Louisiana Wants To Put You In Jail If You Embarrass Anyone Under 17 Years Old Online

from the yeah-that'll-work dept

We've seen all sorts of crazy attempts to outlaw cyberbullying, but it seems that Louisiana is looking to really put themselves over the top in creating a law that creates a serious chilling effect on speech. As Eugene Volokh notes, the law would effectively ban any online speech designed to embarrass anyone under 17-years-old.
...would make it a misdemeanor to transmit any Internet communication or other computer communication "with the intent to coerce, abuse, torment, intimidate, harass, embarrass, or cause emotional distress to a person under the age of seventeen." This applies without regard to whether the message is communicated to the person, to some other individuals, or to the public at large. So under the law, all of these would likely be criminals (though, under a recent amendment the adults could be jailed for up to a year, while the minors could be jailed for up to six months):
  • A girl who sends her under-17-year-old boyfriend an e-mail telling him what a schmuck he is for having cheated on her, and hoping that he feels ashamed of himself.
  • A blogger, or a newspaper columnist, or an online commentator, who publishes something condemning an under-17-year-old criminal, hoping the criminal feels embarrassed and ashamed as a result.
  • A public or private school official e-mailing the parents of an under-17-year-old student a message about the student's misbehavior, hoping that the student will feel embarrassed and change his ways.
  • Parents e-mailing their under-17-year-old children telling the children that they should feel ashamed of some misbehavior.
  • A professional or amateur music critic or sports reporter writing a harsh review of an under-17-year-old performer's or athlete's behavior, hoping that the review will embarrass the performer or athlete into behaving more ethically, professionally, or competently.
I don't see how this survives a First Amendment challenge, but when you're grandstanding around something that gets press coverage like "cyberbullying," it's unlikely that the politicians supporting this even recognize or care about the unintended consequences.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    A Dan (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 10:17am

    Proposed laws

    Fortunately, I'm pretty sure we can assume the law won't pass in this form.

    One thing that tends to bother me is the assurance of selective enforcement. You know, "Don't worry, it'll only be used against [...]." All of these broadly-worded laws seem to fall into that bucket.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Stuart, May 21st, 2010 @ 11:16am

      Re: Proposed laws

      Umm...Epic Fail. You obviously haven't followed politics for more than 20 min. This is EXACTLY the kind of wrong headed legislation that passes ALL THE TIME.
      So. No. I can not assume it will not pass in this form. In fact I should assume it will pass and act accordingly.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        A Dan (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 11:26am

        Re: Re: Proposed laws

        I'm not saying it's nothing to be concerned about. My guess is that it will pass, but after removal of "embarrass" from the list.

        I agree that that's not much better. After all, embarrassing someone can be considered a form of emotional distress, and it would still be a free speech problem. But it will be a problem in line with what all the other states have (I agree with you, stupidly) passed.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      George Lambert, May 21st, 2010 @ 4:16pm

      Re: Proposed laws

      I don't see how this wouldn't violate the First Amendment. I know that some state legislatures act like they're eager to ban people being harassed on Facebook or even DirtyPhoneBook but we all know that their cries about protecting children are false and their real reason for this is to slowly work their way into preventing public criticism of themselves. You had that PA attorney general just this week asking Twitter to reveal the identities of some bloggers who had hurt his feelings too much. These politicians need to be criticized and the first amendment needs to be protected.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2010 @ 10:27am

    Not necessarily bad a thing

    If a District Attorney says something that's posted online about a 17 year-old criminal that causes emotional distress they get to go to jail, too. Or, how about the hard on crime politicians? Like I said, not necessarily bad a thing. This is a law that can keep giving and giving.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 12:12pm

      Re: Not necessarily bad a thing

      "Or, how about the hard on crime politicians?"

      I imagine that politicians committing crimes while sporting hard ons are already embarrassed enough. Why pile on?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2010 @ 10:39am

    or how about a parent uploading a picture of a 17 year old back when she was 5. That's embarrassing for the 17 year old.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zauber (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 10:43am

    Is Bush involved?

    This suddenly reminds me of a law that George W Bush had snuck into a bill that would make it illegal to be annoying online. Since anything and everything can annoy someone, you can easily see the stupidity of the law. As if we'd expect anything smart to come from Dubya's head.

    This law is arguable worse, though, because a person can just SAY that they are humiliated or embarrassed in order to get someone thrown in jail out of spite.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    deadzone (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 10:43am

    *Sigh*

    My State is on a roll when it comes to embarrassing itself lately. This stupid Law seems much less important than say the MAJOR OIL SPILL or our state budget that is in turmoil.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2010 @ 10:56am

    Could you not capitalize every word in the title?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    n00b slayer, May 21st, 2010 @ 11:13am

    VoIP and other verbal "Internet communication"

    Without reading the bill (I should be in D.C.!) how would this apply to VoIPs and multiplayer online games that support voice chat?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2010 @ 11:14am

    It seems rather strange that in all but one of the examples given, the last part has the "hoping" part in it. Does that mean that you have to prove that the person was "hoping" to embarrass someone?

    "and hoping that he feels ashamed of himself."
    "hoping the criminal feels embarrassed and ashamed as a result."
    "hoping that the student will feel embarrassed and change his ways."
    "hoping that the review will embarrass the performer or athlete into behaving more ethically, professionally, or competently."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 11:47am

      Re: Hope

      > Does that mean that you have to prove that the
      > person was "hoping" to embarrass someone?

      The reason the author phrased those examples with "hoping" is because the law as written requires intent.

      "...with the intent to coerce, abuse, etc."

      So accidentally embarassing someone online wouldn't be covered. The defendant has to have intended (i.e., hoped for) the embarrassment to occur.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Adam Wasserman (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 11:25am

    Cyber? bullying

    I can't believe that you continue to legitimize the idea that there is such a thing as "cyber"bullying.

    I have been unable to find any reports of bullying that was so restricted to an online forum that it warranted the moniker cyber.

    I have searched Google for reports of "cyber" bullying and in all of them there was bullying and harassment in all areas of the person's life. I am seriously concerned that by raising "cyber" above the other pervasive aspects of bullying we are minimizing their importance.

    I would rather be called a name on line than be hit in the head with a soda can.

    Bullying is bullying. Harassment is harassment. I really do not think that any worthy purpose is served by applying the prefix cyber, and I do wish that you Mike - of all people - would stop feeding the moral outrage over "cyber" bullying that only serves to distract from the real problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    George Carlin, May 21st, 2010 @ 11:39am

    Why, that's an interesting article.

    For some reason, I always pictured Mike as a 17 year old from Louisiana.

    ...And Pigtails. Mike has pigtails.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2010 @ 12:16pm

    What would it take for people to get offended by "delicious vi@gRa" emails?

    Indeed, this law will probably end badly. I can see it working almost as well the singing telegraphs I used to send back in the late 1880s.

    Surely we as a country have the resources to corral all the offended people and ship them off to their own island in the to start their own country called Offendistan.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 12:22pm

    Awesome unintended consequence

    I have thought up an awesome unintended consequence of this.
    Microsoft could end up banning everybody 17 and under from XBox Live, or perhaps give them their own segment. Everybody knows that smack talk occurs over Live. In order to protect its users Microsoft would have to do something to keep 17 and under year olds off of Live so that lots of people won't be being constantly jailed and sued from Louisiana. As an aside, I am all for getting rid of the super young kids as they are often annoying, talk more smack talk than anyone else, and are the sorest of losers there are. At least lots of them that I have encountered online fit that bill. I am all for it!

    Well. I am not really for limiting of speech and such but I am for the idea of not having to deal with young punks on such a regular basis.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    nels, May 21st, 2010 @ 12:26pm

    The real reason for the law

    Have all of you forgotten the girl who committed suicide after being bullied online ? I think that's really what this law was about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Poster, May 21st, 2010 @ 12:46pm

      Re: The real reason for the law

      Yes, and it's a kneejerk "the law can fix this!" reaction to a situation that the law CAN'T fix.

      The law can't change human behavior that easily - people still commit murder, steal from stores, cheat on taxes, and all manner of unethical, immoral, and/or illegal acts DESPITE the fact that the acts are illegal under the law.

      This law is nothing more than "think of the children" posturing in an election year.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Free Capitalist (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 12:52pm

      Re: The real reason for the law

      You are probably correct, this did come out of the furor following on that incident.

      As tragic as the incident was, why are there not media frenzies over each of the thousands of suicides a year that are not attributed to on-line activity?

      Why should special laws be created to limit speech online when there are already criminal laws dealing with harassment?

      And why aren't they proposing a law prohibiting the embarrassment of children in person?

      It certainly smells like a tragic case turned into an unmistakable Red Herring.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Gwiz, May 21st, 2010 @ 12:52pm

      Re: The real reason for the law

      I have not forgotten - but it's still not a valid reason to limit free speech. Period.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Pickle Monger (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 2:11pm

    Typo? :)

    I don't see how this survives a First Amendment challenge, but when your grandstanding around something that gets press coverage...

    your or you're?

    Sorry. I'm feeling somewhat grammar nazi-ish at the moment. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 5:13pm

    Jurisdiction

    One issue not raised by the article (and which is typical of laws like this) is the issue of jurisdiction. Setting aside the massive constitutional issues, what if I’m in Idaho and say something that embarrasses a 16-year-old in Louisiana on the internet, does Louisiana expect to be able to prosecute me? Is Louisiana presuming to bind the entire world with its laws?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2010 @ 5:36pm

    How would the state of Louisiana extradite the perp from some other state or better yet another country ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Stoned Atheist, May 25th, 2010 @ 9:11pm

    Total BS.

    This is all just softening people up for the eventual end of net neutrality.

    POLICE STATE USA

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    lrobbo (profile), May 27th, 2012 @ 2:59pm

    Did this ever pass? Be surprised if it didn't go through in some form . . .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This