Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Welcome to the United States of America...

   

   R. Miles (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 10:36am

   
   

   ... where in Missouri, your rights to Free Speech will land you a stint in the slammer.
   
   I'm absolutely appalled such a law was passed in the first place, but considering this all stemmed from a child, neglected by society, committing suicide, it's hard to dismiss the emotional attachment at its passing.
   
   Even still, it sickens me people are defending this nation through active service only to see it's all for nothing when basic rights are stripped without just cause.
   
   Too bad the military oath includes the words "both foreign and domestic" as I can see the latter becoming a problem when more laws such as this pass.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   darky, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 10:36am

   
   

   it's interesting... where does the line between "virtual" and "IRL" reside
   
   you might as well add "trolling" to the list

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 10:50am

   
   

   While I do not agree with laws get kids arrested for being kids in this particular case there was some desire to see the victim dead. It may not have amounted to a death threat but there is a point at which it is reasonable to investigate physical threats. Being a jerk and threatening physical harm are not the same thing, how is the victim to know how real any threats are or are not?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re:

   

   Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 10:58am

   
   

   But we already have harassment laws to protect from death threats or threats of harm. Why do we need a new one?
   
   What was said on the site was not a death threat and sounds just like standard bullying. Nothing new to see here.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   NR, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 10:59am

   
   

   I'm confident any conviction from this law would eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court; closely followed by the lawsuit awards for the victims.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Blame the Economy!

   

   Jerome, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 11:02am

   
   

   It's the economy! Anyway to get a few extra pennies from the populace! ...a tax without a tax.
   
   Atleast this way only the jerks are the ones who pay!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Free Capitalist (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 11:07am

   
   

   The article made loose references to other people brought up on charges under the anti-bullying law. The one that stood out in the middle of the pack really illustrates what is festering at the core of this law:
   

   * A man protesting the development of a proposed resort was charged with sending a threatening e-mail to city hall staff.

   
   
   Now I have to research this case because no further details were provided in the article.
   
   In that case, why were charges brought up at all if there were was no tangible case for assault?
   
   I assume the worker in city hall who was targeted was "of age". If so, are we now to assume that hurting *anyone's feelings is now punishable as a felony in MO?
   
   Teenagers definitely are more at risk of being victimized by bullying as most have not fully individualized, and seem to rely heavily on the input from others to sustain their self-image. Considering this, a part of me feels maybe teenagers need some protection from bullying. However, the more logical part of me screams that this is, of course, "immature" behavior that should not be reinforced, much less reinforced by the government.
   
   Now we have (presumably) an adult government employee being protected by an anti-bullying law that probably reinforces immature behavior. To what end?
   
   This law is a case where the "ends" should have been better considered before ever affecting a "means".

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   I am so ashamed...

   

   mrtraver (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 11:12am

   
   

   please don't tell anyone I live in Missouri.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   jursidiction nightmare

   

   Ryan, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 11:15am

   
   

   How do they determine jurisdiction for this?
   
   What if I live in Missouri but created the website while in Kansas, using a VPN internet connection to my company in Washington and uploaded it to my hosting provider in California?
   
   Which state has jurisdiction over the "crime"?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: Blame the Economy!

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 11:29am

    
    

    the problem with that is "being a Jerk" is relative.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    Re: Re:

    

    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 11:31am

    
    

    "But we already have harassment laws to protect from death threats or threats of harm. Why do we need a new one?"
    
    Because it's threats ON THE INTERNET!!!
    
    Seriously, the biggest improvement we could make would be to recuse anyone from making a tech-related decision if they're over thirtyfiveish (and yeah, that would include me. I'll take the hit for my peers.)

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 11:33am

    
    

    Where did I say we needed a new law? I said that I do not agree with it (kids getting arrested). I'm saying that the site seemed to include language that could (by someone like the victim) be interpreted as a threat and that threats are different than say calling Chronno as dumbass. Calling you a dumbasss is fine, threating you with death on the other hand is not okay. I never said that wishing to see Chronno dead was a threat, just that you might see it that way and that you might like it if someone looked into how real that threat may be.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    Re: Welcome to the United States of America...

    

    captn trips, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 11:34am

    
    

    your not kidding... wtf???

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    Re: Re: Blame the Economy!

    

    Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 12:02pm

    
    

    "the problem with that is "being a Jerk" is relative"
    
    Uh, no, the problem is that too many Americans today are pantywaist emotional midgets that either don't have the spine to realize their self worth or else prefer to use the victim role for personal gain (I'm looking at YOU, Sharpton).
    
    Attention citizens of what will soon become Helmerica: if you don't understand your own worth independent of other people's opinions, then you truly aren't worth anything at all and will be so judged shortly....

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 12:20pm

    
    

    Cyber bully???? WTF "She said bad things about me so I'm jumpping off the roof"...
    
    Holy shit, we've become nothing but keyboard cowboys and pussys

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    Re: Re: Re:

    

    John Duncan Yoyo (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 12:26pm

    
    

    I think that if it something like a traffic ticket OK.
    
    Fine them and let the civil courts sort out a slander lawsuit supported by the state's fining the culprit.
    
    Lori Drew is getting all the punidhment the state can do. The trials and publicity are her punishment.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    Kids these days

    

    Julian, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 12:57pm

    
    

    Honestly I don't agree with this law but something needs to be done because I see a lot of disrespect on the Internet I don't care how much someone doesn't like someone it's just bitch move to do it on the Internet if you have a problem with them settle it like a human being. I don't like where this country is going as far as respect because I go to
    a military academy and I see people talking when we are saluting the flag as it's being raised I just wish it was back the way things used to be where you respect people and this country. I recently joined the military and went through my basic
    training I get so much disrespect from people and they say that I'm going to die in Afghanistan

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    Re: Kids these days

    

    Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 1:07pm

    
    

    And those people are morons and can be dismissed as such. I would think a soldier of all people would be able to prioritize which actions deserve a response and which can be ignored.
    
    And thank you for your service....

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    Freedom of Speech..

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 1:18pm

    
    

    Just watch what you say.. This is America after all.. Where are the asteroids when you need them? I think we just need to start the nuke fest.. Get rid of all the dumbass humans and we'll be r0ckn..

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    Re: Kids these days

    

    Lucretious, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 1:21pm

    
    

    If "something needs to be done", what would you suggest that "something" be? How would you enforce it? Where is line the line drawn between dangerous harassment and simply being an asshole? As it is now, "Hate Crimes" are so vague as to who it applies to and when, do you really think something that falls into such a grey area like "cyberbullying" will be used in an even-handed manner?
    
    Wouldn't it simply be easier to accept that there are idiots in the world and leave the law to prosecute only those individuals who show direct physical threat to another?
    
    It disturbs me that people are so quick to give up their freedom of speech because their anger is temporarily inflamed by a single incident.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    Re:

    

    Rose M. Welch (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 1:39pm

    
    

    I'd like to point out that millions of women are stalked and harassed every day, with everything disturbing phone calls to dead animal mail, and the police don't generally have the time or inclination to pursue those claims. They're told to get a restraining order (if they can) and that the police can't really help until something actually happens. In the real world, your rights are only considered in the breach thereof. So, anyway, my point is that if these people can't get relief for harassment, why should this guy? A website is so much less bothersome than calls, letters, or dead animals. It seems like a waste of resources that were only sanctioned because the harassment happened 'on the Internet'.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    Re: Kids these days

    

    Rose M. Welch (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 1:52pm

    
    

    The way what used to be? People have been desecrating flags as long as we've had one. I am a military wife, living in a military town, (if you joined the army, you're probably only a few miles from me right now) and we all know and accept that we are working to maintain the freedoms that America guarantees, including the right to free speech that disagrees with YOU. If you can't reconcile that idea with the idea you have of America, your probably need to seek a different career.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    

    Rose M. Welch (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 1:54pm

    
    

    You know, I think that anti-bullying laws are just a way to circumvent the freedoms that were enforced by the Flynt/Hustler rulings so long ago. If you can't be mean on the Internet, then soon you can't be mean in print or on television, either.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 2:06pm

    
    

    There is no way this can stand, it's such a flagrant violation of free speech. Supreme Court challenge in 3...2...1

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    Re: Freedom of Speech..

    

    Brad Hubbard (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 2:11pm

    
    

    That sounds like a death threat, against the entire world.
    
    INCLUDING MISOURI TEENS.
    
    You're fucked, buddy.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 3:55pm

    
    

    War on Drug is about to end (in failure), they need to invent new crimes to keep those privately owned prisons filled to the rim and profitable.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 5:14pm

    
    

    I'd like to point out that millions of women are stalked and harassed every day, with everything disturbing phone calls to dead animal mail, and the police don't generally have the time or inclination to pursue those claims. They're told to get a restraining order (if they can) and that the police can't really help until something actually happens.
    
    Men too, and they get even less help from the authorities.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    Federal Law

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 5:20pm

    
    

    I think there's a federal law against making online threats, especially death threats, also. I think it might only apply when the victims are high ranking gov't officials though.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

29.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 16th, 2009 @ 5:23pm

    
    

    Where did I say anything about 'on the internet'? Where did I say I supported such a law?
    
    If someone is getting death threats, veiled or otherwise, on the internet or otherwise, then that is a problem. Not sure what to tell you if you are getting death threats and the police dont care

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

30.  

    1A

    

    btr1701 (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 8:39pm

    
    

    Seems like a bright-line violation of the 1st Amendment to me.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

31.  

    Re: Re:

    

    btr1701 (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 8:42pm

    
    

    > I'd like to point out that millions of women are stalked and harassed every day
    
    I'd like to point out that stalking isn't a female-only crime. Quite a few men are victims as well.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

32.  

    Re: Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 17th, 2009 @ 10:35pm

    
    

    "Quite a few men are victims as well."
    
    They don't count.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

33.  

    Re: jursidiction nightmare

    

    Almost Anonymous (profile), Oct 19th, 2009 @ 11:38am

    
    

    Ha, I like the way you think. Unfortunately, it would almost certainly be the state you were physically present in when the "crime" was committed. However, I bet they would try to make a very strong argument to have you extradited to Missouri if you created a website about a Missouri citizen and he/she wanted to press charges...

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

34.  

    Re: Re:

    

    hegemon13, Oct 19th, 2009 @ 12:53pm

    
    

    "What was said on the site was not a death threat and sounds just like standard bullying."
    
    Maybe. However, why do we accept "standard bullying"? Such behavior among adults leads to assault and harassment charges. So, why are people so willing to let children get by with a "kids will be kids" attitude.
    
    No, for the record, I do think the arrest was probably extreme, though we don't know if there was prior history or other instances that led them to that decision. However, SOME kind of discipline for bullying, both on and off the Internet, is definitely necessary. What seems like harmless fun to a few can scar others for many years to come.
    
    I once knew over 20 different routes to walk 3/4 of a mile home, so that one particular group of kids was less likely to corner me. It was not fun, or adventurous. It was terrifying, and when they did find me, they always made up for their frustration on the other days. Never enough to draw blood, but plenty of threats and fearful anticipation. When you're twelve, you don't have the capacity to filter and ignore it when someone shoves a lit firecracker in the mouth of a box turtle, laughs when it blows apart, and threatens to do the same to you.
    
    Know what the principal said? It was "normal bullying." Didn't help that a couple of the kids hung out with his son. He said there was nothing he could do "off school grounds and outside school hours." Until we got a new vice principal who understood how damaging such things can be. After he showed up, most of those students were expelled or neutralized by threat of discipline within a few weeks. It doesn't take arrests, but enough with the "normal bullying" bullshit. There's no such thing.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

35.  

    Re: Re: Re:

    

    hegemon13, Oct 19th, 2009 @ 2:19pm

    
    

    I guess I should qualify this before someone else does. I am not comparing the extreme example of my junior high years to a harassing Web site. I do think this law, as it is currently used, is pretty ridiculous and extreme. What I am railing against is this mentality that bullying is "normal" and should just be accepted. Yes, it happens regularly. No, that does not mean we should ignore it. As soon as we start saying that a certain degree of bullying is "normal," where do we draw the line? It becomes subjective. No, these bullies did not physically hurt me except for a couple times (thought physical restraint was the norm), but the psychological impact of never feeling safe created problems that plagued for a long time into adulthood.
    
    As soon as you allow this subjective level of normal, you open the door to jackasses like my former principal.
    
    So, to summarize, I am concerned with the "standard bullying" language and attitude. I am NOT arguing for this law. I am arguing that school-level discipline is necessary, and should be more active in many cases. I also think that the law should not be afraid to use existing laws (harassment, etc) where applicable. Why my parents did not go to the police after the principal's reaction, I don't know. I certainly would for my own children.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

36.  

    Re: Blame the Economy!

    

    Jared, Oct 21st, 2009 @ 7:12am

    
    

    Yeah sure the only ones to pay are the jerks. Not even.. every tax payer pays for stupid laws. Take time and think about it before you start saying things are good ideas.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

37.  

    Re: Welcome to the United States of America...

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2009 @ 9:29am

    
    

    A girl DIED because of someone being "a jerk online"

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

38.  

    Re: Welcome to the United States of America...

    

    Ash Marak, Oct 29th, 2009 @ 9:32am

    
    

    it's also really dumb that this site says any one who doesn't want to sign up is a coward! I think that counts as being a jerk, little missy! POLICE!!!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment