Missouri Continues Arresting Cyberbullies: Don't Be An Online Jerk In Missouri

from the free-speech? dept

Fri, Oct 16th 2009 9:58am — Mike Masnick

As tends to happen, it appears that Missouri has decided to overcompensate for the mess with the whole Lori Drew/Megan Meier tragedy. After realizing that Lori Drew hadn't committed any actual crime, Missouri passed a new law making it a potential felony for being a jerk online. And, of course, with that new law in place, Missouri prosecutors have wasted little time in filing charges against all sorts of people. The latest involves the arrest of a teenager for creating a mean website about another student. Now, I'm not condoning the behavior of this student, which does seem despicable -- but arresting the kid seems really extreme. Aren't there less draconian methods for dealing with this sort of thing? Kids can be mean and, yes, they do stupid things at times -- but arresting kids every time they're a jerk online is going to lead to a pretty busy judicial system.

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: arrest, cyberbullies, missouri

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

R. Miles (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 10:36am

Welcome to the United States of America...
... where in Missouri, your rights to Free Speech will land you a stint in the slammer.

I'm absolutely appalled such a law was passed in the first place, but considering this all stemmed from a child, neglected by society, committing suicide, it's hard to dismiss the emotional attachment at its passing.

Even still, it sickens me people are defending this nation through active service only to see it's all for nothing when basic rights are stripped without just cause.

Too bad the military oath includes the words "both foreign and domestic" as I can see the latter becoming a problem when more laws such as this pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- captn trips, 16 Oct 2009 @ 11:34am
  
  Re: Welcome to the United States of America...
  your not kidding... wtf???
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:29am
  
  Re: Welcome to the United States of America...
  A girl DIED because of someone being "a jerk online"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ash Marak, 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:32am
  
  Re: Welcome to the United States of America...
  it's also really dumb that this site says any one who doesn't want to sign up is a coward! I think that counts as being a jerk, little missy! POLICE!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
darky, 16 Oct 2009 @ 10:36am

it's interesting... where does the line between "virtual" and "IRL" reside

you might as well add "trolling" to the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2009 @ 10:50am

While I do not agree with laws get kids arrested for being kids in this particular case there was some desire to see the victim dead. It may not have amounted to a death threat but there is a point at which it is reasonable to investigate physical threats. Being a jerk and threatening physical harm are not the same thing, how is the victim to know how real any threats are or are not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 10:58am
  
  Re:
  But we already have harassment laws to protect from death threats or threats of harm. Why do we need a new one?
  
  What was said on the site was not a death threat and sounds just like standard bullying. Nothing new to see here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 11:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    "But we already have harassment laws to protect from death threats or threats of harm. Why do we need a new one?"
    
    Because it's threats ON THE INTERNET!!!
    
    Seriously, the biggest improvement we could make would be to recuse anyone from making a tech-related decision if they're over thirtyfiveish (and yeah, that would include me. I'll take the hit for my peers.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Duncan Yoyo (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 12:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think that if it something like a traffic ticket OK.
      
      Fine them and let the civil courts sort out a slander lawsuit supported by the state's fining the culprit.
      
      Lori Drew is getting all the punidhment the state can do. The trials and publicity are her punishment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2009 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Where did I say we needed a new law? I said that I do not agree with it (kids getting arrested). I'm saying that the site seemed to include language that could (by someone like the victim) be interpreted as a threat and that threats are different than say calling Chronno as dumbass. Calling you a dumbasss is fine, threating you with death on the other hand is not okay. I never said that wishing to see Chronno dead was a threat, just that you might see it that way and that you might like it if someone looked into how real that threat may be.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hegemon13, 19 Oct 2009 @ 12:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "What was said on the site was not a death threat and sounds just like standard bullying."
    
    Maybe. However, why do we accept "standard bullying"? Such behavior among adults leads to assault and harassment charges. So, why are people so willing to let children get by with a "kids will be kids" attitude.
    
    No, for the record, I do think the arrest was probably extreme, though we don't know if there was prior history or other instances that led them to that decision. However, SOME kind of discipline for bullying, both on and off the Internet, is definitely necessary. What seems like harmless fun to a few can scar others for many years to come.
    
    I once knew over 20 different routes to walk 3/4 of a mile home, so that one particular group of kids was less likely to corner me. It was not fun, or adventurous. It was terrifying, and when they did find me, they always made up for their frustration on the other days. Never enough to draw blood, but plenty of threats and fearful anticipation. When you're twelve, you don't have the capacity to filter and ignore it when someone shoves a lit firecracker in the mouth of a box turtle, laughs when it blows apart, and threatens to do the same to you.
    
    Know what the principal said? It was "normal bullying." Didn't help that a couple of the kids hung out with his son. He said there was nothing he could do "off school grounds and outside school hours." Until we got a new vice principal who understood how damaging such things can be. After he showed up, most of those students were expelled or neutralized by threat of discipline within a few weeks. It doesn't take arrests, but enough with the "normal bullying" bullshit. There's no such thing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hegemon13, 19 Oct 2009 @ 2:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I guess I should qualify this before someone else does. I am not comparing the extreme example of my junior high years to a harassing Web site. I do think this law, as it is currently used, is pretty ridiculous and extreme. What I am railing against is this mentality that bullying is "normal" and should just be accepted. Yes, it happens regularly. No, that does not mean we should ignore it. As soon as we start saying that a certain degree of bullying is "normal," where do we draw the line? It becomes subjective. No, these bullies did not physically hurt me except for a couple times (thought physical restraint was the norm), but the psychological impact of never feeling safe created problems that plagued for a long time into adulthood.
      
      As soon as you allow this subjective level of normal, you open the door to jackasses like my former principal.
      
      So, to summarize, I am concerned with the "standard bullying" language and attitude. I am NOT arguing for this law. I am arguing that school-level discipline is necessary, and should be more active in many cases. I also think that the law should not be afraid to use existing laws (harassment, etc) where applicable. Why my parents did not go to the police after the principal's reaction, I don't know. I certainly would for my own children.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 1:39pm
  
  Re:
  I'd like to point out that millions of women are stalked and harassed every day, with everything disturbing phone calls to dead animal mail, and the police don't generally have the time or inclination to pursue those claims. They're told to get a restraining order (if they can) and that the police can't really help until something actually happens. In the real world, your rights are only considered in the breach thereof. So, anyway, my point is that if these people can't get relief for harassment, why should this guy? A website is so much less bothersome than calls, letters, or dead animals. It seems like a waste of resources that were only sanctioned because the harassment happened 'on the Internet'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2009 @ 5:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd like to point out that millions of women are stalked and harassed every day, with everything disturbing phone calls to dead animal mail, and the police don't generally have the time or inclination to pursue those claims. They're told to get a restraining order (if they can) and that the police can't really help until something actually happens.
    
    Men too, and they get even less help from the authorities.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2009 @ 5:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Where did I say anything about 'on the internet'? Where did I say I supported such a law?
    
    If someone is getting death threats, veiled or otherwise, on the internet or otherwise, then that is a problem. Not sure what to tell you if you are getting death threats and the police dont care
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 8:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    > I'd like to point out that millions of women are stalked and harassed every day
    
    I'd like to point out that stalking isn't a female-only crime. Quite a few men are victims as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2009 @ 10:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Quite a few men are victims as well."
      
      They don't count.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NR, 16 Oct 2009 @ 10:59am

I'm confident any conviction from this law would eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court; closely followed by the lawsuit awards for the victims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerome, 16 Oct 2009 @ 11:02am

Blame the Economy!
It's the economy! Anyway to get a few extra pennies from the populace! ...a tax without a tax.

Atleast this way only the jerks are the ones who pay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2009 @ 11:29am
  
  Re: Blame the Economy!
  the problem with that is "being a Jerk" is relative.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 12:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Blame the Economy!
    "the problem with that is "being a Jerk" is relative"
    
    Uh, no, the problem is that too many Americans today are pantywaist emotional midgets that either don't have the spine to realize their self worth or else prefer to use the victim role for personal gain (I'm looking at YOU, Sharpton).
    
    Attention citizens of what will soon become Helmerica: if you don't understand your own worth independent of other people's opinions, then you truly aren't worth anything at all and will be so judged shortly....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jared, 21 Oct 2009 @ 7:12am
  
  Re: Blame the Economy!
  Yeah sure the only ones to pay are the jerks. Not even.. every tax payer pays for stupid laws. Take time and think about it before you start saying things are good ideas.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 11:07am

The article made loose references to other people brought up on charges under the anti-bullying law. The one that stood out in the middle of the pack really illustrates what is festering at the core of this law:

* A man protesting the development of a proposed resort was charged with sending a threatening e-mail to city hall staff.

Now I have to research this case because no further details were provided in the article.

In that case, why were charges brought up at all if there were was no tangible case for assault?

I assume the worker in city hall who was targeted was "of age". If so, are we now to assume that hurting *anyone's feelings is now punishable as a felony in MO?

Teenagers definitely are more at risk of being victimized by bullying as most have not fully individualized, and seem to rely heavily on the input from others to sustain their self-image. Considering this, a part of me feels maybe teenagers need some protection from bullying. However, the more logical part of me screams that this is, of course, "immature" behavior that should not be reinforced, much less reinforced by the government.

Now we have (presumably) an adult government employee being protected by an anti-bullying law that probably reinforces immature behavior. To what end?

This law is a case where the "ends" should have been better considered before ever affecting a "means".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mrtraver (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 11:12am

I am so ashamed...
please don't tell anyone I live in Missouri.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan, 16 Oct 2009 @ 11:15am

jursidiction nightmare
How do they determine jurisdiction for this?

What if I live in Missouri but created the website while in Kansas, using a VPN internet connection to my company in Washington and uploaded it to my hosting provider in California?

Which state has jurisdiction over the "crime"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 19 Oct 2009 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: jursidiction nightmare
  Ha, I like the way you think. Unfortunately, it would almost certainly be the state you were physically present in when the "crime" was committed. However, I bet they would try to make a very strong argument to have you extradited to Missouri if you created a website about a Missouri citizen and he/she wanted to press charges...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2009 @ 12:20pm

Cyber bully???? WTF "She said bad things about me so I'm jumpping off the roof"...

Holy shit, we've become nothing but keyboard cowboys and pussys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Julian, 16 Oct 2009 @ 12:57pm

Kids these days
Honestly I don't agree with this law but something needs to be done because I see a lot of disrespect on the Internet I don't care how much someone doesn't like someone it's just bitch move to do it on the Internet if you have a problem with them settle it like a human being. I don't like where this country is going as far as respect because I go to
a military academy and I see people talking when we are saluting the flag as it's being raised I just wish it was back the way things used to be where you respect people and this country. I recently joined the military and went through my basic
training I get so much disrespect from people and they say that I'm going to die in Afghanistan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 1:07pm
  
  Re: Kids these days
  And those people are morons and can be dismissed as such. I would think a soldier of all people would be able to prioritize which actions deserve a response and which can be ignored.
  
  And thank you for your service....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lucretious, 16 Oct 2009 @ 1:21pm
  
  Re: Kids these days
  If "something needs to be done", what would you suggest that "something" be? How would you enforce it? Where is line the line drawn between dangerous harassment and simply being an asshole? As it is now, "Hate Crimes" are so vague as to who it applies to and when, do you really think something that falls into such a grey area like "cyberbullying" will be used in an even-handed manner?
  
  Wouldn't it simply be easier to accept that there are idiots in the world and leave the law to prosecute only those individuals who show direct physical threat to another?
  
  It disturbs me that people are so quick to give up their freedom of speech because their anger is temporarily inflamed by a single incident.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 1:52pm
  
  Re: Kids these days
  The way what used to be? People have been desecrating flags as long as we've had one. I am a military wife, living in a military town, (if you joined the army, you're probably only a few miles from me right now) and we all know and accept that we are working to maintain the freedoms that America guarantees, including the right to free speech that disagrees with YOU. If you can't reconcile that idea with the idea you have of America, your probably need to seek a different career.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2009 @ 1:18pm

Freedom of Speech..
Just watch what you say.. This is America after all.. Where are the asteroids when you need them? I think we just need to start the nuke fest.. Get rid of all the dumbass humans and we'll be r0ckn..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brad Hubbard (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re: Freedom of Speech..
  That sounds like a death threat, against the entire world.
  
  INCLUDING MISOURI TEENS.
  
  You're fucked, buddy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 1:54pm

You know, I think that anti-bullying laws are just a way to circumvent the freedoms that were enforced by the Flynt/Hustler rulings so long ago. If you can't be mean on the Internet, then soon you can't be mean in print or on television, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2009 @ 2:06pm

There is no way this can stand, it's such a flagrant violation of free speech. Supreme Court challenge in 3...2...1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2009 @ 3:55pm

War on Drug is about to end (in failure), they need to invent new crimes to keep those privately owned prisons filled to the rim and profitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2009 @ 5:20pm

Federal Law
I think there's a federal law against making online threats, especially death threats, also. I think it might only apply when the victims are high ranking gov't officials though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 8:39pm

1A
Seems like a bright-line violation of the 1st Amendment to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]