Should It Be Against The Law To Be A Jerk Online?
from the well,-it-may-become-law-soon dept
In large part due to the sad story of Megan Meier, we're suddenly seeing a rush for politicians to rush through "anti-cyberbullying" that make cyberbullying illegal. It's hard to see how such legislation will pass constitutional muster, but it seems to be more along the lines of previous legislation attempts to "protect the children" that will do little to actually protect children. Certainly, kids getting bullied is a problem -- and cyberbullying can make it that much more difficult for kids who feel that they "can't escape" as the bullying can follow them outside of school. But that doesn't mean that tossing kids in jail for taunting other kids is the answer. At some point, people need to realize that there are people out there who are going to act like jerks -- and throwing people in jail isn't going to change that, though it likely will lead to frivolous lawsuits whenever some folks get upset about something someone else said to them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bullying, cyberbullying, jerks, laws
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Federal Speech Control?
Was the Megan Meier story even about bullying? As I understand it, the adult neighbor was her online friend, not a bully. Then the woman broke off the friendship. There was no taunting, name-calling, severe repeated hostile behavior, or anthing else constituting bullying.
Here is the text of the federal law:
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Does this even apply to the Megan Meier case? Heck, this looks like it applies more to my wife when she is mad at me and calls me names. If I can get it in writing I can send her to jail for a couple of years!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Federal Speech Control?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
how can something be illegal on line when its not in the real world?
now to the Megan Meier subject, if this hadn't happened on myspace (if i remember correctly) but if it was using snail mail or other type of communication that did not require any Internet access, wouldn't she have been charged with man slaughter or 3rd degree murder?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Federal Speech Control?
Maybe we should just outlaw estrogen, or at least make it like a schedule 4 narcotic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Hey, let's throw a few more laws at this that we can't enforce."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grow up
Stop trying to protect the children by destroying the fun of being anonymous on the net.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Federal Speech Control?
Because the war on drugs has been so effective?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not quite right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Grow up
Now there's the rub: too many politicians think that anonymity on the 'net can only about "fun" (read: mischievous/negligence/miscreants). "Safety" is much more important than "fun".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I thought we were a free country?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's just tell everyone they are *special*!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jerks banned from the internet
Za-zing!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Federal Speech Control?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I thought we were a free country?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheesh...
I routinely threaten my friends with creative dismemberment if they irritate me. We all know it's not a serious threat - but does this mean that I'm gonna get 14 years? I can't believe that they're actually trying to sanitise the net.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We are...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: We are...
Learn to take a hit. Its not even a real hit. Its an internet hit. 99% of what is said on the internet is either a. not meant seriously or b. not worth paying attention to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Federal Speech Control?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I thought we were a free country?
No. It makes YOU look stupid.
Or us, rather. Since we "elect" our "representatives."
But, since there is, aside from wounds, never any new blood in politics (that is, DIFFERENT blood), we only can vote for the same stupid idiots that made those incredibly stupid mistakes *last* time around, thus perpetuating the stupidity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This law can *only* do good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Child Protection
Instead it was a sick full grown adult prying into a teen's developing social life/skills and attempting to hijack her own teen's abilities to properly organize her own, only to eventually take it further to take advantage of all the victim's trust and admiration she won to turn it into an attack on the victim's fragile psyche.
While teen-to-teen and adult-to-adult I'd say "such is life", but an adult deliberately taking action on offspring like that in such a manner should be just as inexcusable as any other form of child abuse.
Any laws responding to this should focus on, specifically, how adult strangers should be interacting with minors. That is, in regards to willfully abusive activities. Rather than unenforceable, generally aimed wastes of grandstanding, such as this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
4chan is *fucked*.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
oh yeah?
But seriously, isn't this like on-line music sharing? People made mix tapes for decades; people have bullied for decades. Only now millions can see your mix tapes/read your libelous remarks with little to no effort on your part. The problem is distribution. So, Megan Meier's bully's ISP is the party we should blame.
But seriously, doesn't this really mean the model for parenting, like the music industry, needs an overhaul? The music industry has to learn that we do not, in fact, owe anyone royalties if we fart in the key of a copyrighted song. And parents need to teach kids to suck it up or fight back. Life is not fair. We are made stronger by our experiences, negative or positive. By overprotecting we dilute our already watery social constitution.
Matt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: We are...
Which is easier for a congressman: pass laws "to protect the children" against online bullies or question the Bush administration about the ongoing deaths in Iraq, the rising oil prices, and the failing economy?
While we're at it, let's also pass laws to help the RIAA and the MIAA, since these are easier to do than end the war in Iraq or negotiate for lower oil prices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Jerks banned from the internet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
intimidation has existed since the first human set foot in a schoolyard. It's the current atmosphere of safety hysteria on the part of parents that is endangering kids.
I do construction in a lot of middle-to-upper-middle-class neighborhoods and more often than not, I see kids that are locked up behind a picket fence or not allowed to wander more than 20 yards from their driveways before a parent or sibling is yelling for them to "get back here". Schools aren't allowed to let students in my town to go out in the playground even if there is so much as puddle on the tarmac.
Kids aren't being allowed to discover their surroundings and when it comes to problem peers, they are encouraged to fink on a fellow student rather than try to work out the issue in a natural manner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On-Line Censorship & Subsequent Prosecution
Are you going to push for the enactment of laws to tap all telephone calls, to moniter all text messages, to read all mail so you can document and prosecute the sadist who intentionally wrecked the mental health of that innocent American girl? And if you did, who would pay for all of that?
In the end, the Internet, along with almost all media, is a choice. I can choose to visit sites that are filled with hate, or I can not visit them. I can choose to watch television shows that glamorize violence, oversex women, and spout profantity, or I can choose to patronize channels that don't show it. I can even (Gasp!) turn off my television set. I can read books and magazines that espouse hate and anger, or create generations of unrealistic body images... or I can choose to read other genres, or not read at all. I can choose to communicate with complete strangers, or I can choose to exercise the same caution that I do with people in the physical world and not communicate with complete strangers.
I do believe that sending hate-filled messages, no matter if they were sent via talk page, latter, IM, e-mail, text, or voicemail, to a specific person is harrasment, and should be prosecutable that way. But not at the expense of my free speech, especially not in a time when so many of our rights as Americans are so precariously balanced.
The Internet is not a separate, different medium that all of those mentioned above. It is the same. So if you can and should regulate one, then you can and should regulate all of them. It is a 'slippery slope' that people are sliding down in the name of safety.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
huh??
What makes you think they don't? I know domestic spying and warantless wire tapping hasn't been in the news all that much but....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If it was a MALE, that bitch would be on "to catch a predator". But becuase she's a female, they gloss over the whole fact that it was an adult pretending to be a child in order to flirt with the child and then cause severe emotional harm to them.
While the law in general may be a bit poorly worded, there is a difference between just being a cockface online and actually harassing people. We all know legitimate harassment. Nobody is going to rule in your favor because someone calls you a poopy-face. But if you can take someone to court for ruining your reputation (libel/slander) then there is already precident for controlling interactions between two people where one is severely impacting the other without cause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: huh??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I also think people are overlooking the fact that, the girl was already severely mentally unbalanced. If it had happened to a healthy girl, she might have gone to her room, slammed her door, and spent the next day or so crying. And nobody would have cared.
Another good point is that what if it was another child that had done it? Kids get mad at each other and say terrible things all the time. Why should that be illegal just because it's over the Internet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ban childern and those with mental issues for the net;problem solve
I have no problem what Lori Drew did, while distasteful and somewhat tragic, to imply her intent was malicious based on the coverage is obtuse at best. The flappings that Ms. Drew knew of the neglected Megan's mental state don't add up. Given that if she had know about Megan's lack of mental health, she would have just chalked up the issues Megan and her daughter were having to Megan's need to where a helmet and left it at that.
So, to avoid this issue; lets have a nice simple law; The Internet Crouchfruit Leash Act. Parents and/or Guardians must monitor their child's activity. Maybe have some for of waiver , with some form of deposit fee, that parents can get if they feel their children are responsible, deposit is there to ensure they mean it and to provide funding to those who attempt to violate the wavier. Throw is some text to cover those that pose a danger to themselves, for those with issues that are above age and you're done
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sure the Lori Drew thing probably made her feel bad. Kids have boyfriend and girlfriend problems all the time. They don't kill themselves.
You know the mother must have been a real itch to the kid to make her commit suicide.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Er.... that's what laws do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Federal Speech Control?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Federal Speech Control?
Then you understand it wrong my friend. The woman was posing as a young boy named "Josh Evans" with a fake picture and the whole bit online who convince the young girl that he liked her only to have this woman turn around and tell the girl one day...
"It would be better if you weren't around any more"
All of this because of a falling out the girl had with the woman's daughter. Do try to have a BASIC understanding before wading in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Federal Speech Control?
I don't know about in the US, but in most countries encouraging someone to commit suicide is a crime. An adult encouraging a mildly mentally-disabled 13-year old to commit suicide is a total disgrace. Lori knew about her mental state, there's no debating that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Should you be able to be a jerk online?
--Glenn
8]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cyber Bullying
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Federal Speech Control?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lori Drew created the account to contact Megan to find out what she was saying about her (Lori's) daughter.
Lori's 18 year old female employee conducted the majority of the online relationship between "Josh Evans" and Megan Meier, including the ending of it.
The police have never found any evidence that "Josh Evans" told Megan that "the world would be better without you in it" or any derivative of such a statement.
Megan and her mother had a fight after the "breakup" because Megan refused to listen to her mother and get off the damn computer. She was found in critical condition from an attempted hanging 20 minutes later, was rushed to the hospital and died the next day.
The conclusion of the investigation found that Lori Drew had broken no laws.
In more recent attempts to criminalize Lori Drew, her former employee (who, again, was the one that acted as "Josh Evans") was given immunity to testify against her. Something smells fishy here. If there's a truly a crime commited (not necessarily saying there is) why is the legal adult who actually committed the acts in question being granted immunity? Looks like the police and feds would rather burn the witch everyone is screaming about than do their jobs.
This is hardly a clear cut case of a big bad adult out to vilely abuse a poor, innocent, beautiful snowflake of a child. It amazes me how quickly people forget that facts and law decide what is a crime in this country, not emotions and half-truths. Any law introduced out of an emotional appeal is guaranteed to be a bad one. Is it that hard to see this? Is it really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Child Protection
I'm all for online anonymity, but, like other freedoms, the rights of one individual end where the rights of another begin -- no one has the right to violate the rights of another. Such violations are all the more obscene when an adult violates the rights of a child.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Child Protection
What right did the adult violate?
Not being snarky, I genuinely want to know...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Indictment raises more legal questions???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Federal Speech Control?
Second the adult neighbor was pretending to be a adolesent boy and her boyfriend. It was premeditated and malicious. This wasn't a simple case of just calling someone names hell I went through that as a scrawny small kid. It was a deliberate attempt to tear Megan emotionally apart down to her core. This twisted individual wanted megan to commit suicide. That in the end was her goal hoping to hide under the cloud of "it was just innocent name calling"
No this has nothing to do with you or your wife it is suppose to be about protecting children and I can tell by other tones that those who don't mention anything about kids don't have any otherwise their perspective would be different.
I agree parents need more involvement like putting the computer in the living room or someone open to view but this case goes beyond cyberbullying it is just murder. There is a great chance it won't pass the first time, most don't because they are poorly authored. However, eventually anything that is in the interest of protecting children will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Maxhdrm, Megan's Law
Anyway, factoids aside, I think that all this "won't somebody think of the children" stuff is absolutely ridiculous and we as a country really need to toughen up again.
We're raising a country full of nancys
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pethetic drivil why do you even concider not having a Law?
aninimity to hate is not what we should over look if we hold any hope for our society as a whole. The ones who conduct hate on the net are the ones who gave up on society because they cant handle real life in the first place. You don't want to protect children from that type of mentality? the same children who will be in charge of your future as you get older and need them? how foolish humanity is to bicker over if we should or shouldn't. you don't see the bigger picture and for that I am so sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]