If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Hertz Ordered To Tell Court How Many Thousands Of Renters It Falsely Accuses Of Theft Every Year
- Even As Trump Relies On Section 230 For Truth Social, He's Claiming In Lawsuits That It's Unconstitutional
- Letter From High-Ranking FBI Lawyer Tells Prosecutors How To Avoid Court Scrutiny Of Firearms Analysis Junk Science
- FTC Promises To Play Hardball With Robocall-Enabling VOIP Providers
- FOIA Lawsuit Featuring A DC Police Whistleblower Says PD Conspired To Screw Requesters It Didn't Like
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There should be something illegal with that. Seems to me to be a case of identity theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hold on...
If that principal had been smart he would have gone after the impersonation instead of what was said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That is not exactly true. On school grounds and in school newspapers, speech has been and continues to be legally regulated.
Depending upon the grounds on which the probationer ordered by the juvenile court was based, I think it possible that the appeals court got it wrong here.
If the juvenile court based it's probation upon the acts of posting under the identity of another, then I think the appeals court is completely off. However, the more likely scenario is that the juvenile court based its probation order on the content of the my space page.
"Free" speech does not mean that one is permitted to do anything and everything in the name of political commentary. There are boundaries.
We should not forget that with rights come responsibilities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't know who said it, but it holds plenty of water.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Speech?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free Speech?
Everyone is. What is the defining characteristic of this case that shows it to be impersonation rather then parody? If it's taken in the context of parody, then it is protected under free speech and the student can mock the principal all they want. In order for it to have been impersonation they have to be attempting to pass themselves off as that person. As it stands, creating a false profile of someone is not impersonation because at no point did you identify your self as that person. It would be no different then mocking up an obituary or deriving an insulting character from the real person.
There really are not clear lines here, but I have to lean toward parody for the fact that it has a stronger case then impersonation. Now, if those students were going around and telling people they were the principal or signing documents as him, that would be a different story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Society out of control
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Society out of control
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Society out of control
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free Speech
"Free speech" specifically does not protect several forms of speech. Falsely shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is the canonical example of one type of speech that is not protected, since it can cause harm to, or even kill, innocent people.
Slander (lies that damage someone's reputation) are also not protected. If you say something true that damages someone's reputation, or if you indicate that what you are saying is merely opinion, you're OK, but if you actually lie, you are legally liable. For instance, if you call someone a dumbass, you're probably OK since that is commonly understood to be an expression of opinion. If you say that someone has conjugal relations with goats, when if fact they don't, then you can get your derrière in a sling over it.
Since I haven't in fact seen the MySpace page in question, I have no idea whether the comments would be protected speech or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
She's not protected...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Society out of control
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Confusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uh, Hello McFly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free Speech?
> to apply to this situation in this manner.
The "free speech laws" you mention is actually Amendment 1 to the U.S. Constitution. A bit more significant than just some statute.
> First and foremost it was defamation
> of character by impersonation, which
> is NOT protected under the First
> Amendment.
True, defamation is not protected but then neither is it a criminal offense. This girl should not be given probation over an incident of defamation. If what she did was truly defamtory, then the principal would have a civil cause of action against her and could recover damages. But in no instance should a person be imprisoned (or given probation in lieu of prison) for defamation.
> On top of that it is wire fraud, not speech.
No, it's not. What she did does not meet the elements of any kind of fraud, wire or otherwise. Mere lying does not constitute fraud. Lying is just one aspect of fraud. There has to be some pecuniary gain associated with the lying before a fraud offense is complete and by all reports, that was not the case here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wrong Court
The school was ridiculously out of line trying to punish a student for something they did at HOME! The school should be punished for trying to extend their control beyond that of the student handbook. If they tried to pull a stunt like that on my daughter (who is way too classy for that garbage anyway) I would have one fabulous lawyer on that school so fast they would be shut down and students would have to bus to a far away town just to get an education. I can't believe that the lawyer did not make THAT the case, instead of this ridiculous nonsense about free speech. Nobody underage has any legal rights to free speech or anything else in the constitution.
So we have two groups of lawyers, screwed up, parents screwed up, child screwed up, JUDGES screwed up, and of course, the school screwed up (no real suprise there). And folks wonder what is wrong with the legal system? Isn't it obvious now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]