# E-mail: "Libs like yourself are the lowest life on the planet!" Criminal act? **URL:** \ **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:** 7
**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 5, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/121 "2009-12-05T17:09:33Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think the person who cuts off the driver could be ticketed for unsafe driving, and if there were some road rage incident that followed, perhaps; but I don’t think of the others disturbs the peace. Why? Because they are not doing things that can reasonably be defined as acts that are either intended or reasonably construed to be unusual in terms of being obviously disruptive or offensive. By disruptive or offensive, I would include things like making very loud noises at quiet times, profligate swearing at inappropriate places, challenging people to fight, and so forth. These are things that would generally strike the average person as being inappropriate and offsensive behavior. > > Note that I’m not putting this in terms of things that people find annoying. Writing a check at Safeway may annoy you, but writing a check at a Safeway is completely normal behavior. One’s own peccadilloes don’t create crimes for other people. I agree that there are other laws that cover the driver. And I agree with your assessment of the check writer. But the person in the express line with more than 10 items is clearly in violation of the rules posted re: the line. Since he is both in violation of the posted social contract, and is hindering my ability to use the line properly, isn’t he breaching the peace? And what about the screaming baby? Seems to me to clearly be a violation. ---
**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 5, 2009, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/122 "2009-12-05T17:12:04Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Let me find out.😃 > > The answer to your question is probably “no”. This is a public message board and as long as the behavior is within the guidelines of the board, she has no case. Plus there is always the “ignore” button. > > Ironically, if the kid in question wrote his comments in a newspaper, blog or message board or other public forum, it would probably be protected speech. But since he specifically emailed the professor’s personal account, it > isn’t. So a scathing post in the Pit would be ok. How about a PM to her, using the boards system, which contained such language? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/123 "2009-12-05T17:40:09Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Look, I hate Liberals as much as anyone. But the First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to send hateful emails to people calling them “traitor” and whatnot after they ask you to stop. So the kid was convicted of “disturbing the peace” (which is a legal term for “being an asshole”). > > It’s generally a misdemeanor or an infraction so he isn’t exactly Nelson Mandella here. I’m not sure why you hate liberals, their opinions just differ from yours. But I really do like your “alternate definition” ‘(which is a legal term for “being an asshole”)’. Somehow, it fits the subject of the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/124 "2009-12-05T17:59:56Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > And what about the screaming baby? Seems to me to clearly be a violation. “Disturbing the peace” is quite litterally a law to stop people from acting like assholes. It’s not to stop all occurances of natural events that might annoy you (babies crying, people in the checkout line with more than 10 items, etc). Sending threatening emails is roughly equivalent to harassing or crank phone calls, which in many states is also a misdemeanor. > [@SteveG1](#): > > I’m not sure why you hate liberals, their opinions just differ from yours. Because they hate America and trying to ruin it with their Liberalocity (or so I’ve been led to believe)? I don’t hate anyone really. I was just making hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/125 "2009-12-05T18:36:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Heh. > > Apparently we cannot. Soooo…just ignoring my post, then? ---
**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 5, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/126 "2009-12-05T18:57:07Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > But the person in the express line with more than 10 items is clearly in violation of the rules posted re: the line. Since he is both in violation of the posted social contract, and is hindering my ability to use the line properly, isn’t he breaching the peace? Someone taking the last three pineapples when the store says “limit two per customer” and you really wanted some tropical delights isn’t a crime either. Violating store policies generally means that the store ought to take action, not a cop. But in any case, the guy with 11 or 20 items isn’t creating a ruckus or acting offensively, he simply isn’t obeying a store policy. > [@](#): > > And what about the screaming baby? Seems to me to clearly be a violation. A baby obviously doesn’t have the mens rea to commit a crime. If parents bring a screaming baby to the opera, and refuse to leave when ushers ask them to, then I could see them being cited for breaching the peace. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/127 "2009-12-05T19:26:42Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > “Disturbing the peace” is quite litterally a law to stop people from acting like assholes. It’s not to stop all occurances of natural events that might annoy you (babies crying, people in the checkout line with more than 10 items, etc). > > Sending threatening emails is roughly equivalent to harassing or crank phone calls, which in many states is also a misdemeanor. > > Because they hate America and trying to ruin it with their Liberalocity (or so I’ve been led to believe)? I don’t hate anyone really. I was just making hyperbole. Good enough. Hmmmm Liberocity’s roaming gnome. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/128 "2009-12-05T20:29:07Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Soooo…just ignoring my post, then? If you really need me to address the issue of whether I should have disclosed the statute, relevant caselaw, and saliant points of the parties’ briefs to the state supreme court before asking the question, I will. But in my view, that entire question is a substantial hijack from the topic, and my only regret is giving in to the temptation to toss off a four-word throwaway in post 116. I will happily withdraw post 116 and stipulate for the limited purpose of moving the discussion along that the OP could have been asked differently and more effectively. > [@Gadarene](#): > > \*\*\*Moreover, it obscures what seems to be both the core of Volokh’s argument on appeal and **Bricker’s** real question, which is whether the e-mails are protected speech. (Correct me if I’m wrong, **Bricker**.) This is a perfectly valid and possibly interesting issue, but it’s not remotely what the OP asks. No, that’s simply a subset of my question. Obviously if the e-mails are protected speech, we can resolve the more general question of whether they may subject the sender to criminal sanctions. But even if we decided that there is no constitutional protection, perhaps we might conclude that it’s unwise to criminalize e-mails similar to this, where their only offense is harrassment. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/129 "2009-12-06T00:14:34Z")
Is your question “can e-mails disturb the peace?”, or isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/130 "2009-12-06T00:24:38Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Is your question “can e-mails disturb the peace?”, or isn’t it? I think all **Bricker** was doing was laying out the facts of the case and seeing how people react to it. Do you have a right to contact your elected officials–even if they have previously, before being elected, asked you to refrain from contacting them? What if you contact them in a non-harassing manner? What if you send an email? A nasty email? Can a nasty email be harassing? After all, it’s pretty easy to ignore them (you can even set up a filter to automate the ignoring). Should it be possible to be sent to jail for sending a nasty email to someone you have had bad blood in the past and who is now your representative in the state legislature? I think these are all copacetic questions to ask, I don’t think **Bricks** deserves all this suspicion. ---
**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 6, 2009, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/131 "2009-12-06T01:16:13Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So, if this poster ends up being pitted, and the language and sentiment are vitriolic enough to upset her, do we have a breach of peace violation? According to the reasoning I’ve seen in the court decisions, I can’t see how **Hamlet** ’s reasoning above could come into play. > > The poster has explicitly tried to halt such communications (before they even begin). As long as she has not broken her commitment to “play real nice”, how could anything nasty directed at her not be seen as a breach of peace? Again, the better term is harassment and not “breach of peace”. And, as I already said, a post to a message board can fit the definition of harassment, but the fact it is a public forum and the recipient having agreed to take place in the public forum, the argument that the alleged “harassment” should be protected is much stronger than in a private email or if done on the phone. Now, I’m sure you have a hundreds of potential situations you could raise where the balancing between mere annoyance/harassment or free speech/illegal harassment can crop up, but I have neither the time, nor the inclination to deal with every imagined scenario you can create. The simple fact is that harassment has been made illegal in certain states, and if you need to know whether something constitutes illegal harassment or simply free speech, I would suggest you check with your state’s statute. ---
**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 6, 2009, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/132 "2009-12-06T09:00:16Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Again, the better term is harassment and not “breach of peace”. And, as I already said, a post to a message board can fit the definition of harassment, but the fact it is a public forum and the recipient having agreed to take place in the public forum, the argument that the alleged “harassment” should be protected is much stronger than in a private email or if done on the phone. > > Now, I’m sure you have a hundreds of potential situations you could raise where the balancing between mere annoyance/harassment or free speech/illegal harassment can crop up, but I have neither the time, nor the inclination to deal with every imagined scenario you can create. The simple fact is that harassment has been made illegal in certain states, and if you need to know whether something constitutes illegal harassment or simply free speech, I would suggest you check with your state’s statute. Thanks to you, **Ravenman** , and everyone else who has taken some time to answer my questions. I very much appreciate it. I actually think I understand what constitutes harrassment. And I’m really not asking about that. I’m concerned with annoying. The Nevada statute, and many of the others shown here, specifically say that anything done with the deliberate intent, or resulting in, annoyance of even a single person is a crime. Well, the guy in the express line with 10 items might not be a breach, but if he sees me waiting and laughs and sticks his tongue out at me, that would annoy me. And frankly, I think it’s ridiculous that that could be considered a criminal act. My intent wasn’t to be a jerkish and present a laundry list to be evaluated. Dude, _my_ time is more valuable than that. 😃 I just wasn’t articulating very well yesterday. My apologies. I’m not a lawyer; I’m a snowboarder. And I know that often, legally, words have slightly different ascribed meanings than we find in everyday use. So I guess what I’m seeking is to hear a definition of “annoy” that doesn’t mean simply > [@dictionary.com](#): > > –verb (used with object) > > 1. to disturb or bother (a person) in a way that displeases, troubles, or slightly irritates. Because that is such a low threshold to cross, and I’m having trouble understanding why we (society) thinks it’s a good idea to have it there, if indeed we do. Now if what you’re saying, **Hamlet** is that “annoy” and “harrass” are legally the same, well, then I have a hard time seeing it the same way I do now and I would likely agree with the intent and the application of the law. So, is that what you’re saying? Thanks again to everyone who has taken some time to address my questions. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/133 "2009-12-06T14:00:55Z")
From one of Drahota’s emails: > [@](#): > > “Does that make you sad that the al-queda leader in Iraq will not be around to behead people and undermine our efforts in Iraq? . . . You . . . and the ACLU should have a token funeral to say goodbye to a dear friend of your anti-american sentiments.” Drahota is now being defended, in part, by the ACLU. Damn, that’s irony. ---
**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 6, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/134 "2009-12-06T16:11:06Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > The Nevada statute, and many of the others shown here, specifically say that anything done with the deliberate intent, or resulting in, annoyance of even a single person is a crime. First, it’s Nebraska. Second, that’s not what it says. Here it is again: “Any person who shall intentionally disturb the peace and quiet of any person, family, or neighborhood commits the offense of disturbing the peace.” The definition clearly doesn’t include “or resulting it”, meaning accidentally disturbing someone’s peace isn’t covered. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Well, the guy in the express line with 10 items might not be a breach, but if he sees me waiting and laughs and sticks his tongue out at me, that would annoy me. And frankly, I think it’s ridiculous that that could be considered a criminal act. We tend to agree on that. The statute, as written, is very broad and could, if you really wanted to press it, be used to charge some conduct I wouldn’t consider as harassment. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Because that is such a low threshold to cross, and I’m having trouble understanding why we (society) thinks it’s a good idea to have it there, if indeed we do. I think the Nebraska statute is poorly written and could easily encompass perfectly legal assholish behavior. That’s why I said I thought there was a legislative solution, were they should criminalize harassment, but not being an asshole. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Now if what you’re saying, **Hamlet** is that “annoy” and “harrass” are legally the same, well, then I have a hard time seeing it the same way I do now and I would likely agree with the intent and the application of the law. So, is that what you’re saying? I’m saying annoy certainly can be harassment. But not all annoyance is harassment. In the part of annoyance that I think constitutes harassment, I have no problem with criminal charges. If it is harassment, charge it. In a vast majority of cases of harassment I’ve seen, it’s a couple that has broken up and one calls at 3:00 a.m., emails non-threatening, but still disgusting emails, and/or leaves little notes on cars, etc. Stuff that doesn’t rise to the level of stalking, but still is harassment. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/135 "2009-12-06T19:17:24Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I think the Nebraska statute is poorly written and could easily encompass perfectly legal assholish behavior. That’s why I said I thought there was a legislative solution, were they should criminalize harassment, but not being an asshole. As I mentioned (well, as I quoted Justice O’Connor) above to **Snowboarder Bo** , every court will take the criminal statute “as though it read precisely as the highest court of the State has interpreted it.” Thus, you mustn’t think that the text of the statute is conclusive, it merely sets the outer bounds of breach of the peace in Nebraska. Any limiting construction that the Nebraska Supreme Court has placed on the statute are part and parcel of Nebraska law. This is counterintuitive, to be sure, since it means, contrary to what most lay people might expect, you _cannot_ get a full and final account of the law from reading the text of the statute, you must also know the jurisprudence that has been emitted from the state courts on the topic. ---
**Author:** ![CTburns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a5b964/32.png) [@CTburns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CTburns)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/136 "2009-12-16T04:54:05Z")
In CT, they always seem to tack on a charge of “Breech of Peace” whenever possible. Cops here also write you a ticket any time you have an accident. Seems like BS to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/137 "2010-09-24T15:57:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can e-mails disturb the peace? Answer: not in Nebraska. > [@State v. Drahota](#): > > So even when criticisms of public figures are outrageous, if they fall short of provoking an immediate breach of the peace, they are protected by the First Amendment. To hold otherwise would obstruct the free exchange of ideas. > > Yet, we do not hold that political speech can never constitute fighting words. It is not difficult to imagine insults virulent enough to provoke a breach of the peace in a political debate. > > But here, even if a fact finder could conclude that in a face-to-face confrontation, Drahota’s speech would have provoked an immediate retaliation, Avery could not have immediately retaliated. Avery did not know who sent the e-mails, let alone where to find the author. We conclude that the State has failed to show that Drahota’s political speech constituted fighting words. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/138 "2010-09-24T17:06:19Z")
Poor writing there. “In a face to face confrontation, this couldn’t have happened, because they aren’t face to face.” Where’d you access that? It’s not on Westlaw yet. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/139 "2010-09-24T18:46:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute persons who go about begging, common gamblers, persons who use juggling or unlawful games or plays, common drunkards, common night walkers, thieves, pilferers or pickpockets, traders in stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons, keepers of gambling places, common railers and brawlers, persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object, habitual loafers, disorderly persons, persons neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming houses, or places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served, persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children shall be deemed vagrants Cripes, if they ever enforce that law we will have a lot fewer Dopers from Nebraska. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893/140 "2010-09-24T18:50:26Z")
Sounds like Hedly Lamar’s recruiting pitch. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/e-mail-libs-like-yourself-are-the-lowest-life-on-the-planet-criminal-act/519893.md?page=8)