Student Found Guilty Of 'Disturbing The Peace' For Sending Nasty Political Email To Professor
from the wow dept
As we all know, online debates can spiral out of control pretty quickly -- with name calling and people quickly jumping to extremes. This is especially true in the political arena, where various positions are stereotyped and extreme passions come out quickly. I tend to find such discussions tiresome. However, they occur all the time (occasionally here in our own comments). But could you consider such a conversation disturbing the peace? It appears that's exactly what happened to a student in Nebraska who had a rather nasty political email exchange with a professor.The student and the professor exchanged a series of emails over a short period of time. The two were at opposite ends of the political spectrum (which side was which, honestly, doesn't and shouldn't matter), and the student used some nasty language and accused the professor of being a traitor among other things. To be honest, if you've spent any time in online political discussions, this really isn't particularly out of the ordinary -- and (somewhat amazingly) after a back-and-forth exchange where the professor asked the student to stop emailing him and noting how insulted he was by the emails, the student did send a long apologetic email, telling the professor he was sorry that he got so riled up, and he really liked the professor and just wanted to debate someone intelligent who viewed the world from a very different perspective.
A few months went by, and then the professor received two anonymous emails from a new Yahoo email address that used the professor's name as part of the address (the username was "averylovesalqueda"), again ranting politically against the professor. The professor found the emails threatening and turned them over to the police. The police eventually tracked the emails down to the same student who was then charged with disturbing the peace. Yes. Disturbing the peace. For sending a nasty email.
First Amendment scholars look out. Who knew that sending a private ranting email could disturb the peace?
Amazingly, a lower court and now the appeals court agreed and the student has been convicted of disturbing the peace for sending those emails. The court even claims that the email address itself is libelous which seems quite difficult to square with reality. No one would look at that email address and assume that it was actually from the professor in question, and there's no indication that anyone outside of the professor himself ever saw the email address in question. O'Toole, in his post, puts the blame not on the judges, but on the student, who chose to defend himself, and appears to have done a pretty poor job of it, now leaving this ruling to be used as a citation in other cases. This is bad news no matter how you look at it. Even granting O'Toole's premise that the student is at fault for defending himself (and doing such a poor job of it), it's still bothersome that a judge wouldn't take basic First Amendment rights into consideration here.
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: disturbing the peace, email, politics, rant
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Disturbing the peace
How can it be disturbing the peace when you can just hit delete. It isn't in your face screaming that you CANNOT ignore. Not only that, but only those who actively seek out this kind of arguement get sucked in. I get a ton of emails everyday spouting what I consider trash....thats why my email comes equipped with "mark all" and "delete all marked" options. I could be wrong, but I bet this professors email has very similar options. Maybe we should sue him for disturbing the peace. At least we would have a physical case against him, as he brought it out from private email to the general public, where those in that particular courtroom were exposed to it. Hey, kid who got sued, counter sue...your rights have been violated, your dignity has been violated, and if you cry hard enough maybe your lawyer will be able to make a case for other...violations..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disturbing the peace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
email is serious business
first off, since when do people actually care about what happens via email?
crazy email from some fool on the internet is nothing to get worked up about. same with forum comments. if someone sends you something incendiary, just forward it to a couple of friends and have a good laugh, or post it to the web where other people can have a good laugh at it, or just delete it. no good will come from caring what people say electronically.
people on the internet aren't real. they don't have actual feelings that count for anything. honestly, if you show an ounce of human emotion on the internet you are begging for hassle and torment.
and for the jackass that sent professor alqaeda the email, haven't you heard of anonymous remailers?
you wouldn't make a crank phone call from your house (that's what burners and unsecured PBX's are for) so why would you send an email from a location that can be traced back you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: email is serious business
Haha, that's awesome :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Someone hired a hitman to kill you for $100. If you want to prevent this you have to pay him more. Send him $1000 and he won't kill you"
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read the case record...
http://pub.bna.com/eclr/nebraska_v_drahota_061609.pdf
Nebraska also has a 1989 case that extends "Disturbing the Peace" to include fighting words and the peace/tranquility of an individual (see http://www.legislature.ne.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=s2813022000) where other states might have a disorderly conduct, assault, threats, or harassment statute that covers that conduct.
Fine $250 for being a dumbass and Prof. Avery just might deserve that "kick me" sign if he makes a habit of pressing cases like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It just goes to show. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disturbing The Piece of Shit
All you idiots who think saying stuff online is harassment are a bunch of nose picking tards. "WAA WAA, somebody called me a name!"
What a pathetic piece of shit you are.
I wish Bush were back in office to send that Liberal Professor back to GitMo where he came from.
Try to relax your collective sphincters, hippies, and take the freedom enema you so desperately need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disturbing The Piece of Shit
"Disturbing the piece of shit Al Qaeda lover by being patriotic?"
Here's why that's a dumb statement, because even IF you agree with the substance of what he said (and from the legal brief I saw, I saw little political opinion and a lot of hateful vernacular), you wouldn't say he was JUST being patriotic. By the kids own admission he acted like a jackass, which is why he apologized for what he'd said. Regardless of which side of the aisle you come down on, you ought to be able to describe your philosophy without personally attacking the other person, otherwise you don't have a definable philosophy, only one defined by opposition.
"All you idiots who think saying stuff online is harassment are a bunch of nose picking tards. "WAA WAA, somebody called me a name!""
I 100% agree, you cock-smoking fucktard :)
"I wish Bush were back in office to send that Liberal Professor back to GitMo where he came from."
Finally, an admission that Bush abused and would continue to abuse Gitmo. Plus, if I'm reading the Appellate brief correctly, this professor became a Congressman during the course of the trial, or just before. So Bush would send a sitting Congressman to Gitmo because of what he thinks? Sadly, I think you're right. I just wouldn't want it to happen.
"Try to relax your collective sphincters, hippies, and take the freedom enema you so desperately need."
If you're trying to be ironic, that is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. If not, then it's just sad that you don't have any idea what freesom actually means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disturbing The Piece of Shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disturbing The Piece of Shit
oh, I think I know what a "freesom" is...
It's when 2 or more commie pinko hippie liberals get together and circle-jerk into each other's gaping pie-holes.
That's what a Freesom is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disturbing The Piece of Shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disturbing The Piece of Shit
Angry Dude - If freedom involves putting anything up the ass I will have to pass... some gas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
too much we don't know
Perhaps one could make an argument for libel. Perhaps one could make an argument for harassment.
Disturbing the peace makes no sense at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
delete it or...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they don't want the peace disturbed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(the username was "averylovesalqueda")
I kinda get who's on which side, though, and just based on username , side with the teacher...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The two cases should not be confused. And indeed, the presentation of the first case simply serves to prejudice discussion of the second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libel In Email Address
If someone registered john.doe-is-a-pedophile@hotmail.com and e-mailed all the local schools and parks officials in his community without saying anything libelous in the body of the e-mail, I think Mr. Doe would be libeled, with the only defense being if it were true.
In this case, if the professor was the only one to see it, maybe it's truly not even libel. However, something tells me the kid probably showed it to his friends. That would make him vulnerable to civil litigation, if not criminal prosecution for disturbing the peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libel In Email Address
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid
They can still find you but is makes it very manhour intensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The student's comments would appear to be enough to make the teacher change his ways of doing things to avoid problems. That is intimidation, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
avery
http://www.averyforlegislature.com/
Bill�s devotion to teaching earned him numerous awards and teaching honors, including the Douglas Bereuter Distinguished Teaching Award for Undergraduate Instruction; Mortar Board Society Professor of the Month; four Certificates of Recognition for Contributions to Students; Beta Theta Pi Award for Excellence in Education; Who�s Who Among America�s Teachers; and two-time finalist for Educator of the Year by vote of student body at UNL. He also wrote or edited six books and 30 published articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content of e-mails
Excerpt:
This wasn't just a simple "nasty e-mail." There were threats involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In regards to the email
Hmm, come to think of it, with those kind of role models and teachers it's no wonder that ninety percent of our youth is worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In regards to the email
Yeah, kids often don't know any better than to do certain things. That's why we cut them a little more slack. As an adults, however, people are expected to know better.
Put the kid in detention, slap a dunce hat on him, and get back to teaching.
The person in this case is an adult. Please at least read the story before commenting on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe he typed in all CAPS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disturbing the peace with an email
From the article, we don't have the foggiest idea if the email went ONLY to the professor, or was broadcast to the world - we don't know what else went into it, such as why the student went from apologetic to offensive.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW enough to decide if this was a good decision, bad decision, or "in-between".
Mike, you are an excellent journalist - don't descend into yellow journalism (as too many newspapers have)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disturbing the peace with an email
That's pretty good, considering he doesn't even claim to be a journalist at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]