be this bizarre "whack a mole" approach to dealing with kids... Let them do what they want, but once in a while take a kid out back and shoot him/her for being a kid as an example.
No wonder the kids today are confused.
They've been taught really good social skills, conflict resolution, sharing in school, and then they get hammered when they do something wrong.
Some of the grownups need to attend those social skills classes instead of their kids.
Re:Your Honor! (Score:4, Interesting)
You read that article and think "Name calling? The police state is violating that persons Freedom of Speech, thats a problem". I read that, see that its from Somerset, Tx, and I think "thats probably gang related or some cracked out trailer trash and they threatened to rape and kill that girl. Thats a problem".
In both cases, none of us knows the specifics of the case, and are both talking out our asses. And even RTFA, given the PD cheifs in the San Antonio areas notoriety for spewing lines of BS, we won't in the immediate future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." [william-shakespeare.info]
All of a sudden it begins to sound reasonable... basic law should be written in normal language.
Lawyers have invented legalese to make themselves indispensible, because no normally-functioning human can understand half the laws in the land. "Common law" and "precedent" dictate that nobody can even know what constitutes an infringement at a given time. In fact, not even the government can tell you how many possible felonies there are any more [youtube.com] thanks to laws
Re:Your Honor! (Score:5, Funny)
Try this (Score:3, Funny)
"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
Re:Your Honor! (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?
Re:Your Honor! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Respect can be given to a weaker person who, knowing they were weaker, went up against you for the principle. The ninny who goes and calls their dad to smack you down just proves that their dad is bigger than you and will never get any respect. Calling law enforcement is the same, its not about who is right and wrong but if you can carry your head high amongst your peers. It doesn't have to be about violence in the
Re:Your Honor! (Score:5, 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.
Re:Your Honor! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Your Honor! (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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is so unbelievably redneck, I'm at a loss for words. That attitude is something out of the 50's or earlier.
Taught your kids, huh? Like, that violence solves things. You really think they heard that, warn once warn twice? No what they heard was Dad will back us up if we kick the crap out of someone. Whether that someone had it coming due to their over-all stupidity or not.
And, btw, I was never in a fight in high school. Never had a cause and it wasn't because I was intimidating physically. I just h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your romanticization of violence sort of falls apart when you stop looking at flukes like Columbine where middle class disaffected teenagers have never experienced violence and start looking at the every day violence in the inner city. Kids don't get shot or stabbed downtown because they've been bottling it up too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because might make right was such a good system?
Anything which prepares kids to deal with the real world is a good system.
start them early (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Idiocracy (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).
Re:Idiocracy (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Meh! Kirk has a goat in every port. Who does Picard have to come home to?
Re: (Score:2)
Q. You know he wants it...
Re:Idiocracy (Score:5, Funny)
Meh! Kirk has a goat in every port. Who does Picard have to come home to?
An acting career?
Re: (Score:2)
Picard had a holodeck by his time. I doubt he really cares anymore.
I mean really, if I could download the new Jennifer Aniston with Amy Adams holodeck experience, I don't think I'd care about a girl in every port either ;).
Re:Idiocracy-Goat Love (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Words don't hurt people, but they do cause some people to hurt themselves.
Whether that should be illegal, in real life or online, is the question.
SHITCOCK! (Score:5, 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.
Re:SHITCOCK! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed, actual threats of physical violence SHOULD be unlawful,,, but if you are threatening to kill someone, it doesn't really matter whether or not you are doing it online, does it? Making a law that ONLY applies to online behavior is assinine -- could she have printed the same statements out on paper and gotten away with it? Why is publishing them online any different?
That's my big problem with these laws.
We already have harassment/stalking/whatever laws on the books. If I punch you in the face, it's assault. It doesn't matter if I do it at school, or at the local GameStop, or at a grocery store. We don't need special laws for each building in the nation - we just say "this is assault."
Likewise, if I track your every movement for a week, snap pictures of you, film video of you, peek in your windows - it's stalking. Doesn't much matter if I'm doing it with a 35mm or a
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, actually it is. Unless you have another version you'd like to supply smarty pants.
assault: A violent physical or verbal attack.
Re: (Score:2)
10 seconds in google can save you from a lifetime of shortsightedness...
http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/ [uslegal.com]
In most places in the US a threat against a person is now considered a Terroristic Threat and is actionable.
Re: (Score:2)
What can I say? I have a sick sense of humor.
Now fuck off
Hard cases... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the necessary corrolary: Easy cases also make bad law.
"Easy" cases make bad law because they allow for bad decisions - "the law says one thing, but Mr. Greasy-Haired Used Car Salesman is so obviously running a dishonest business..."
"Hard" cases make bad law because they get decided on a very narrow point of law and set of facts, but then a thousand greasy shysters (er... "lawyers") cite them as precedent for cases that have almost no similarity at all.
In fact, the current way our system is cooked up, th
Two to Ten Years and Up To Ten Grand (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is totally ridiculous... That news article reads as if it was posted on The Onion.
List of Texas' Third Degree Felonies (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a waste of taxpayers money. Lori Drew was harassing a minor child. There are already laws for that.
BEHOLD! (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmm.. (Score:2)
I'm not so sure laws needed to be made for something that amounts to name calling. If the name calling extends to harassment we already have laws in place.
The only fix to this problem is proper parrenting and teaching kids how to respect and really communicate with one another. Even removing anonymity doesn't fix this problem (and I am completely against any attempt to remove it). I am aware that Anecdotes aren't evidence but I've been "bullied" online (if you want to call it that) by girls who went to t
Good Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This wasn't 'a threat to harm', the message itself -is- the harm.
People get up in arms about it because it's -really- hard to make text do actual harm.
We don't have have -any- actual information about the case, so argument for either side are completely pointless right now.
Maybe this is as it should be (Score:3, Interesting)
<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?)
Re: (Score:2)
The given intent of a law is irrelevant, for the most part, to police and prosecutors. They will prosecute you based on the wording of the law. And they'll bend the law to the breaking point and beyond if they want to nail you (Lori Drew case from California).
Re: (Score:2)
That's identity theft, we already have laws for this. Texas is stupid if they think they need to make a separate set of laws for the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems the goal of the new law was to discourage using the name or persona of another person to create a Web page.
Aren't there already laws in place that discourage one from claiming to be someone they are not? Why not use the existing law instead of wasting time and effort creating a new law because a web page is involved?
This is another thing that irks me. Creating new laws for specific cases which are already covered by other laws. For instance, the banning of text while driving. The name varies from place to place, but in my town it's called Inattentive Driving. You can get a ticket for eating, putting on make up, reading a map, texting while driving a car.
LOL (Score:2, Interesting)
third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person
LOL, by that standard, the entire fucking state of Texas should be arrested for the shit I see them say every day about the President. Don't mess with Texas!*
*And by "mess" we mean to consider a democratically and validly elected official office legitimate, and especially if you know, he ain't your kind of bigot.
Re:LOL (Score:5, 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.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, I know. Which makes it even more amusing when it's used by Texans in a different way.
See, humor and sarcasm have many layers....
Most of which you seem unable to penetrate.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, you said penetrate.
I just think it's funny that you call them out for having a skewed point of view. The entire state. See the irony?
Now go get your shine box and shine those busted insults.
Re: (Score:2)
You read what everyone in the state of Texas says everyday? Where is this publication and how do I subscribe?
.... on internet (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's have some fun with the law! (Score:3, Interesting)
/. should try to get a volunteer prosecuted for violating a Term of Service in a hilarious manner. Try to get some free legal counsel for both sides from civil liberties group or from a law firm looking for publicity and then run the sham law suit as far as possible in the court system.
I think it's critical to set precedent by addressing the issue directly rather than via an emotionally confused case. By the same token, I think it would be fun to run a few sham software licence related law suits through the courts. Come on! It'll be fun!
What she should have done.. (Score:2)
Approached from the wrong angle (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That would require emotional stamina from the kids, involved parenting from the parents, toleration of lawsuit-generating situations by school officials... yeah right. I'm all for beating this particular drum until the cows come home, but I'm also not particularly confident that anything will actually happen.
details man, i gotta have details (Score:2)
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)
socialnetdef (Score:5, Interesting)
So what is the legal definition of a social networking site anyway. Is Slashdot a SNS?
Harmful? Are they kidding??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Will this law ever make it past the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals?
It looks really overbroad. I can say something with the intent to harm you that is totally legal and absolutely protected by the First Amendment. I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your business interests (by advancing mine at your expense); I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your political interest (to get your sorry ass out of office); and I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your religious interest (because your religious influence is heretical).
It also appears (from the lame summary and article) that truth is no defense. So, that if I harm you with the truth--I can go to prison.
And that's only some ideas from the point of view of the POSTER.
The social networking sites themselves are getting screwed over, here. What is the COMPELLING governmental reason for jacking up the criminal speech regulation on social networking sites and not on blogs and newspapers????? There is no compelling reason for such a limitation on free speech and my bet is that some lawyers are going to have an easy, fun, and lucrative time taking this law DOWNTOWN.
Anyway, thanks very much to the Texas legislature for providing another money-stream to the lawyers. They'll be the only ones having fun with this dog of a law!
Re:About time (Score:5, 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 [4chan.org] cases.
Re:About time (Score:4, Informative)
So is Missouri [news-leader.com]. 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.
Re:About time (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Everyone, can we just please... (Score:4, Insightful)
... think about the children? Thank you.
No, I didn't say think about civil liberties - stop that. Think about the children. Keep thinking about them. No, don't think about checks and balances. Listen to me, just think about the children. There. Good man.
Re:About time (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.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
Vigorous enforcement doesn't imply harsh penalty (Score:3, Interesting)
Having been a victim of such harassment in the past myself I agree wholeheartedly [should be felony] I reported it to the police however they fairly resoundingly didn't appear to give a toss.
Do you believe this girl deserves a minimum stint of 2 years in jail with a maximum of 10 plus a fine up to $10,000?
It might be possible for the police force to actively and vigorously enforce a particular law and still have punishments that are reasonable taking the nature and consequences of the actual crime (or misdemeanor, or miscellaneous bad deed) into consideration.
Hypothetically, at least ;-)
Would that perhaps be a good thing?
(I think) I believe people should be protected from harassment if it really damages them. It should be enforced, but the punishment should fit the crime.
It's maybe somewhat analogous to stu
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
posts like yours would also constitute a felony, as I'd consider posting an asinine comment as harassment. how's that for equal logic?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:think of the trolls ... er (Score:2)
"Think of the Children!"
"The Children are Trolls"
"Uh... I meant only think about SOME children SOME of the time... I think?"