Louisiana Wants To Put You In Jail If You Embarrass Anyone Under 17 Years Old Online

from the yeah-that'll-work dept

Fri, May 21st 2010 10:02am — Mike Masnick

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):

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.

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.

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

37 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

A Dan (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 10:17am

Proposed laws
Fortunately, I'm pretty sure we can assume the law won't pass in this form.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 10:27am

Not necessarily bad a thing
If a District Attorney says something that's posted online about a 17 year-old criminal that causes emotional distress they get to go to jail, too. Or, how about the hard on crime politicians? Like I said, not necessarily bad a thing. This is a law that can keep giving and giving.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 10:39am

or how about a parent uploading a picture of a 17 year old back when she was 5. That's embarrassing for the 17 year old.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zauber (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 10:43am

Is Bush involved?
This suddenly reminds me of a law that George W Bush had snuck into a bill that would make it illegal to be annoying online. Since anything and everything can annoy someone, you can easily see the stupidity of the law. As if we'd expect anything smart to come from Dubya's head.

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 thread ]
deadzone (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 10:43am

*Sigh*
My State is on a roll when it comes to embarrassing itself lately. This stupid Law seems much less important than say the MAJOR OIL SPILL or our state budget that is in turmoil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 10:56am

Could you not capitalize every word in the title?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 10:58am

Re:
Or for that matter, a picture of her/him with their "dorky" family members.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 11:10am

Re:
Could you not capitalize every word in the title?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:12am

Re: Re:
It's nice to have style.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
n00b slayer, 21 May 2010 @ 11:13am

VoIP and other verbal "Internet communication"
Without reading the bill (I should be in D.C.!) how would this apply to VoIPs and multiplayer online games that support voice chat?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:14am

It seems rather strange that in all but one of the examples given, the last part has the "hoping" part in it. Does that mean that you have to prove that the person was "hoping" to embarrass someone?

"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 thread ]
Stuart, 21 May 2010 @ 11:16am

Re: Proposed laws
Umm...Epic Fail. You obviously haven't followed politics for more than 20 min. This is EXACTLY the kind of wrong headed legislation that passes ALL THE TIME.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:17am

Re: Re: Re:
You know who else had style? Grammar nazis with their pretty grammar uniforms.

I like the capitalization.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:17am

Re: Re: Re:
You know who else had style? Grammar nazis with their pretty grammar uniforms.

I like the capitalization.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adam Wasserman (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 11:25am

Cyber? bullying
I can't believe that you continue to legitimize the idea that there is such a thing as "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 thread ]
A Dan (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 11:26am

Re: Re: Proposed laws
I'm not saying it's nothing to be concerned about. My guess is that it will pass, but after removal of "embarrass" from the list.

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 thread ]
George Carlin, 21 May 2010 @ 11:39am

Why, that's an interesting article.
For some reason, I always pictured Mike as a 17 year old from Louisiana.

...And Pigtails. Mike has pigtails.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 11:47am

Re: Hope
> Does that mean that you have to prove that the
> 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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thwok! Sorry you were stuck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 12:12pm

Re: Not necessarily bad a thing
"Or, how about the hard on crime politicians?"

I imagine that politicians committing crimes while sporting hard ons are already embarrassed enough. Why pile on?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 12:16pm

What would it take for people to get offended by "delicious vi@gRa" emails?
Indeed, this law will probably end badly. I can see it working almost as well the singing telegraphs I used to send back in the late 1880s.

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 thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 12:22pm

Awesome unintended consequence
I have thought up an awesome unintended consequence of this.
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 thread ]
nels, 21 May 2010 @ 12:26pm

The real reason for the law
Have all of you forgotten the girl who committed suicide after being bullied online ? I think that's really what this law was about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 21 May 2010 @ 12:46pm

Re: The real reason for the law
Yes, and it's a kneejerk "the law can fix this!" reaction to a situation that the law CAN'T fix.

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 thread ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 12:52pm

Re: The real reason for the law
You are probably correct, this did come out of the furor following on that incident.

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 thread ]
Gwiz, 21 May 2010 @ 12:52pm

Re: The real reason for the law
I have not forgotten - but it's still not a valid reason to limit free speech. Period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Debra, 21 May 2010 @ 1:04pm

Re: response
I was also warned against sending my grandson's first potty training experience pictures by email...hmmm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 1:22pm

Re: Re:
Look out, AwkwardFamilyPhotos.net... there's a criminal conspiracy charge in your future...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re: Re:
Anyone can have style... it's having the guide that matters...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 2:11pm

Typo? :)
I don't see how this survives a First Amendment challenge, but when your grandstanding around something that gets press coverage...

your or you're?

Sorry. I'm feeling somewhat grammar nazi-ish at the moment. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew F (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 2:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Proposed laws
They might bump "emotional distress" to "severe emotional distress" to keep it in line with similar laws. That's still pretty fuzzy though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hegemon13, 21 May 2010 @ 2:40pm

Re:
Um, it's a "title," thus it is appropriate to use "title case." Although, "to" and "in" shouldn't be capitalized, so I guess Techdirt uses their own version of title case.

Still, that's a bit of a silly thing to call out, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
George Lambert, 21 May 2010 @ 4:16pm

Re: Proposed laws
I don't see how this wouldn't violate the First Amendment. I know that some state legislatures act like they're eager to ban people being harassed on Facebook or even DirtyPhoneBook but we all know that their cries about protecting children are false and their real reason for this is to slowly work their way into preventing public criticism of themselves. You had that PA attorney general just this week asking Twitter to reveal the identities of some bloggers who had hurt his feelings too much. These politicians need to be criticized and the first amendment needs to be protected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 5:13pm

Jurisdiction
One issue not raised by the article (and which is typical of laws like this) is the issue of jurisdiction. Setting aside the massive constitutional issues, what if I’m in Idaho and say something that embarrasses a 16-year-old in Louisiana on the internet, does Louisiana expect to be able to prosecute me? Is Louisiana presuming to bind the entire world with its laws?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 5:36pm

How would the state of Louisiana extradite the perp from some other state or better yet another country ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stoned Atheist, 25 May 2010 @ 9:11pm

Total BS.
This is all just softening people up for the eventual end of net neutrality.

POLICE STATE USA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lrobbo (profile), 27 May 2012 @ 2:59pm

Did this ever pass? Be surprised if it didn't go through in some form . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]