# E-mail: "Libs like yourself are the lowest life on the planet!" Criminal act?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [December 3, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893 "2009-12-03T21:02:16Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/81 "2009-12-04T06:11:52Z")

</div>

> [@Miller](#):
>
> Have you tried asking your wife to stop sending them?
> 
> 😉

Bravo.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/82 "2009-12-04T14:21:38Z")

</div>

> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> …  
> The law as written is ridiculous.

And yet, the country manages to carry on bravely despite this impediment, and the only person who suffers… deserved it.

If there is no injustice in this case, then I’m not going to lie awake fretting about how outrageous this law is. As you know, slippery slopes are simply there for us to snowboard on.

Perhaps an injustice has been done: before I start worrying about that I’ll need to see more information, perhaps waiting for the outcome of the appeal.

Moving on to more important matters… lunch!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/83 "2009-12-04T15:02:08Z")

</div>

> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I thought that people would like to talk about the general principles, and not be held to nitpicky legal exactitude.

… he said, with tongue firmly in cheek …

I’m still waiting for **Bricker** to pounce with “See? You liberals just want to ban speech you disagree with! Why do you hate the Constitution?”  
Is it really all that common for a law to be written along the lines of “Disturbing the peace is defined as disturbing the peace”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/84 "2009-12-04T15:23:25Z")

</div>

> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I thought that people would like to talk about the general principles, and not be held to nitpicky legal exactitude.

The whole issue up for debate is whether or not emails can “disturb the peace”. It’s silly not to give them the statute that defines “disturbing the peace”. Or even the quote from the Supreme Court that the appellate court relied on: “‘Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.’” To do what you did strikes me simply as “let’s see who can track down and figure out what I’m really asking”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/85 "2009-12-04T15:32:55Z")

</div>

> [@Hamlet](#):
>
> The whole issue up for debate is whether or not emails can “disturb the peace”. It’s silly not to give them the statute that defines “disturbing the peace”. Or even the quote from the Supreme Court that the appellate court relied on: “‘Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.’” To do what you did strikes me simply as “let’s see who can track down and figure out what I’m really asking”.

People who want to debate the statute can certainly do so. I didn’t provide it because it seemed to me that there might be a general interest in discussing whether the law should extend to emails – regardless of whether the Constitution is offended. I didn’t ask if the law is constitutional – I asked if e-mails can disturb the peace. That question can be discussed with specific reference to the statutory language and caselaw, or it can be discussed in a broader, less rigorous sense, can it not?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/86 "2009-12-04T15:41:30Z")

</div>

> [@Bricker](#):
>
> People who want to debate the statute can certainly do so. I didn’t provide it because it seemed to me that there might be a general interest in discussing whether the law should extend to emails – regardless of whether the Constitution is offended. I didn’t ask if the law is constitutional – I asked if e-mails can disturb the peace. That question can be discussed with specific reference to the statutory language and caselaw, or it can be discussed in a broader, less rigorous sense, can it not?

I don’t think it can. The phrase “disturbing the peace” is purely statutory. It has no broader, tangible, legal meaning which can be divorced from specific statutory language. You can’t know if X violates a statute without knowing what the statute says.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/87 "2009-12-04T15:49:44Z")

</div>

> [@Bricker](#):
>
> People who want to debate the statute can certainly do so. I didn’t provide it because it seemed to me that there might be a general interest in discussing whether the law should extend to emails – regardless of whether the Constitution is offended. I didn’t ask if the law is constitutional – I asked if e-mails can disturb the peace. That question can be discussed with specific reference to the statutory language and caselaw, or it can be discussed in a broader, less rigorous sense, can it not?

Please. Yes emails certainly can disturb someone’s peace. Great. There we go. Without a legal definition, we wrapped that one up in a second.

But that’s not a debate. What the debate is, as you say is whether the law should extend to emails. And giving people an idea what “the law” is is the first step to honestly debate whether or not it should extend to emails. To do otherwise simply smacks of the same old tired law professor ego stroke.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/88 "2009-12-04T16:32:33Z")

</div>

ISTM that **Bricker** is simply asking if it should be illegal to send obnoxious emails to others since he posted it in GD and not GQ. I would answer that question with a resounding no. My explicit right to freedom of speech should trump your implied right to peace.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/89 "2009-12-04T16:36:55Z")

</div>

> [@Nars\_Glinley](#):
>
> ISTM that **Bricker** is simply asking if it should be illegal to send obnoxious emails to others since he posted it in GD and not GQ. I would answer that question with a resounding no. My explicit right to freedom of speech should trump your implied right to peace.

On the other hand, there is a saying:  
“Your freedom to extend your arm, ends at the tip of my nose”

or something like that. There is a difference between free speech and deliberate harrassment and abuse. The HARD part is knowing where to draw the line sometimes.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/90 "2009-12-04T16:37:35Z")

</div>

This is probably a hijack, but –

I wonder if, after the election, the student became one of the professor’s constituents? In such a case, would the professor have any right to tell a constituent to stop communicating with their elected official? And citizens have an abolute right to “petition” the government, which might reasonably include emails to their representatives.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/91 "2009-12-04T16:45:58Z")

</div>

Its ok because the student is conservative.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/92 "2009-12-04T17:21:55Z")

</div>

> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> I don’t think it can. The phrase “disturbing the peace” is purely statutory. It has no broader, tangible, legal meaning which can be divorced from specific statutory language. You can’t know if X violates a statute without knowing what the statute says.

> [@Hamlet](#):
>
> Please. Yes emails certainly can disturb someone’s peace. Great. There we go. Without a legal definition, we wrapped that one up in a second.
> 
> But that’s not a debate. What the debate is, as you say is whether the law should extend to emails. And giving people an idea what “the law” is is the first step to honestly debate whether or not it should extend to emails. To do otherwise simply smacks of the same old tired law professor ego stroke.

OK. I don’t agree, but the point is moot and the statute at issue has now been provided for all to see, so the debate can certainly continue with this information.

Now is the answer still an unqualified, absolute ‘yes?’ The two e-mails found to be criminal were sent while Avery was a candidate for office, a campaign that was ultimately successful. Is there any sense whatsoever that Avery’s right to be free of rude, vexatious, e-mails is outweighed by any other concerns?

One of the amici briefs is from “Current and Former Elected Officials.” The officials, who have all held or still hold elected positions, argue that regardless of the constitutional claims, there are strong public policy reasons to reverse this conviction:

> [@](#):
>
> There are at least three problematic effects of imposing criminal penalties on the author or sender of an offensive communication: (1) a reduced and skewed flow of information and argument to elected officials, (2) the reluctance of constituents to send important e-mails because of the risk of criminal liability, and (3) the impoverished ability of deliberative bodies to decide issue collectively if such criminal convictions were permitted.

After providing a sample of an invective-filled e-mail received by one of the amicus briefers, the brief comments:

> [@](#):
>
> Most of the amici here have received numerous similar communications. We certainly do not enjoy reading these, and there is no dispute that the tone and content of these e-mails is rude and lacks civility. But the issue here is not whether these e-mails were polite; it is whether they are criminal. They should not be.
> 
> Such e-mails have value. They convey some useful information and argument. For example, in sifting through the invective in the two e-mails quoted above, the writer does note “the expense to taxpayers” of the bill in question, and the harm to “middleclass Arkansans, losing their jobs, being fired, struggling mightily to maintain some semblance of family comforts and standard of living” while “being forced to pay for the illegals’ schools, healthcare, pre & postnatal care, penal costs, & welfare not available to themselves.” That is, the writer perceives that there are unacceptable economic costs to the bill. Of course, he did not express this concern in such polite language, but the policy point is still there.
> 
> Also, the intensity of the invective may also convey a sense of the outrage of the particular citizen, the number of such e-mails may convey a sense of how many people support or oppose a particular issue or candidate, and the language used might convey a sense of who supports or opposes a particular issue or candidate. All of this information is relevant and potentially important to government decisionmaking. Criminalizing such e-mails or other communications would deprive elected official of this information.
> 
> If such e-mails could be criminally prosecuted, there would also a problem with the distribution of information. Some sides of public policy issues simply attract more vehement supporters, or even more rude and ill-mannered supporters. If people faced criminal prosecution for sending offensive e-mails, and thus sent fewer of them, it is likely that some sides in a public debate would be more heavily affected than others. The result is that elected official would not only have less information, but they would have skewed information.

Is there anything persuasive in that reasoning?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/93 "2009-12-04T17:30:52Z")

</div>

Good lord, are so many people so afraid of a “gotcha” question that you fear your position on this issue cannot be adequately defended when compared to your possible position on another, unknown scenario involving different facts? Enough with the hand-wringing over whether the OP has an agenda, already!

> [@Snowboarder Bo](#):
>
> It really does seem like a catch-all statute to me. Basically, anything one person does that upsets another person is a crime; am I reading that correctly?

I don’t think so. The law doesn’t seem to focus on someone being offended as the defining element of the crime, it focuses on the conduct of the person charged. If I went around banging pots and pans in my neighborhood at 3am, but everyone just laughed it off as “there goes **Ravenman** again!” I still think a cop could arrest me for being loud, obstreperous, and disruptive.

Anyway, to the case: tough call. I don’t have a problem in theory with using this statute to prosecute harassing behavior. However, I’m not sure whether the defendant’s behavior crosses the line from “annoying” into “harassment.”

I’m also struggling with whether an elected official deserves any less protection from harassment than any private citizen. On one hand, harassment isn’t free speech, and taking on an office shouldn’t mean that one must offer himself up for any abuse a person may wish to fling. On the other hand, the public should be allowed some more tolerance in communications with their government on issues that may become heated.

All in all, I’m leaning toward this being more of a civil matter between the professor and his student, rather than a criminal matter. If the professor was that disturbed by the student’s emails, I think he ought to have pursued a restraining order, rather than calling the cops.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/94 "2009-12-04T18:04:09Z")

</div>

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> The law doesn’t seem to focus on someone being offended as the defining element of the crime, it focuses on the conduct of the person charged. If I went around banging pots and pans in my neighborhood at 3am, but everyone just laughed it off as “there goes **Ravenman** again!” I still think a cop could arrest me for being loud, obstreperous, and disruptive.

This is somewhat the position that the state staked out at oral argument in front of the state supreme court – what was being criminalized, they said, was conduct, not speech. It wasn’t the content of the e-mails, it was the sending of them in a harrassing manner, much like calling someone repeatedly. It’s not what you sya when you answer the phone; it’s causing their phone to ring that constitutes the crime.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/95 "2009-12-04T18:27:01Z")

</div>

But we do have noise restrictions that cover 3am, so that’s a separate issue.

I don’t see how you could be charged with disturbing the peace for banging pots together at 3pm if no one stepped forward to say that their peace was disturbed.

And **Bricker** ’s post #94 makes me think my interpretation is correct, too.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/96 "2009-12-04T18:38:37Z")

</div>

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> Good lord, are so many people so afraid of a “gotcha” question that you fear your position on this issue cannot be adequately defended when compared to your possible position on another, unknown scenario involving different facts? Enough with the hand-wringing over whether the OP has an agenda, already!

Had **Bricker** started the thread with his post above yours, there wouldn’t have been a problem whatsoever. But he didn’t, so there you have it.

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> I don’t think so. The law doesn’t seem to focus on someone being offended as the defining element of the crime, it focuses on the conduct of the person charged.

Within one sentence after your admonishment, you refer to the statute in question. That’s the point I was making. It’s silly to play hide and seek with the facts and to make people dig to find this stuff. In your very first sentence, you use the very statute as a reference point, which is why I called Bricker’s hiding of it silly.

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> If I went around banging pots and pans in my neighborhood at 3am, but everyone just laughed it off as “there goes **Ravenman** again!” I still think a cop could arrest me for being loud, obstreperous, and disruptive.

I think this is close to the typical definition (both statutory and common sense) of disturbing the peace; disturbing the public peace. But the emails don’t fit that traditional/common use of the term (personally, I don’t find the State’s argument that what was in the emails didn’t matter, just sending them was enough), they deal more with disturbing an individuals peace.

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> Anyway, to the case: tough call. I don’t have a problem in theory with using this statute to prosecute harassing behavior. However, I’m not sure whether the defendant’s behavior crosses the line from “annoying” into “harassment.”

What is made illegal (lets call it “harassment”) and what isn’t (annoying), in large part depends on the definition of harassment and whether the actions fit that definition.

Some states have that term defined (for example, in Iowa, [Harassment](http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IACODE/2001/708/7.html) is defined (in relevant part) as "a. A person commits harassment when, with intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm another person, the person does any of the following:

(1) Communicates with another by telephone, telegraph, writing, or via electronic communication without legitimate purpose and in a manner likely to cause the other person annoyance or harm."

In Nebraska, they have a statute called [Stalking](http://law.justia.com/nebraska/codes/s28index/s2803011002.html) which criminalizes actions that “engage in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously terrifies, threatens, or intimidates the person and which serves no legitimate purpose”.

I have no problem with either of those. If it is harassment, it can be made criminal without offending the Constitution, or to my mind, personal freedoms. Even if it is made to a politician. This case is odd because there wasn’t an allegation of an “willful course of conduct”, but rather just two emails were charged. I’m assuming that’s why the prosecutor chose to file under the “disturbing the peace” statute. I couldn’t find any other statute in NE that would constitute harassment for one or two emails. So I think there is a statutory solution for the legislature, simply make harassment illegal rather than have it under disturbing the peace.

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> All in all, I’m leaning toward this being more of a civil matter between the professor and his student, rather than a criminal matter. If the professor was that disturbed by the student’s emails, I think he ought to have pursued a restraining order, rather than calling the cops.

I agree, letting the professor sue, get money and a restraining order, is the preferrable outcome, but oftentimes it isn’t enough. So having criminal sanctions available is recommended.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/97 "2009-12-04T19:08:24Z")

</div>

> [@Onomatopoeia](#):
>
> IANAL, but there was an implied threat of bodily harm, which puts things in a different category, but still. Perhaps the Prof felt his life, limb, or family was in danger. Doesn’t justify **the jail time** , IMO, but certainly some legal remedy.

Sorry, which jail time was that again?

> [@stpauler's quotation from post #25](#):
>
> After a bench trial before the Lancaster County Court concluding on January 30, 2007, Drahota was found guilty by oral pronouncement and **fined $250**.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/98 "2009-12-04T19:17:05Z")

</div>

> [@The Second Stone](#):
>
> Classic harassment case. Courts routinely ignore that they have anything to do with the First Amendment. Conviction is routine in these matters.

> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#):
>
> I suppose that would be because you don’t have a First Amendment right to harass and revile others on their private email accounts.

Well, that’s clear enough, I guess. What’s got me scratching my head is the use of the disturbing the peace statute to address it. Is “harrassment” a civil tort in Nebraska, rather than a criminal tort? And if so, was there some particular reason the issue _had_ to be pursued as a criminal, rather than a civil matter?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/99 "2009-12-04T19:23:27Z")

</div>

> [@kaylasdad99](#):
>
> Well, that’s clear enough, I guess. What’s got me scratching my head is the use of the disturbing the peace statute to address it. Is “harrassment” a civil tort in Nebraska, rather than a criminal tort?

In my long post above yours I said: “This case is odd because there wasn’t an allegation of an “willful course of conduct”, but rather just two emails were charged. I’m assuming that’s why the prosecutor chose to file under the “disturbing the peace” statute. I couldn’t find any other statute in NE that would constitute harassment for one or two emails. So I think there is a statutory solution for the legislature, simply make harassment illegal rather than have it under disturbing the peace.” I’m guessing, but since Nebraska law requires a “course of conduct” the 2 charged emails don’t fit the bill, so they went with disturbing the peace.

> [@kaylasdad99](#):
>
> And if so, was there some particular reason the issue _had_ to be pursued as a criminal, rather than a civil matter?

I don’t think it **had** to be done only as a criminal charge, just that it was in this case.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/100 "2009-12-04T19:27:19Z")

</div>

> [@Hamlet](#):
>
> Within one sentence after your admonishment, you refer to the statute in question. That’s the point I was making. It’s silly to play hide and seek with the facts and to make people dig to find this stuff.

I could have responded to **Bo’s** question as the last part of my response, but his was an interesting question that went without response. In no way are those comments integral to the principles of the issue at hand. The principal of whether or not the peace can be disturbed through electronic message isn’t defined by what the law says. I note that the OP seems to have been criticized lately for relying too much on what the law or some court has said about a particular situation; now he starts an interesting topic by mostly avoiding the intricacies of the law and instead talking about the general principles involved, and people think it is a trap. I guess some people can never win.

> [@](#):
>
> What is made illegal (lets call it “harassment”) and what isn’t (annoying), in large part depends on the definition of harassment and whether the actions fit that definition.

Right, but let’s not get overly fixated on whether a particular state has, in fact, specifically outlawed certain actions based on how they have defined harassment. I think the more interesting question is whether sending insulting emails ought to be considered a criminal offense, and why or why not.

> [@](#):
>
> I agree, letting the professor sue, get money and a restraining order, is the preferrable outcome, but oftentimes it isn’t enough. So having criminal sanctions available is recommended.

As I was thinking about this, it seems to be the most practical reason to make a criminal offense of disturbing the peace is to allow the police to step in and stop the disturbance in order to restore the peace. So if I’m banging pots and pans at 3am, the fact that my neighbors could, if inclined, sue my pants off isn’t a very good remedy if they have to wait for weeks or months for the civil case to be heard by a judge. Instead, they can call the cops and get me thrown in the pokey so they can get a night’s rest.

In this particular case, there appears to be no sense of urgency. The emails had stopped for four months, and in any case, the contended offense of receiving emails amounts to nothing more than having a note appear in one’s inbox. It is trivially easy to ignore an email or two.

The more I think about it, the more I’m leaning toward thinking that in this case, sending a handful of hot-headed emails to one’s (former?) professor ought to be a criminal offense.

> [@Snowboarder Bo](#):
>
> And Bricker’s post #94 makes me think my interpretation is correct, too.

Maybe I’m missing something, because if you are subscribing to the prosecution’s interpretation of disruptive behavior, then the DA is saying the exact opposite of what you are: that the acts themselves are what violate the law, and the degree to which someone was offended isn’t really relevant.

To use an another example, if I walk down the street and the crazy ol’ cat lady is offended and vexed by that, I haven’t disturbed her peace. That’s because what I did wasn’t obstreperous, regardless of how worked up she gets. My actions are judged on their own, and the feelings of the “victims” aren’t really considered.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893.md?page=4)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893.md?page=6)