Is there a limit to protected speech on the internet?

[beakerxf]

Here at the GD most posters have strong feelings about censorship and protected speech. For instance, a hate group such as the KK has the right to speak freely without legal ramifications. What if their speech is directed at a specific individual with implied threats to his/her life? How far should their protected speech extend? If there is a limit to free speech, how should it be prosecuted/handled/curtailed?

Here is the article that inspired this thread: Living in Terror. Please read and then discuss.
(In case the story is taken down in the next few days, I have saved a copy and will e-mail it to anyone interested.)

[beakerxf]

Is this just a dead topic or should I post a synopsis of the article to jump start things?

Housing advocate Bonnie Jouhari in late 1997 started investigating disparities between between the city of Reading and the surrounding county of Berks. She noticed that the cheaper and higher quality housing was outside city limits, where few black people lived. The area incidentally had was influenced by local clan and blacks met resistance when trying to movie into Berks.

Her investigation and efforts to correct the disparity caught the attention of racists in the area. First, she was followed, then started receiving threatening phone calls, and then a website was built that feature a graphic of her office blowing up. The site also declared her a rce traitor and that she should be hung.

The local police where no help and eventually Jouhari moved to Seattle fearing for her life. However, because the page on the internet, her movements were tracked to Seattle and the harassment started up again.

Local police said they could do nothing because the internet site operated out of Pennsylvania and they had no jurisdiction. Attempts to invlove the Justice Department failed.

The following is a quote from the story:

Bonnie Jouhari believes she is caught in a First Amendment quandary. Because the Supreme Court has ruled that Internet speech is protected, government agencies don’t want to be seen as trying to limit expression on the Web. Jouhari agrees that hate mongers shouldn’t be censored, but says direct threats against individuals are another story. “No one wants to get into a First Amendment battle,” she says. “I said to an FBI agent, ‘Somebody blows up where we live, and you’ll think this is serious.’ On the Web, [law enforcement] perceives it as less threatening.”

But the FBI has been teaching officers to recognize and respond to online threats. Special Agent J. Andre LaMonde of San Antonio, for one, focuses on civil rights, hate crimes, and police brutality. He says harassing e-mail sent to individuals should be treated the same as harassment in any other form.

The generalized racist invective found on hate sites, however, may fall short of breaking the law. LaMonde says that even when sites rail against particular enemies, prosecutors don’t have a case until a person posting says he or she will personally cause harm—and that may still not be enough to prompt charges. “If the threat is posted on, say, a Web site, that isn’t usually directed toward a specific individual,” he says. “It’s usually against a group of individuals, and that’s much more difficult to prosecute, if you can prosecute at all. . . . If it says they want to kill a specific person, sometimes you still have to have a subject [who is planning to commit the crime].”

There is more to the article, but these are the basic points I was hoping people could debate.

Anyone? Anyone?

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Well, Beaker, I read the article, but I have to say that I found it a teeny bit slanted. It’s the Village Voice, after all, and they’re hardly one of your big Establishment supporters. They are also in the business of selling newspapers, and I couldn’t help noticing that the fact of the “bad guy’s” eventual apology and punishment was buried at the very end.

I would like to hear the law enforcement agencies’ side of it before I made any judgement calls.

As far as your OP question,

What if their speech is directed at a specific individual with implied threats to his/her life? How far should their protected speech extend? If there is a limit to free speech, how should it be prosecuted/handled/curtailed?

…I would want to know what the current legal penalties are for someone who IRL gets up on a soapbox and makes this kind of threat. How far does the right of free speech extend to someone standing on a street corner and shouting, “Mary Smith is a nigger-loving turd!”? How about holding a meeting in an auditorium, to discuss the “fact” that “Mary Smith is a nigger-loving turd”? How about taking out ads in the paper, or buying time on TV to discuss the same thing? It seems that posting this kind of thing on the Internet would just be a logical extension of free speech. Of course, we do have slander and libel laws–I’m surprised the article doesn’t mention anything about this, just “hate crimes”. But then, “hate crimes” sells more papers than plain old “slander”, unless you’re talking about Carol Burnett suing the National Enquirer.

The article doesn’t specify exactly what kind of “death threats” she says she received over the Internet. Are you allowed IRL to stand on the corner and shout, “Mary Smith is a nigger-loving turd, and I’m gonna GIT HER for it!”? Seems to me that if you are Mary Smith, and you hear someone shouting this, you have the right to go to the police and complain, and you can expect them to do something about it, if only to investigate. Sometimes, however, when they do investigate this kind of thing, they come to the conclusion that there’s nothing they can do until he actually tries to kill you, and you can’t expect the police to provide 24/7 bodyguard service. I’m also not clear on whether you can expect the police to go to the street corner and make him shut up.

So I’m not clear on whether you can expect the FBI or whoever to go to a website and make him shut up.

I’m not too clear on a lot of these things.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Along the lines of Duck Duck Goose…

‘Free Speech’ is not an absolute right as expressed by the idea that you can’t walk into a crowded theater and yell fire (I forget which justice said that).

Anyway, restrictions on free speech are pretty well established in this country. I did not think free speech extended to making threats against someone. I.e.–Saying that Mary should be shot because she is black is not protected speech, saying it is your opinion that all black people should be shot is protected speech.

About the biggest issue I’ve heard relating to the Internet is whether libel or slander laws should eb applied to it. Beyond that I think the current state of affairs as regards free speech in any other forum (public speaking, media, etc.) apply to the internet as well and that it should be enough. If you can’t get a person criminally you can always go after them in civil court where it is generally easier to ‘prove’ your issue than in criminal court anyway. Hit 'em where it hurts…in the pocketbook!

Any legal eagles out there who can shed some light on this?

[Lazarus7]

I have some thoughts.

How do the US laws apply when I host my site up out of Zimbabwe? … or Russia? … or in a small satellite circling the earth?

I am on the board of directors of a small non-profit ISP. A while ago, we had to deal with a slanderous website. Given our non-profit community approach, we have usage policies that all users sign that this violated, so we removed the site and informed the account holder.

We were contacted the next day by the site developer’s lawyer. The site developer, it appeared, was a US Citizen living in California. His American lawyer called us up and threatened us with all sorts of litigation for our violation of “free speech”. He failed to note, however, that Canada has no such thing as free speech. We have a guarantee of Freedom of Expression, but that is far different that US free speech. After a discussion on this, and several days more of threats and research, he left us alone.

Something to consider …

Matthew