A Joke Tweet Leads To 'Child Trafficking' Investigation, Providing More Evidence Of Why SESTA Would Be Abused
from the we-wish-we-were-kidding dept
Think we're unduly worried about how "trafficking" charges will get used to punish legitimate online speech? We're not.
A few weeks ago a Mississippi mom posted an obviously joking tweet offering to sell her three-year old for $12.
I tweeted a funny conversation I had with him about using the potty, followed by an equally-as-funny offer to my followers: 3-year-old for sale. $12 or best offer.
The next thing she knew, Mississippi authorities decided to investigate her for child trafficking.
The saga began when a caseworker and supervisor from Child Protection Services dropped by my office with a Lafayette County sheriff’s deputy. You know, a typical Monday afternoon.
They told me an anonymous male tipster called Mississippi’s child abuse hotline days earlier to report me for attempting to sell my 3-year-old son, citing a history of mental illness that probably drove me to do it.
Beyond notifying me of the charges, they said I’d have to take my son out of school so they could see him and talk to him that day, presumably protocol to ensure children aren’t in immediate danger. So I went to his preschool, pulled my son out of a deep sleep during naptime, and did everything in my power not to cry in front of him on the drive back to my office.
All of this for a joke tweet.
This story is bad enough on its own. As it stands now, actions by the Mississippi authorities will chill other Mississippi parents from blowing off steam with facetious remarks on social media. But at least the chilling harm is contained within Mississippi's borders. If SESTA passes, that chill will spread throughout the country.
If SESTA were on the books, the Mississippi authorities would not have had to stop with the mom. Its next stop could be Twitter itself. No matter how unreasonable its suspicions, it could threaten criminal investigation on Twitter for having facilitated this allegedly trafficking-related speech.
The unlimited legal exposure these potential prosecutions pose will force platforms to pre-emptively remove not just the speech of parents from Mississippi but any speech from any parent anywhere that might inflame the humorless judgment of overzealous Mississippi authorities – or authorities from anywhere else where humor and judicious sense is also impaired. In fact, it won't even be limited to parents. Authorities anywhere could come after anyone who posted anything that they decided to misinterpret as a credible threat.
These warnings might sound like hyperbole, but that's what hangs in the balance: hyperbole. The ability to say ridiculous things because sometimes we need to say ridiculous things. If anything that gets said can be so willfully misconstrued as evidence of a crime it will chill a lot of speech, and to an exponentially unlimited extent far beyond any authority's jurisdictional boundaries if it can force platforms to fear enabling any such speech that might happen to set any of them off.
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: child protection services, child trafficking, cps, jokes, mississippi, sesta, tweets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Need's got nothin' to do with it either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How much you wanna bet no case worker shows up to interview him and Kristen Bell?
Not only is this crap ridiculous, it's also unevenly applied only to people who can't fight back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try joking "Any Traffic Ticket Fixed $500" and see what "the bar" does to YOU!
What happens in practice is that filthy Rich Weinsteins brag for decade while nobodies get investigated. To do good, you should focus on reducing money and POWER -- instead of the opposite you're doing right here: arguing that internet mega-corps shouldn't be at all regulated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try joking "Any Traffic Ticket Fixed $500" and see what "the bar" does to YOU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try joking "Any Traffic Ticket Fixed $500" and see what "the bar" does to YOU!
First, he's not saying law enforcement shouldn't act on legitimate tips, he's asking HOW COULD ANYONE INTERPRET WHAT SHE SAID TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A JOKE. In other words, not only should the "concerned citizen" have realized the mother was joking and not reported it (because, come on, that's blatantly obvious it's a joke), but law enforcement should have taken one look at the tweet and realized it wasn't a legitimate tip.
Second, he's not arguing for less regulation of internet mega-corps, he's arguing for less regulation and restriction on private citizen speech. The mom put her speech (again, it was a joke) on twitter, under Mississippi law, she was then investigated for child trafficking. If SESTA becomes law, then Twitter could be charged with facilitating child trafficking. If Twitter then suddenly has to worry about being criminally charged for every joke tweet their users put up, then they will start aggressively taking down every joke tweet that could possibly be misconstrued as a crime.
If that happens then private citizens have lost a public forum where they can express their First Amendment rights to free speech. Expand that to any other internet company being worried about being criminally charged and now you have effectively censored freedom of speech on the internet because no company is going to be willing to face multiple criminal charges for the joke tweets of their users.
Third, contact me to get out of jail for free. *waits for the 'bar' to do something to me, nothing happens* There are very few restrictions on what people legally can't say. What I said could be taken literally, it could be a joke, or I could be offering you a get out of jail free card for Monopoly. That's why we have Freedom of Speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Try joking "Any Traffic Ticket Fixed $500" and see what "the bar" does to YOU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You deserved this because of your views that bug me.
This happens to other conservative parents all the time NBD.
Just don't say these things!
I have no problem with CPS being able to offer anonymity to tipsters, but the person who called this in refused to give any information. Shouldn't this be a red flag?
As we saw with the failure of Trumps turn in your neighbors tipline, if the target doesn't know who called it in they will use it to try and settle all sorts of scores.
We waste so much time looking for more haystacks, we've forgotten we're trying to find needles.
A single tweet was all of the "evidence" required.
As we all know, people remember the allegations, not the outcomes.
With SESTA opening up Twitters wallet, we expect they won't go after those dollars?
From states that set up speed traps to make people forfeit cash and cool cars?
Who use $2 testing kits that are notoriously bad?
We really need to stop believing the hype.
We need to require facts that meet standards, not just emotional needs.
Yes there are some children being trafficked, but trying to expand liability to somehow force private companies to act as an extension of the police or pay the price is wrong.
Trafficking is SOOOO horrible... how much was the last bill funding it for & where did the money end up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then there is the fact that our current politics are a joke. I mean seriously, TRUMP IS PRESIDENT. You really think some stupid comments on social media will hurt a future candidate? Our current president can't go 5 minutes without saying something stupid on twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Go take a long walk off a short pier
Damm Id be in jail since I was 12 and going to summer camp
if you had those assholes around back then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you realize...
They can come talk too and/or take your kids without even a warrant. Usually they are "supposed" to have one... but it's not like we require the government to follow the law now do we?
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/03/was_a_detroit_mother_right_to.html
You better dance to the governments tune or else!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When you realize...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With rising pitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: With rising pitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did she forget the /sarc tag?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did she forget the /sarc tag?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These people can't protect children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DCFS Must Investigate ALL Reports
He's reported her to DCFS twice on transparently bogus charges in order to hassle her (because sociopathy). Both times the DCFS said that they were legally required to investigate, no matter how many times her husband might file a complaint. Each investigation involved interviewing all named adults and the children. One time a uniformed officer pulled her son out of 1st grade class to ask him all kinds of ugly questions (because the husband had alleged sexual abuse). All DCFS can do is make a note in her file that all previous investigations were proven bogus, but they still have to follow up on any new accusations.
In a just world, a false reporter would receive some sort of penalty for acting in bad faith. In reality, neither the police nor DCFS have the resources to clapback at him for it.
So, the point of my post is that DCFS had no choice, they did not make a bad judgment call, their hands are tied by the law. I don't know enough about the details of SESTA to say how it would interact with DCFS. I just wanted to give more background on how DCFS works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i read an article the other day regarding the updating of the old red baseball cap for army parachute riggers. therein it described the replacement: a bright red stetson with excellent aerodynamic properties. as silly as that was, my blood pressure was pegging the needle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad it's come to this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Hi Jack!"
You may have totally innnocent grounds to say it, but everyone else will completely freak out, with good reason.
Oh, and the story isn't SESTA related at all, except in your mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He still manages to get a dig in at the end, but at least starting with a joke means I'm more likely to read his posts than skip them automatically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If one official treats it as serious, then a DA with a hard on for company will treat similar jokes as serious.
When politics and decisions as to who to prosecute get mixed together, the politicians will grandstand at the expense of innocent third parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, it was Big Brother......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First, it was Big Brother......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Save Evaporating Slushfunds and Troughs Act
When Techdirt covered the case of Jeffrey Kantor's lawsuit, it was the perfect opportunity to examine the ADL behind the scenes spy rings, because they are the ones doing that stuff.
And, the Intercept has started to cover the "informant recruitment schemes" and the BIZARRE methods the FBI DHS uses to target people it wants to turn into rats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There goes my business model of sleeping with blonde blue eyed Amazonian women , then during childbirth tell her
it was still born and then sell the blue eyed baby overseas to people who want blue eyed Amazonion babies
DAMM YOU CPS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the going rate for a 3 year-old?
I'm going to jail for encouraging child trafficking, aren't I?
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the going rate for a 3 year-old?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's already this bad.
A few years ago, my wife said "I'm so tired of people telling me my daughter is small." on facebook. A week later, our 9-month-old daughter was put into state custody, under allegations we were starving her. It took us 9 months of legal battle is prove we were innocent, and were actually good parents of a healthy daughter. According to our lawyer, that's standard procedure (at least, in this state); in fact, he said he was surprised we regained custody as quickly as we did. And just so it's clear: The judge dismissed the charges and sealed the record. We were completely cleared. In spite of that, we were put through the torture of losing our 9-month-old baby, and receiving a toddler 9 months later. We missed her first steps. We missed her first sentence. We were completely innocent. And yet, we're one of those statistics they cite on the billboards that say "1 in 5 kids struggles with hunger."
The family law enforcement offices in this country are completely out of control. I don't honestly think new laws could make it any worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's already this bad.
Perhaps your standing as a "fundamentalist Christian" who has had problems with the state in regards to your church and your daughter might be part of the story? Perhaps choices made in the name of your religion (like not feeding her all food groups, or what have you) may have played a part in it?
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's already this bad.
Christian here, and I can confirm that none of the above is true; we don't ban any food groups in the name of religion. What is wrong with you?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's already this bad.
That is demonstrably false. 7th Day Adventists ban meat.
Here's the thing about christianity (like all major religions) there are thousands of different variations. There is no guarantee that your version of christianity is even remotely like another sect's version of christianity. Hell, to this day most evangelicals deny that catholics are christians at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's already this bad.
Eh, you're nearly right:
Seventh-day Adventists do not eat pork or other unclean meat as identified in the book of Leviticus and many avoid all meat for health reasons.
http://www.religionfacts.com/seventh-day-adventism
Per various SDA websites it's a choice. My Quaker in-laws are vegetarian.
The point is, it's not fair to either make stuff up or try to tar us all with the same brush. I'll come down like a ton o' bricks on discriminatory crap like that, whoever it's aimed at.
As for the sects, that is true, belief and practice does vary per congregation and per individual. I'm a lot more liberal than the Evangelicals, that's for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.adventist.org/en/vitality/health/
As for it being a choice, well, there are choices and then there are choices which are backed by community pressure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In any case, MyNameHere was insulting Dale for being a Fundamentalist (if he even is one) so it's a moot point. I'm not a Fundamentalist myself but having been on the end of a libel campaign I won't stand for it when I see someone else being targeted whether I agree with him or not. The issue here is, "Don't tell lies about people," not "Are religious people in need of locking up and having their kids taken off them?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]