Louisiana Wants To Put You In Jail If You Embarrass Anyone Under 17 Years Old Online
from the yeah-that'll-work dept
We've seen all sorts of crazy attempts to outlaw cyberbullying, but it seems that Louisiana is looking to really put themselves over the top in creating a law that creates a serious chilling effect on speech. As Eugene Volokh notes, the law would effectively ban any online speech designed to embarrass anyone under 17-years-old....would make it a misdemeanor to transmit any Internet communication or other computer communication "with the intent to coerce, abuse, torment, intimidate, harass, embarrass, or cause emotional distress to a person under the age of seventeen." This applies without regard to whether the message is communicated to the person, to some other individuals, or to the public at large. So under the law, all of these would likely be criminals (though, under a recent amendment the adults could be jailed for up to a year, while the minors could be jailed for up to six months):I don't see how this survives a First Amendment challenge, but when you're grandstanding around something that gets press coverage like "cyberbullying," it's unlikely that the politicians supporting this even recognize or care about the unintended consequences.
- A girl who sends her under-17-year-old boyfriend an e-mail telling him what a schmuck he is for having cheated on her, and hoping that he feels ashamed of himself.
- A blogger, or a newspaper columnist, or an online commentator, who publishes something condemning an under-17-year-old criminal, hoping the criminal feels embarrassed and ashamed as a result.
- A public or private school official e-mailing the parents of an under-17-year-old student a message about the student's misbehavior, hoping that the student will feel embarrassed and change his ways.
- Parents e-mailing their under-17-year-old children telling the children that they should feel ashamed of some misbehavior.
- A professional or amateur music critic or sports reporter writing a harsh review of an under-17-year-old performer's or athlete's behavior, hoping that the review will embarrass the performer or athlete into behaving more ethically, professionally, or competently.
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: cyberbullying, free speech, louisiana
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Proposed laws
One thing that tends to bother me is the assurance of selective enforcement. You know, "Don't worry, it'll only be used against [...]." All of these broadly-worded laws seem to fall into that bucket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proposed laws
So. No. I can not assume it will not pass in this form. In fact I should assume it will pass and act accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proposed laws
I agree that that's not much better. After all, embarrassing someone can be considered a form of emotional distress, and it would still be a free speech problem. But it will be a problem in line with what all the other states have (I agree with you, stupidly) passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Proposed laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proposed laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not necessarily bad a thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not necessarily bad a thing
I imagine that politicians committing crimes while sporting hard ons are already embarrassed enough. Why pile on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Bush involved?
This law is arguable worse, though, because a person can just SAY that they are humiliated or embarrassed in order to get someone thrown in jail out of spite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, we *could*, but we have always done so and will continue to do so. It's part of our style guide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I like the capitalization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I like the capitalization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still, that's a bit of a silly thing to call out, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VoIP and other verbal "Internet communication"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"and hoping that he feels ashamed of himself."
"hoping the criminal feels embarrassed and ashamed as a result."
"hoping that the student will feel embarrassed and change his ways."
"hoping that the review will embarrass the performer or athlete into behaving more ethically, professionally, or competently."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hope
> person was "hoping" to embarrass someone?
The reason the author phrased those examples with "hoping" is because the law as written requires intent.
"...with the intent to coerce, abuse, etc."
So accidentally embarassing someone online wouldn't be covered. The defendant has to have intended (i.e., hoped for) the embarrassment to occur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cyber? bullying
I have been unable to find any reports of bullying that was so restricted to an online forum that it warranted the moniker cyber.
I have searched Google for reports of "cyber" bullying and in all of them there was bullying and harassment in all areas of the person's life. I am seriously concerned that by raising "cyber" above the other pervasive aspects of bullying we are minimizing their importance.
I would rather be called a name on line than be hit in the head with a soda can.
Bullying is bullying. Harassment is harassment. I really do not think that any worthy purpose is served by applying the prefix cyber, and I do wish that you Mike - of all people - would stop feeding the moral outrage over "cyber" bullying that only serves to distract from the real problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why, that's an interesting article.
...And Pigtails. Mike has pigtails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would it take for people to get offended by "delicious vi@gRa" emails?
Surely we as a country have the resources to corral all the offended people and ship them off to their own island in the to start their own country called Offendistan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome unintended consequence
Microsoft could end up banning everybody 17 and under from XBox Live, or perhaps give them their own segment. Everybody knows that smack talk occurs over Live. In order to protect its users Microsoft would have to do something to keep 17 and under year olds off of Live so that lots of people won't be being constantly jailed and sued from Louisiana. As an aside, I am all for getting rid of the super young kids as they are often annoying, talk more smack talk than anyone else, and are the sorest of losers there are. At least lots of them that I have encountered online fit that bill. I am all for it!
Well. I am not really for limiting of speech and such but I am for the idea of not having to deal with young punks on such a regular basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason for the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real reason for the law
The law can't change human behavior that easily - people still commit murder, steal from stores, cheat on taxes, and all manner of unethical, immoral, and/or illegal acts DESPITE the fact that the acts are illegal under the law.
This law is nothing more than "think of the children" posturing in an election year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real reason for the law
As tragic as the incident was, why are there not media frenzies over each of the thousands of suicides a year that are not attributed to on-line activity?
Why should special laws be created to limit speech online when there are already criminal laws dealing with harassment?
And why aren't they proposing a law prohibiting the embarrassment of children in person?
It certainly smells like a tragic case turned into an unmistakable Red Herring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real reason for the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo? :)
your or you're?
Sorry. I'm feeling somewhat grammar nazi-ish at the moment. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Total BS.
POLICE STATE USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]