Disorderly Conduct Charge for Offensive Classmate Ratings 371
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?"
yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this an appropriate response to online harassment, or a threat to free speech?
There should be consequences to being an asshole. Glad this guy found that out too. As someone who's gone through high school in this country, I don't feel bad about that guy at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, this would fall under libel, but the point still stands.
Re: (Score:2)
usually a civil matter though.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, but some states have criminal defamation laws. However, there have only been a few people sent to jail under these.
Re:yes (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, I'm amazed I've lived this long too! I'm 49.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ranking someone's boobs at a 2.5 on a scale of 1-10 does not fall under libel, because it's clearly subjection and only someone's opinion.
I'd be surprised if his "list" actually constituted libel.
Freudian? (Score:2)
I think "subjection" might be more reflective of the point of view you are expressing.
At least until humans can advance to the point that sexual identity is not nearly universely considered a close equivalent of identity in most social situations.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? Maybe someone should post it so you, a 3rd party, can instigate the Streisand effect?
Let me unpack things for you.
First, there are limits that usually are matters of courtesy. If a girl doesn't like your attention, even if you mean to be appreciative with your wolf-whistles and other compliments, she has a certain right to tell you where to get off. If you persist against her wishes, she has a right to ask for help, and if you insist, she has the right to drag the law into things.
By the same token, neg
adolescent behavior (Score:3)
If you want to engage in adolescent behavior here, that's fine.
I'll get a chuckle out of it and we go on.
Adolescent behavior in the classroom is, well, unavoidable. Or the cure would be worse than the symptoms. I'll agree with that much.
But such lists should not be simply ignored by teachers. Girls can be seriously scarred, emotionally, by such lists. In an ideal world, we might wish that all girls should be tough enough, or get tough enough. This world is not such a world. Moreover, such lists, especially
Re:adolescent behavior (Score:4, Insightful)
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/ [hotornot.com].
Re:adolescent behavior (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed and it should be prosecuted as such. As a civil libel case not as disorderly conduct.
Throwing harsher penalties at a problem doesn't make the problem go away. This is doubly true when it is children and teenagers who are the targets of said penalties.
The penalties are supposed to make someone "think twice" about committing a crime. However your average teenager hasn't yet learned to think for the first time.
Re: (Score:3)
it's like how for years now hordes of girls have been regularly arrested and charged for making lists of the males in their classes along with gradings of their physical characteristics.
No changes here.
This certainly isn't a case of simple "it's different when it's a male doing it" sexism and treating it differently because "computers".
Re: (Score:3)
step back and apply the "sanity" filter for just one second.
first, it's not forever, at best this sort of crap may end up on the wayback machine in the deep archives.
second are you drunk? what kind of insane job interviewers do you think care about what someone you knew when you were a teenager thought of your breasts?
This will never ever ever ever cost her a promotion.
You're just applying the same insane approach of "well it's on a computer so lets throw all logic out the window" that is normally derided o
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah but back then your list was probably just something shared between a few friends, and not posted on the Internet for EVERYONE to see.
That "list" is probably long gone, or buried in a folder somewhere. Stuff you post on the Internet might be forever. There IS a difference here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, if "Kelly" doesn't want to be rated
So, if someone doesn't like a certain type of speech, it should be restricted?
that is a slur and a racial slur. Sexual slur, too.
And?
Re:hot because she is Asian? (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
It happens all the time. Even slashdot is moderated to remove trolls.
What does that have to do with the government or its workers restricting speech (which is what the constitution forbids)?
Free speech only has value if what is said is actually worth something.
I see. Only speech that you think has value is worth something? I could say that about anything. Such as people talking about brand-named clothing. Ban that immediately because I, using my subjective viewpoint, have decided that it is not worth anything for everyone! Or, alternatively, we can always go with the tyranny of the majority.
And in general this has nothing to do with free speech, but just being a miserable excuse of a human being.
Well, that's merely your opinion. And of course it has
Re:hot because she is Asian? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What's wrong is that the "disorderly conduct" charge is completely discretionary. It's used for a "we don't like you or what you did, one or both" bullshit catch-all charge when no particular law has actually been broken. If the cop had a bad day and didn't get any nookie the night before, he can have you arrested for no reason at all. It will usually not stand up once you get before a judge, especially if the crime was just pissing off the officer, but that will be small relief after you have gone throu
Don't forget Karen Owens (Score:3)
So when should we expect Karen Owens to be arrested? Hmm...? She did just about the same thing at Duke last year and instead of bitching about it many people, mainly feminists, held her up on high as the picture of "empowerment".
From TFA: (Score:5, Interesting)
"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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
The interesting question that raises is - should it matter? It's not like Facebook is some private members-only forum like a private conversation with a bunch of misogynist mates at the pub. Sure you can turn off Facebook, just like you can never go outside, but I don't think that's the solution here...
Re:From TFA: (Score:4, Insightful)
A bit of logic (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The summary is bad (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The summary is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
More Difficult With Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
how do we make sure that we deal with this in a rational way
By not caring about it and realizing that it, like all other kinds of speech, is merely speech. That's what I would call "rational." The amount of people listening is irrelevant. It is still speech.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, when nooses were left in the schoolyard [wikipedia.org] and nothing was done until the kids who left the nooses were beat
Re: (Score:3)
the internet is the real world
No, it's really not.
Disorderly conduct is not new law. (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikipedia has a article on disorderly conduct [wikipedia.org].
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or
(2) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to the fire department of any city, town, village or fire protection district a false alarm of fire, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such fire exists; or
(3
Re: (Score:3)
Disorderly conduct is and always has been a charge prone to abuse. Mostly it means that you did something a cop didn't like, but the cop couldn't find any specific law making what you were doing illegal, so he used that catch-all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You make a good argument there for a civil tort... defamation or libel or something... maybe even a restraining order to put a stop to it. But criminal charges? For speech; even offensive speech? That goes way beyond the pale, I think.
Facebook (Score:2)
Yeah. This is one of the reasons we should turn our backs on the people who want to sell us tech like Facebook.
Wasn't only Facebook.... (Score:2)
He allegedly handed out materials at school, not just post it on Facebook. Pretty big difference IMO.
Reality: Virtual or Physical (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
minor criminal charges (Score:2)
Disorderly conduct charges would actually be the most appropriate response, IMO.
A teenager went overboard. Way overboard. We don't want the FBI involved, but what was done here does sound like it crossed the line into the range of crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, or of going into the opponent's stands at a football game and repeatedly disparaging their star player and refusing to leave.
crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre? (Score:2)
I guess his crime was more like crying "FRIGID" in (less than crowded) "theatre" of his remaining friends (judged from the fact that he has to resort to things like this to get attention from his buddies, and, I'd suspect, rather unwelcome attention from the girls).
Paul B.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure what it's like in the US these days, and it probably varies widely from state to state, but where I live it seems like schools are pretty powerless to discipline students beyond issuing a timeout, detention, suspension, or expulsion. In the past a few sadistic teachers went overboard in handing out physical punishments so these days nobody is allowed to touch the kids.
Also, handing out misogynist hate material to kids at school might fall under the schools jurisdiction, but anything someone doe
Re: (Score:3)
Do cops really have to justify their continued existence? I would have thought that murder, rape and theft would be adequate for that. Police forces don't need to arrest school kids for disorderly conduct to prevent themselves from being shut down, even if all they do is spend all day driving around in their cars and eating donuts.
What cops do have to deal with is citizen pressure, and you can be sure that someone's parents were up in arms about this. The only question is whether the parents in question
No Such Thing as Free Speech (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No Such Thing as Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Because some people are worse off does not necessarily mean you are well off. However, I would agree that in the US we have it well. I'm not saying otherwise, but rather, that no government
Re: (Score:2)
Strawman. Parent never said he had no freedoms. Parent said there's no Free Speech, which is "the freedom to speak freely without censorship." Since there is some kinds of censorship, there is no Free Speech. Whether it's more or less free than in other countries is irrelevant.
You may feel the specific censorship that exists today in the US is justified, and there's nothing wrong with that opinion, but it's not Free Speech.
spreading vicious lies about your peers
Assuming you're talking about this particular case, what lies are those? From TFA, it
Re: (Score:3)
By that definition, Iran has free speech, they just consider blasphemy and certain political speech as "abuses of freedom".
The harm principle is completely open to abuse too; a rich guy may defend that advocating higher taxes for them is harm (and it is, which doesn't mean it's not justifiable).
Should there be limits to speech? I think so. But I don't delude myself calling what I defend "free speech."
Re:No Such Thing as Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
or as simple as a limited verbal assault
Oh, I see. So if someone is offended by something, it should not be protected, even though the first amendment explicitly states that it protects all speech? What if someone is offended by the fact that I said that I don't like their god? They are as offended as if I insulted them personally, so they interpret this as a verbal assault.
They, in reality, are the cause of their own misery. They need not be offended by such things, as far as I know, and it is not my fault if they are. The constitution doesn't s
Re: (Score:3)
or as simple as a limited verbal assault
Oh, I see. So if someone is offended by something, it should not be protected, even though the first amendment explicitly states that it protects all speech?
The first amendment is to the US constitution, it is not universal. And it does not protect all speech as you claim. It certainly won't work as a defence for someone who's stalking, abusing, misusing their authority in the work place, discriminating on race, colour, creed etc. You seem to forget that the whole purpose of the American constitution was to protect the citizens from harassment and provide them with a framework of freedom to do well and prosper. It as not set up so that people could do whatever
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they are outside of my front door, and I am allowed to make it sound-proof (good fences make good neighbours, or how does that saying go?) -- well, they are welcome!
I, personally, would enjoy a bit of abuse attempts and heated discussions (though I have been criticized for that too, go figure!).
I totally accept non-aggression principle as the best idea humankind came up with to deal with differences in people's wants and opinions, but I would like to distinguish between actual bodily harm and po
Re: (Score:2)
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
I have no problem with that.
I'd say you're dillusional, have no idea what you're talking about, and are liar and/or a troll..
You expect me to believe have no issue if your boss walked up to you every day and just spouted abuse, introduced you to your colleagues as an idiot with syphillis, referred to your wife/mother/girlfriend in all manner of demeaning terms, spread lies and gossip about you. Meanwhile your neighbour keeps you up by singing insults at you day and night at the top of his lungs, tells anyone that comes to your house
Over the top, but not a free speech issue (Score:2)
Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs. It's good to see existing laws used instead of making up new ones just for the net On the other hand the response is a little over the top. So let me guess, the police chief's niece was on the list or something?
Re:Over the top, but not a free speech issue (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Over the top, but not a free speech issue (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
People vs. Larry Flint? :) (Score:2)
I guess someone have not watched that movie recently... ;)
It seems to be (IANAL) a precedent that one can make personal attacks on individuals who are "public figures" of enough importance for the targeted audience of the speech (stretching it a little bit) -- in the context of this article, would you agree with him ranking three most-popular girls in his class, but not with continuing all the way down to the bottom? ;-)
And yes, I do find him to be a jerk!
Paul B.
Re: (Score:3)
We've all heard the cliche about shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater.
Yes, this is bad. People get trampled to death if you do that. However nobody is put in danger from this kind of speech, they aren't fighting words, and he wasn't advocating criminal activity.
Of course, the fire in a crowded theater argument has always been used to justify crackdowns on legitimate speech. The origin of the phrase was a judge who ruled that people could be arrested for protesting US involvement in WWI.
Re: (Score:3)
having consequences attached to attacking and demeaning others is not a violation of free speech.
What? Of course it is. Since the constitution mentions nothing about exactly what is free speech and what isn't, it is assumed that all speech is free. By free, it means you can say it without consequences. Otherwise, what would be the point of free speech at all? You could say anything you wanted even without the first amendment. Its job is to guarantee that you can say these things without consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Libel is not protected free speech.
Re:Over the top, but not a free speech issue (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only here would someone trying to defend abuse as free speech get modded up. Walking around town handing out flyers that racially and sexually slur all the girls in your former highschool should not be protected by free speech. There's no idea here to suppress. No lie or cover up. THis guy is just being an abusive idiot. Having an opinion on something and presenting that opinion is one thing. Whilstle blowing is one thingr. Outright abuse is another. Only an immature twit can't tell the difference.
Being per
Re:Over the top, but not a free speech issue (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
If you're going to be pedantic his speech was not restricted AT ALL. He was allowed to say what he said. He simply faced the consequences of saying it after the fact. I find it humorous that you call me dishonest and despicable but defend a bloke who goes around handing out racist and sexist demeaning flyers about women. Basically I think you have your values very twisted.
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.
You're a fool. You can't tell the difference between giving an opinion on an ideology and an immature abusive idiot. You seem to think it
Re: (Score:2)
First, why reply as AC? Childish.
Second, you can't tell the difference between a troll and a logical discussion either. You've failed to actually come up with any valid counter-arguments, and instead resorted to name calling. No wonder you wish to protect this kind of behaviour - you're incapable of anything else. PATHETIC!
Thank you! (Score:2)
Added you to my friends a couple of your posts back, and reading this reply made me grin that I was right!
People do not seem to have any distinction between law and morals anymore, and think that the former is a sure-proof replacement for the latter. And it is sad... Was it you who said that it was the matter of the girls and his classmates (whom, I suppose, still wanted to be friends with the girls! ;) ) making him a pariah, rather than State's police and courts dealing with his transgressions?
Paul B.
People talk nonsense when it comes to free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
"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!!!!)
Re: (Score:2)
No one decent human being would find the above examples acceptable or defensible.
Decent? Well, that's subjective, but I certainly would. They are indeed examples of free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs.
Yes, it does. Free speech is a right to believe and express whatever beliefs you wish. That expression is only rightfully limited when it amounts to actions rather than just expression.
Once people in power can regulate what you're allowed to believe and what you're allowed to argue, it is an inevitable slippery slope to them using it to control their opponents. Luckily, in the US, the first amendment has provided a rather effective guard against this.
Re: (Score:2)
Libel is not protected speech.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs.
Yes, it does.
No it doesn't and it does not matter how many times you repeat the fallacy. Verbal assault is recognised as a criminal act in most countries that protect free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Verbal assault is recognised as a criminal act in most countries that protect free speech.
And? If they claim to have free speech in something as "final" as a constitution, then they are the ones who are wrong, are they not? The number of countries that do this is irrelevant.
Re:Over the top, but not a free speech issue (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that a circular definition? "Free speech is the speech protected in countries that protect free speech."
The definition by the American Heritage Dictionary is: "The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government."
Clearly racist or sexist slurs are an opinion, and therefore countries that criminalize it don't protect free speech.
(By the way, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing - limiting verbal abuse can be perfectly justifiable.)
Re:Over the top, but not a free speech issue (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
calling a black woman a nigger cunt isn't defamation or libel, nor is it discrimination or any other sort of crime.
yes, anyone can sue you for saying it, but they will most definitely be laughed out of court. hurting your feelings isn't against the law... yet.
though denying a black woman a job and telling her it's because she's a nigger cunt would probably be held up by the courts as some type of discrimination.
going around town telling everyone that so and so is a nigger cunt that steals clothes from depa
Re: (Score:2)
He got off easy (Score:2)
Don't know the juvenile penalties, but for an adult, disorderly conduct is punishable by up to a month in jail, while libel is punishable by up to three years. TFA didn't mention the exact slurs, but if any of them was "slut", then in Illinois that ia automatic libel since it is an accusation of fornication. TFA says "body parts", and "cunt" could reasonably be taken to be synonmous with "slut".
The whole problem behind bullying is that it is given a pass by the criminal system. Stuff that goes on in high
Re: (Score:2)
"cunt" could reasonably be taken to be synonmous with "slut"
cunt and slut are absolutely not synonymous. no reasonable person would take them to mean the same thing.
Distorted standards (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
If you were a girl, you could make your own website about it [wpxi.com] and not get in trouble. But I don't think he should get away with he did because other people got away with it. I think the tragedy is other people got away with it.
Normal procedure (Score:2)
Call police: "...arrested at his Oak Park home"
Alternative could be a therapy/encounter session in a save environment where he and the people on this list are brought together to express their feelings about what he did, let him figure out why he did it and that there may be other possibilities for him to get what he actually needs.
Far from anything like that happening there....
Disorderly Conduct? (Score:2)
Whatever happened to chivalry? (Score:2)
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, as a judge I'm sure you're well aware that "disorderly conduct" is all too often a stand-in for "annoyed a police officer". Anyone with any kind of legal training knows that annoying a police officer is not a crime, but that doesn't mean you can't be arrested for it.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that Miss America contestants sign up to be rated, right? Something tells me the girls on his list did not have that choice.
To borrow an analogy from Jonathan Blow... say a guy knocks up out, sticks a knife in you, and takes your money. If it's a mugger doing it without your permission, it's bad. If it's a surgeon doing it with your consent, it's good.
Re: (Score:2)
Something related to "voluntarily submit to the rating" may apply, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe your sis needs to toughen up a bit...
Maybe his sister doesn't deserve the abuse, and maybe abusing people shouldn't be protected as free speech!
Re: (Score:2)
And maybe these self-involved crybabies should learn the difference between "abuse" and being told some jackoff thinks your tits are too small or you're probably good/bad in bed.