Lori Drew was prosecuted over cyberbullying posts on a social networking site. The government indicted her on on technical computer-related charges, presumably because the conduct could not fit harassment charges. The case went to a jury, which found her not guilty of all but one misdemeanor charge, which the judge threw out as an overbroad application of the technical statute. Free-speech objections were raised by various commentators and members of the public, but those did not really figure into the legal disposition of the case. Many states since then have passed cyberbullying laws.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula immediately wound up in jail after the Innocence of Muslims video, and a few people have raised First Amendment concerns. I can’t say whether he’d be in prison if he’d made a LOLcats video, but I think his case is too tied up with false-identity concerns to tease out free-speech issues. Apparently, though (to address one of Odesio’s points upthread), prosecutors at his probation-revocation hearing made the argument that he would be safer in jail.
A woman in Kentucky seems to have gotten two days in jail for defying a judge’s order to take down an offensive Facebook post wherein she joked about her DUI.
Oooh Tom you’ve reminded me, who was that indian guy who was mocking some gay dude in a way that wasn’t really a problem if people were sensible? There was a New Yorker article about it.
That pretty much sums it up. There seem to be people in this country that treat being offended as recreation, and they are currently being helped by the fact that the lower courts are staffed by judges that are essentially ignorant of modern Internet communication.
Hopefully, this will go the same way as the twitter bomb joker and be chucked out on appeal. Although, I doubt this guy will get the celebrity backing that the other guy got, for one he’s not nearly as sympathetic or even likeable. Which is a shame, because his decision is appalling.
Are you talking about the suicide of Tyler Clementi? (New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi - Wikipedia)
I’m not sure what you mean by “it wasn’t really a problem if peopler were sensible.” Clementi committed suicide after a couple of incidents in which Ravi tried to set up a webcam to spy on him and encouraged his friends to watch, too. After Clementi committed suicide, Ravi discussed with his friends what they would and would not tell the police. Ravi was convicted for crimes involving invasion of privacy, attempted invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, tampering with evidence, witness tampering, and hindering apprehension or prosecution. Are there charges on that list that you think were not reasonable?
As for the “Innocence of the Muslims” creator. A term of his parole was that he not use the internet without authorization. He probably wouldn’t have had a problem if he had posted a funny cat video on Youtube, but that’s because nobody would have found out about it.
Basically I don’t think that he committed suicide because of the webcam incident. It may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, but it’s hardly a big deal. He didn’t seem to mind it himself.
Tampering with evidence yada yada is of course a very bad thing but from what I remember we are basically talking about a panic reaction AND him doing it in reaction to a college investigation rather than a legal investigation, which is a very different thing.
Having said that now you list the general list of charges, especially the privacy invasion etc (which in the context was a tiny deal) it was a rather different case to this one, I suppose. I brought it up because in my head it was just another tasteless prank, but it was one in a very different way…
Fun anecdote: At university me and some friends put a hidden camera in a fridge to try to find whoever was trying to steal something from it (forget what). Obviously that’s very different to trying to spy on someone sexually for lulz but I am just illustrating how students can think - it would still have been an invasion of privacy, technically.
ETA: The whole list of charges that was thrown at him is totally excessive too. It suggest a prosecutor looking to do things for political reasons, although I may be wrong. Anyway read the New Yorker article, that was the last thing I read about this case so it’s kinda out of my mind.
You knew so little about the incident that you were just asking if someone could remind you of it since the only thing you remembered was that it was “some Indian dude” who ridiculed “some gay dude” and yet despite your admitted ignorance of the case, you’re convinced that Tyler Clementi’s committing suicide right after the webcam incident was a coincidence, that “it wasn’t a big deal” and most absurdly, despite knowing so little of the incident that you needed other people to remind you of the incident, you’re convinced that Tyler Clementi “didn’t seem to mind it himself.”
That is complete and utter bullshit.
Please post your evidence that Tyler Clementi “didn’t seem to mind it himself.”
I don’t have a New Yorker subscription and that is where I would look. Nor do I have the physical magazine any more (or if I do I have no idea where it is).
Whew… Wouldn’t that be subject to hellish abuse? Say, in your response to my post, you say, “That’s a really damn stupid thing to have said.” So I go to my lawyer, and sue you, and the SDMB, and, even if I lose, I’ve made you pay a fair amount of money just to defend yourself. How would it ever stop?
Instead of rioting, Islamicists would just hire lawyers; any publication that disparaged Mohammed would be inundated in “emotional distress” lawsuits.
People shouldn’t be jerks…but I’m not sure suing them really is the best response. One man’s reasoned critique is another man’s jerk.
The aggrieved party would have to prove some sort of damages in order to collect. Suits filed in bad faith would be subject to countersuits, and the lawyers who filed them could be disbarred. Generally speaking such cases are hard to collect on. Check out the wiki article: Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Wikipedia
I just have an impression from the piece that he didn’t seem especially upset about it and the suicide was for other reasons. I also recall he was not closeted nor from a background that would really have a problem with his sexuality.
Bumping to ask a similar thing question to the OP.
You can find further details here, but basically a man has been jailed for eight months for making a home made t shirt curdely celebrating the shooting of two police officers earlier that day.
Again I assume in the US this would be protected free speech? I happen to once again believe that this should be legal but he should of course take the consequences from society of wearing such a shirt, I would have been amazed if he’d survived a night out in a busy town centre.
This troubles me. If something should be legal, but, in practice, it gets you killed by crazed vigilantes… Then what does “legal” even mean any more?
(“Sure, Jim, it’s legal for blacks to vote…and it’s also customary for them to dance at the end of a rope if they try.” Is this what anyone would call “The rule of law?”)
He wouldn’t be killed by crazed vigilantes. He’d just be shunned and chucked out of most places.
Subsequent information has come to light that he blames the police for the death of his son (the most likely story being that he died in police custody) which makes his conviction even more disgusting actually.
I don’t know why you’d be struck at the “absence of federalist values”. The UK had a unitary government until quite recently. Did you mean capital-f Federalist?
Which is fine with me. That’s legal. It falls under “freedom of association.” If a friend of mine did something that evil, I’d shun him too.
It was when you said, “I would have been amazed if he’d survived a night out…” that my knee started jerking. If the response to free speech is death…then it isn’t as free as it ought to be.
He deserves ridicule not jail.
Yes he is horrible human being, yes he should feel the full force of adverse public opinion, yes he should be protected from physical harm but no he should not be in jail.
I have serious concerns regarding how the law is tackling cases of offensive speech or opinions in social media.
People treat twitter and Facebook as if it were the equivalent of pub discussions and seem oblivious to the fact that once it is in the ether you have no control. Personally I think anyone using Twitter or Facebook without realizing the implications is an idiot but we haven’t got the jail space to incarcerate everyone in that category.
I have said horrendously offensive things in my time, we all have. To our friends and partners, in private, we say things we would never want repeating out of their conversational context. However, thanks to the modern world we can have our every drunken or ill-considered utterance broadcast to the world and there is little we can do to stop it.
I think it is scary. We are our own big brothers, anyone with a mobile phone has the power to ruin you. The law needs a serious rethink on this one.
Didn’t some guy in England recently (last year) get jail time for making fun (on Twitter or FB) of a popular footballer who had a heart attack on the field? Or am I mixing up stories?
Seemed like it was bullshit - clearly something that would be protected here in the US (even tjhough it would be in poor taste).