Techdirt. Stories filed under "missouri"

How Not To Email Constituents: The Brian Nieves Story

Timothy Geigner — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:13:00 PDT

The intersection of technology and politicians is often wrought with speed bumps of silliness. But to truly see a great example of how to do technology wrong, you need only look to Missouri State Senator Brian Nieves. The story begins with an email mailing list for Nieves, which Bart Cohn of Wildwood, MO somehow found himself on. Cohn's political views are described to be about as much at odds with Nieves' as is humanly possible. Upon seeing the email, Cohn responded by asking to be removed from the mailing list and throwing the word "freak" in for good measure. Nieves, who apparently has little else to do, then began a wonderfully aggressive email exchange, beginning with:

Who are you? Is there something wrong with you? Are you incapable of communicating in a way that common, decent people do? Tell me this, how did you ever even get on MY Distribution list?

Cohn responded by again asking to be removed. The exchange went on from there. You really should click the link to get the whole thing, but the best of the lot is the last of the exchange, in which Nieves takes the opportunity to affirm his heterosexuality (um...) and insulting Cohn's intelligence.

Wow. Your communications are so thought provoking, well written, and intelligent. Perhaps you secretly want to be on my distribution list because every time you send me a message, your email is recaptured and put on my distribution list. I'm tiring of taking you off every time you email me AGAIN so unless you are in love with me or have some other sort of sick obsession with me (sorry, I'm straight as an arrow) you should probably stop emailing me so that you don't keep getting put back on the list. Should I type these instructions slower? Are you having a hard time understanding? BTW - I archive ALL questionable emails like yours in case there's ever any doubt about who got ugly first. Go back to the grade school playground where people you can successfully bully and out smart are playing cuz junior... You are way out of your league with me.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is an elected official in public office talking to one of his constituents. And thanks to the internet, those words he chose to email will live on in perpetuity. So be careful who you elect to office, because they might just be a jerk.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Missouri Senate Backs Down, Says Its Okay For Teachers To Friend Students On Facebook

Mike Masnick — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:30:10 PDT

Well, it took some effort, but it appears that state politicians in Missouri may have finally gotten the message. After a widespread outcry and a lawsuit concerning a law that made it illegal for teachers to "friend" current and former students on social networking sites, as well as a lawsuit and an injunction by a court which found the law to be a "staggering" violation of the First Amendment, Missouri's Senate has amended the law in question to let teachers and students be virtual friends once again. The bill still needs to be approved by the House, but it cleans up the controversial part of the bill. Schools would still be required to have "a policy" on student-teacher communication, but won't have to completely limit such activities.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Court Finds Law Blocking Teachers From Friending Students 'Staggering'; Blocks Implementation

Mike Masnick — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:12:18 PDT

There was quite an uproar after Missouri passed a law to ban teachers from communicating with current or former students on social networking platforms like Facebook. It didn't take long before teachers sued, and it was even faster for the court to issue an injunction blocking the implementation of the law, noting that it violated the First Amendment (thanks to Eric Goldman for the pointer). The judge made quick work of it. Here's the relevant portion (and the full ruling is embedded below):

Section §163.069.4 RSMo implicates the rights of Plaintiffs protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution in that it prohibits all teachers from using any non-work-related social networking sites which allow exclusive access with current and former students. Even if a complete ban on certain forms of communication between certain individuals could be construed as content neutral and only a reasonable restriction on "time, place and manner," the breadth of the prohibition is staggering. The Court finds at based upon the evidence adduced at the preliminary injunction hearing, social networking is extensively used by educators. It is often the primary, if not sole manner, of communications between the Plaintiffs and their students. Examination of the statute indicates that it would prohibit all teachers from using any non-work-related social networking sites which allow exclusive access with current and former students. It clearly prohibits communication between family members and their teacher parents using these types of sites. The Court finds that the statute would have a chilling effect on speech.

Given the fundamental nature of the right implicated, a "chilling effect" constitutes an immediate and irreperable harm sufficient to support a preliminary injunction.

Nice to see some courts willing to recognize that a First Amendment violation is irreparable harm. Too bad not all courts agree.

This isn't the end for the law. It's just an injunction barring it from being implemented until a full trial can be heard on the merits, but it sure sounds as if the court is pretty skeptical about the legality of the law as a whole.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Teachers In Missouri Sue For The Right To 'Friend' Their Students On Facebook

Mike Masnick — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:17:28 PDT

We recently wrote about a very questionable new state law in Missouri that made it illegal for teachers to friend "current or former students" on various social networks. This broad prohibition was targeted at the misuse of social networking by some teachers to have extremely inappropriate relationships with students. It's understandable why such situations get people upset, but overreacting by making it illegal for teachers to friend students is just ridiculous. Thankfully, a group of teachers have filed a lawsuit saying that the law violates their First Amendment rights, as well as some other rights. The teachers are saying that online communication has become an invaluable tool for helping students -- especially shy ones, and that this law will turn teachers into law-breakers to continue using useful communication services. Hopefully the law gets struck down, though the main sponsor of the bill continues to defend it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

New Missouri Law May Make It Illegal To Friend Your Former Teachers On Facebook

Mike Masnick — Wed, 3 Aug 2011 08:30:35 PDT

Gabriel Tane points us to another odd state law coming out of Missouri, where it appears that schoolteachers could run afoul of the law if they friend any former student on Facebook. Part of the problem here is that the law in question is worded incredibly vaguely. But the text does say:

Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.

This is the part that would seem to cover friending any current or former student on Facebook. While plenty of teachers I know refuse to friend students on Facebook just out of principle (and general caution), to make it illegal seems extreme. That's doubly true when it includes "former" students. At some point, former students grow up and become fully functioning adults (one hopes). At that point, does it still make sense to make it illegal for the student and teacher to have contact? Update: As pointed out in the comments, the law does define "former student" to mean someone under the age of 18, meaning that former students over the age of 18 can be friended safely...

The bill is clearly targeted at stopping sexual relationships between teachers and students, which is a perfectly admirable goal. But, like so many laws, it appears this one was written very poorly, and creates massive unintended consequences.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Missouri Continues Arresting Cyberbullies: Don't Be An Online Jerk In Missouri

Mike Masnick — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:58:19 PDT

As tends to happen, it appears that Missouri has decided to overcompensate for the mess with the whole Lori Drew/Megan Meier tragedy. After realizing that Lori Drew hadn't committed any actual crime, Missouri passed a new law making it a potential felony for being a jerk online. And, of course, with that new law in place, Missouri prosecutors have wasted little time in filing charges against all sorts of people. The latest involves the arrest of a teenager for creating a mean website about another student. Now, I'm not condoning the behavior of this student, which does seem despicable -- but arresting the kid seems really extreme. Aren't there less draconian methods for dealing with this sort of thing? Kids can be mean and, yes, they do stupid things at times -- but arresting kids every time they're a jerk online is going to lead to a pretty busy judicial system.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Missouri: Text Messaging While Driving Is Fine, As Long As You're Over 21

Carlo Longino — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:26:00 PDT

Laws that ban individual activities -- like cell phone use -- while driving are often little more than political hype. Singling out specific activities for bans doesn't do much to address the root problem of unsafe driving, which remains the issue regardless of its cause, while also generating the implication that if a specific action while driving hasn't been banned, it's okay and safe. Nevertheless, plenty of states have moved forward with laws banning talking on cell phones while driving, and more recently, texting. Next, they'll have to ban using the mobile web, or IM, or playing Tetris on your phone while driving, since they've left these (and plenty of other activities) out, but we digress... In any case, Missouri's legislature has taken the silliness one step further by banning texting while driving, but only for drivers under the age of 21. If you accept the supposed need for these sorts of laws, how could you argue they should only apply to those under 21? What happens on a person's 21st birthday that suddenly makes texting while driving acceptable and safe? Answers in the comments, please...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Missouri Prosecutors Going Overboard In Bringing Cyberbullying Cases

Mike Masnick — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:01:00 PST

While Lori Drew was eventually convicted under computer hacking laws, originally prosecutors in Missouri refused to charge her, noting that it was pretty clear she had not broken any laws in Missouri. Not surprisingly, the emotionally-tinged case meant that politicians had to rush into the void, hastily passing a law to make it illegal to be a jerk online. Of course, prosecutors couldn't go back and retroactively charge Drew, but they apparently haven't wasted much time in making use of the new law, charging at least seven people under the new law for a variety of "cyber" harassment attacks, mostly involving annoying someone with text messages. Of course, as some are noting this is a waste of taxpayer money, burdening the court system with annoyances that should be settled informally among people. Have we really reached a point in society that people have to run to court every time someone acts like a jerk towards them?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Missouri Makes Online Harassment A Felony

Mike Masnick — Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:51:15 PDT

Laws passed as an emotional reaction to a tragic situation are almost always bad laws. The state of Missouri has signed into law a bill to make online harassment a felony. This is in response, of course, to the infamous "Lori Drew/Megan Meier" case that has received so much attention. Of course, when you look at the facts of the case, it's not even clear if this law would have mattered. Drew didn't set up the MySpace account to harass Meier, but to find out what she was saying about her daughter. The "harassing" messages were actually sent by another teen, and weren't meant as harassment either, but as an (extremely misguided) attempt to get Meier to stop contacting the "fake" person. It's certainly understandable that people feel that something should be done, since a young girl ended up killing herself, but rushing into laws won't necessarily fix the situation at all. Also, it needs to be asked: if the same set of facts existed, but the boy who made Meier angry was real instead of fake -- would he also have been guilty under this law? If so, a lot of angry messages between kids having silly school spats are going to be court material.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Two States, Two Very Different Approaches To VoIP Regulation

Mike Masnick — Wed, 7 Nov 2007 18:02:00 PST

For many years, states have been trying to tax VoIP providers as if they were telcos. From the states' perspective, they were using a "quacks like a duck" test, whereby any phone service that acted like a traditional phone service should get taxed like a traditional phone service. Since states rely on tax dollars so much, this feeling was reinforced as people started ditching landline phone service for VoIP providers. However, there are a few problems with this. The reason that telcos are taxed is because of the structure of the telephone system, and the fact that the government more or less handed over rights of way and control of the system to private companies. VoIP providers, however, have the calls travel over the internet, changing the nature of the equation, and meaning that most of the reasons for taxing telcos shouldn't apply. Shouldn't, except for politicians who can't see beyond the money. Yet, taxing VoIP is a doubly bad idea, because VoIP is still an emerging service that is rapidly changing -- offering new services and opportunities that weren't possible on landline offerings. Putting a tax on it could kill a lot of that innovation. Too many states don't see that.

Jeff Pulver is showing the contrast between two states in dealing with VoIP regulatory issues. New Jersey has passed a law saying that it will not regulate VoIP, noting "The proliferation of new technologies and applications and the growth in the number of providers developing and offering innovative services using Internet Protocol is due in large part to a light regulatory touch, including freedom from traditional telephone regulation that these new technologies and services and the companies that offer them have enjoyed in New Jersey.... These economic benefits, including consumer choice, new jobs, and significant capital investment, will be jeopardized and competition minimized by the imposition of traditional State entry and rate regulation on Voice over Internet Protocol service and Internet protocol-enabled service."

Unfortunately, Missouri isn't quite so enlightened. Despite various rulings saying that VoIP should not be taxed, Missouri is trying to bend the rules to make at least some VoIP offerings (mainly those provided by cable companies) classified as telco services that need to be taxed. As Jeff notes, if this works, then expect other states to follow suit and create loopholes for taxing VoIP providers... and then watch as all VoIP related innovation happens elsewhere.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story