Criminal Libel, Free Speech And The Net 425
If the youth is so charged, it will mark the first criminal libel case in Utah history involving the Internet, and one of the first anywhere.
His father told reporters his son was fighting back against hostile peers. "For him, it was just a tit-for-tat thing. Everything he has done up to this point was in retaliation for what other kids did, stuff that was just as vulgar and just as hurtful. For me, the question isn't whether [my son] is going to be held accountable. It's whether the others are going to be held to the same standard."
Not likely. In 21st Century America, harassment and cruelty are fine as long as you don't do it on a computer.
The Net is raising new questions not only about copyright, but about the limits of speech and commentary in cyberspace -- a culture in which the First Amendment sometimes seems almost timid, perhaps even inadequate. It also focuses more attention on epidemic Net hostility and cruelty, against which some people may begin to take formal action. Public net postings are frequently vicious, and sometimes anonymous posters traditionally bear no responsibility for the the wantonly stupid things they sometimes say. In the context of all the other conflicts over the movement of intellectual property and speech online, some sort of legal response seems almost inevitable.
In the overall context of personal and commercial Net traffic, assaultive comments are rare. Hardly any result in actual physical harm. But as the Utah incident demonstrates, that doesn't mean they're inconsequential. The anonymous Utah Web site was vulgar and offensive, but compared to many public flames, only tepid. Flaming is obnoxious -- most of it is profoundly inane -- but the idea that it's libelous has lots of implications for life online. And none of them are good.
Questions of online responsibility for words are difficult. Anonymity is easy on the Net, and it's often impossible to know if comments online, no matter how shocking, are true or false. Vicious postings can be more damaging than the face-to-face-kind. They can be rapidly disseminated and accessed by countless numbers of people instantly.
They also occur in an environment of fear and confusion about the power of new information technologies. As with copyright, historic notions of libel and accountability may not realistically apply to this new kind of social geography.
On his Web site, the Utah high teenager allegedly called school personnel "drunks" and some female classmates "sluts." He also cast doubt on the work ethic and competency of several faculty members. He concedes the site -- put up partly in response to taunts and harassments from peers - was a mistake. He never threatened anyone with violence, and his friends and classmates vigorously deny that he was violent or menacing, or was even perceived that way. Some of his classmates told reporters he was "weird." The student said one reason school officials (they suspected him immediately) wanted him gone was that he had dyed his hair pink. He had also, said school officials, had frequent run-ins with the principal of his school and had an altercation during a football game last fall.
The teenager arrived in the small town of Milford five years ago, and had trouble fitting in from the first, said his classmates.
When school officials learned of the site on May 16, the principal notified the police, who seized the boy's computer and took it to the State Crime Laboratory for analysis. That same day, a Juvenile Court Judge ordered the student sent to Cedar City's juvenile detention center where he remained for several days until he was released.
He has left Utah and moved temporarily to his grandparents home in Southern California, pending a decision by county officials whether or not to bring criminal libel charges against him.
The Web site at issue here is, in some ways, the digital equivalent of the taunting and baiting that has always gone on in many American schools. But Net baiting raises new questions. For one thing, we are living in the post-Columbine hysteria, in which anger, alienation and offensive speech online is increasingly equated with danger -- and draws the attention of law enforcement. That makes it a powerful First Amendment issue. If a teenager calls one of his classmates a slut outside of school (but not online), it's hard to imagine he'd be arrested, driven out-of-state, or charged with criminal libel.
When he posts the same message on a Web site, it's almost assumed he could be a potential murderer, and police respond accordingly. This makes offensive speech a crime. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect offensive speech, even when it's obnoxious. When it becomes harmful, erroneous or defamatory, libel has always been the appropriate legal recourse. Libel laws don't, of course, when dealing with most public figures, or in the face of anonymity. But either way, the police aren't supposed to get involved.
The outcome of this case and others like it is critical. Free speech isn't the right to speak for free. The right to free speech in the United States means the right to be free from punishment by the government in retaliation for most speech. (It isn't absolute. You can criticize people, but you can't threaten them.) On the Net, speech has been almost completely free of interference from the government. The Utah case is a serious threat to that freedom, since the police activity isn't the result of threatening but offensive speech.
To grasp the significance, just imagine an Internet on which offensive speech becomes either criminal or libelous.
On our early-generation Internet, users have generally spoken and written (and downloaded) without inhibition or concern for any legal issues (like copyright or libel). If Utah officials and schools in other jurisdictions press ahead with this and other pending legal actions, that could change.
Along with copyright and patent lawsuits, libel actions are likely to become more commonplace online, as viciousness in posts and sites grows along with the number of people accessing the Net. The growing number of corporations and their battalions of lawyers moving online also are eager to curb unrestricted speech, as it creates -- in their minds -- hostile environments that discourage new consumers and thus are bad for business. Online hostility and viciousness could begin to have unpleasant consequences, especially for a free Internet.
Net incidents like this one seem to provoke especially irrational, even hysterical overreactions. People who say offensive things don't generally expect the police to come crashing into their homes, seize their computers, root through their e-mail and files, then toss them in jail for evaluation for a few days. This response seems obviously unconstitutional if applied to the offline, adult world. But post-Columbine, offensive and angry speech -- especially if it's delivered digitally -- is not just being banned but criminalized.
Beyond technology and commerce, the Net has become a bastion of both freedom and individualism. This is, in part, a positive side effect of the lack of inhibitions made possible by anonymity. The Net tradition of freedom has grown and become established at almost precisely the same time conventional media have become corporatized and homogenized.
America presents itself to the world as a free and morally superior culture. But in many respects, it is a bizarre and unconscious civilization. Even as it creates some of the most astonishing technology in the history of the planet, it willfully refuses to consider its implications in a sane way. The balancing of Net freedom against the right of individuals to go online without being assaulted or defamed is complicated, especially for a social system that responds to technology in such a simple-minded way.
Here, when troubled teenages lash out at peers and teachers online, we don't sit down with teachers, counselors, parents and administrators. We don't call Constitutional scholars, technologists and social scientists to ponder rational solutions to unprecedented techno-driven 21st century problems.
We call 911 and turn a kid who has trouble fitting in into both a refugee and a criminal suspect.
Revolution coming .... (Score:2)
This will be a bloody revolution because those who feel they have nothing left to lose (translate no rights and possibly no employment prospects either if they have ever dared to offend some corporate entity) well, they have nothing to lose. Their lives - so what. As in all revolutions, it will be the elite, in this case the technological elite, which leads it. This will also involve the US Military being fragmented as its members take sides - some with the repressive corrput bought and paid for "government" and others with those who want a change. Further, while the government-corporate establishment may have even better means of tracking and repression, the revolutionaries will also have devastating cyberweapons (I think the nanotech threat is real) to use which can be cheaply produced or engineered mostly with software - anywhere, anytime. Truly, this will be a "cyperpunk" novel come to life.
The trend is clear. There have been too many of these kinds of stories and they continue to increase. I could not imagine this kind of repression happening in the US 20 years ago - in Soviet Russia, perhaps.
The only thing to prevent this will be action in the near future by tech workers (sysadmins, programmers, scientists, etc.) in the form of massive strikes and slowdowns, massive demonstrations, etc., of a peaceful nature which are effective in bringing the economny to a halt. This will get results. Nothing else will, short of a violent overthrow of this so-called government which increasingly is just a puppet of money interest and neo-facist conservative lobbies. Elections are bought and mean nothing given the scale of contributions by corporations which are thinly veiled bribes to anyone who can see.
You have been warned. If this trend continues, people will not stand for it. They tolerate it now only because the economy is good. But that can change, and the repression can get much worse. I suggest you all do a lot of praying, and/or emigrate to a part of the world which values freedom more that Americans seem to these days.
Once we valued freedom here in America. Perhaps that was because we had to fight for it!
I'm liable to exercise free speech (Score:2)
So I did what most ordinary people would do in that situation. I caught a squirrel, and sacrificed it to Zaqurarlin the Space God from the Third Comet Under the Setting Shoe. Zaqurarlin called upon his poet-assasins, and sent forth Hrrranak, the Most Exhalted, Feared, and Rhythmic. The poor bastard didn't stand a chance.
Anyway, I hope you see my point.
People need to calm down (Score:2)
When you have a load of people in close proximity sooner or later someone's going to get pissed off with someone else. The group will probably polarise into two fractions and things will just go down hill.
* Yarn goes to loaf around in the sun with a drink.
Besides... (Score:2)
Shit.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"In Loco Parentis" no longer (Score:2)
In general, schools can only discipline students for 1) behavior that occurs during school, a school event, or on school property, and 2) behavior which is disruptive, interferes with the learning process, or constitutes a danger to others. The Supreme Court has ruled that schools may not censor critical speech by students unless it meets both of the criteria above. In the case of the black armbands, the students involved did not disrupt classes in any way, did not rave and rant in the hallways, and were engaged in critical speech (albeit silently). Thus it was protected by the Constitution.
Of course, in reality, principals and school districts routinely ignore the law. This is especially true in small rural school districts which are not under the sort of strict oversight that big-city school districts are, and which do not have the systematic rules and procedures that big-city school districts have. I still must say, though, that this is a really weird case altogether. I taught in a small rural school, and I cannot imagine my principal suspending or expelling a student for something that happened off campus. Heck, I had enough trouble getting him to suspend a student for cussing me out and walking out of my classroom when I denied him permission to get up in the middle of my lecture and go to the bathroom! I can't imagine any of my principals suspending someone for stuff said off-campus... and some of these guys were, well, nuts. (shrug) Guess things have changed in the 6 years since I left the teaching profession...
-E
What the hell is criminal libel? (Score:2)
--
Re:Hmmm ... two sides to this (Score:2)
IMHO, the difference between freedom and conflict is that in one, there's accountability. In the other, all is fair, no matter how bloody it gets.
(The difference between flames, trolls and slander on the one hand, and cluster-bombs, land-mines and UXB's on the other, is that you can always recover from a physical injury, or at least die instantly. Verbal abuse is for life, and no surgeon or doctor can ever relieve the pain.)
Does that mean that I think what happened to this kid was ok? Of course not! Abuse + Abuse = Abuse. You don't clean up shit by piling more on. At best, it'll teach this kid that, when he grows up and someone insults him, the "right and proper way" to solve things is with superior firepower.
Just as importantly, what message does this give the bullies at his school? Simple. Find a weak enough victim, and the school itself'll keep the bully safe.
Is that the kind of message we WANT sent? I think I know Slashdot well enough to know that there are people brighter than that here.
So, what would I suggest as an alternative? Beating up the original bullies? Chances are, they only became bullies because someone beat THEM up, originally, same as happened with this kid.
No, the answer is to show kids that violence need not be met with violence. If you fight fire with fire, you'll get your hands burned and probably many innocent ones too. Fight fire with water, and that needn't happen.
Will anyone do this? Nah! Schools are made up of people with their own problems, and nobody with a problem is going to be keen on anyone shining a light on it. To cover up their own toxic waste dumps of poisoned emotions, teachers and parents alike will never voluntarily show kids how it can be safe & ok to be a kid. It's far too dangerous.
Re:Libel and Slander (Score:2)
However, some jurisdictions in the US, apparently under the impression that some 900 years of English common law is clearly horseshit, have decided to introduce a criminal offence of libel, which is punishable by fines or imprisonment.
Of course, from the plaintiff's point of view, criminal libel is wonderful as you don't need to hire a lawyer, risk an award against you etc - the state assumes all the risk.
From the defendant's point of view it completely sucks.
Nick
Libel is Civil, not criminal (Score:2)
Seems to me libel has always been more capable of taking legal action against that slander.
Our rights online may be being taken away left and right, but this seems a pretty clear cut case to me. The fact that online libelous writing hasn't been taken up in courts before this has no bearing on it.
I would tend to agree - this person may be guilty of libel (note that we don't have all the facts). However, libel is a civil offense, not a criminal one. The involvement of the police in this case should have been limited to serving civil suit papers to the family.
Criminal libel is a special case -- one where irrevocable damage is caused to one's reputation. Somehow I doubt that any teachers lost thier jobs, or any students were expelled over what this one student said. Most courts would be reluctant to allow criminal charges to continue on something like this had it been said in the school newspaper.
My bet is that the victims (and I use the term loosely) in this case will use the concept that a web site has a potentially limitless, worldwide audience as a forum, whereas a school newspaper is very limited. They will doubtless ignore the fact that no one gives a dingo's kidney what this student thinks of his teachers. :)
--
Re:Hmmm ... two sides to this (Score:2)
Hmmm. Given how much Killing Miranda have played up to the "most hated band in the goth scene" image, are you really in much of a position to complain about defamatory stuff being posted about you? I'd say yes, depending on the circumstances (particularly for non-KM related stuff), but you're treading awfully close to the line. As you say, the real problem is when it spills over into real life, and the smaller the community (such as a small town in Utah, or maybe the UK goth scene), the more likely this is to happen.
BTW, what's the reason for the no show at Gotham?
Re:BIG difference. (Score:2)
Utter rubbish. Libel is the process of causing harm to another's reputation, and it comes in two forms. If the process is written, it's called Defamation. If it's spoken (as in your example), it's called Slander. The only difference is that Defamation, by its very nature, tends to leave some kind of lasting proof, and hence is easier to persue in the courts. Slander relies on witnesses being present (usually when spoken in a public place, or in a televised interview, for example). Also note that truth isn't always a valid defense against libel, if the intent is to maliciously harm reputation, rather than just expose the truth. IANAL.
Its wrong, but its also a fact of life... (Score:2)
My point wasn't that what the town/school/police/government did wasn't wrong, my point is that people commenting that he was simply doing to the students in the school what they did to him was incorrect. They slandered him, he libeled them. The kids father wants the other students held to the same standard, but what they did wasn't the same, legally. Morally or ethically, yes they're pretty much the same.
And these days no one should be at all suprised that individuals representing the government overstepped their bounds, trounced on a citizen's rights and generally behaved in a manner that would be reprehensible if done by a third world country. But this is the U.S., the greatest police state in the world!
Two different issues (Score:2)
Seems to me libel has always been more capable of taking legal action against that slander.
Our rights online may be being taken away left and right, but this seems a pretty clear cut case to me. The fact that online libelous writing hasn't been taken up in courts before this has no bearing on it.
Re:Hmmm ... two sides to this (Score:2)
As for playing up to the "most hated band" tag, it wasn't something we actively sought, although it obviously works for people like Marilyn Manson, etc. Other people painted us into a corner simply because we put our faith in a record label with a handful of vocal detractors. The amount of people who then projected their own grudges and fantasies onto the tedious affair is remarkable.
The very nature of things like Usenet and Slashdot make it appear like an enormous school playground. People take sides, bandy about ludicrous opinions, make dubious allegations
A good example of how this can then spill over into everyday life is the rift between Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond. Perens appears to have been serious when he suggested getting a court order against Raymond (although given ESR's interest in firearms it isn't that suprising).
The sad thing is that people like to gossip, and take sides in other peoples arguments. But if that's what they need to enliven their lives than what can be done to bring about some form of closure?
Chris Wareham
Re:There is a difference (Score:2)
Hmmm
The other way to look at it is this:
Libel can occur in everyday speech. If the libelled party can get witnesses to support their claim, a case can still be made.
So simply because web publishing doesn't involve a third party (newspaper publisher, etc.) doesn't set a precedent in libel law.
Chris Wareham
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Re:Two different issues (Score:2)
You're also remarkably supportive of his action in support of his friends. A sort of all-for-one attitude... and a backhanded sort of support, really: he's judged that his friends are incapable of dealing with it themselves, and that his way of dealing with it is superior to theirs.
Anyway, this is all round-about to saying that if he really were libelled by the newspaper, website and teachers, then it would be *appropriate* to sue them. It is *not* appropriate to engage in the same petty, unlawful and hurtful actions that his "enemies" were.
It sounds to me like a whole bunch of kids need to get a clue and start behaving a bit more maturely; and a whole bunch of staff and administrators need to get a clue and start intervening instead of letting the kids duke it out among themselves.
--
Re:If it is, don't accept it. (Score:2)
I don't know what to say to you about that, because I didn't know your friends, and I don't know you. I do know that the same things happened to me however.
That's interesting. I, too, attempted to kill myself on two seperate occasions, when I was 13 and 14 years old. Fortunately for me, I wasn't very competent at it.
When I was 6, I said I was going to be a pilot. And you know what? I joined the Air Training Corps, hated the herd mentality there and left. But one day, either with money from my music or my work on computers, I'm going to take my money, learn to fly, and I'm going to plot a course directly over my old school, and the places I've been taken to remind me of 'the way it is' with sticks, fists and white trainers, and I'm going to spit on them from a thousand feet.
If your school is not built in a town (many serving the smaller midwestern towns are actually a couple of miles out in the country, surrounded by cornfields), you can legally spit on them from 500 feet AGL if you like.
Shortly after I got my private pilots certificate I took my sister flying over a small town in central Illinois where we both had very unpleasant memories. While neither of us spit on the town, we did dart around the clouds (keeping the required 2000' lateral distance, of course) and did a few steep turns just for the fun of it. Why? Because we both have successful lives doing what we want, and the people which caused us such pain in those days are still down there, ecking out their sorry lives with death the only light at the end of their tunnel.
I would strongly encourage you to learn to fly, but as you probably already know, it will be an addiction to make heroin or crack cocain look innocent in comparison. Just starting the motor on the ramp after a two or three week haitus is like a needle prick to a junkie: pure, wonderful bliss and delicious anticipation...
To the person you responded to I would add: Growing up is hell. Being a teenager is hell. High school isn't the best years of your life. It may be the best years of the sorry saps lives who are tormenting you, will never go to college, and will never get out of their sorry little town, but they are not your best years. If you are at all like me, they were quite the opposite.
College may be some of the best years of your life (certainly the most carefree in some respects), but even after graduation life as a working professional isn't bad (though the first job out of school generally is). Being an adult doesn't suck at all, and can be damn fun at times
Welcome to the americal Gestapo (Score:2)
All doublespeak aside. THIS is the picture of america.. and it has been this way for a long time. We shout to the world, " WE ARE FREE!" while all our freedoms are actually superficial (as in you can have them until we decide to take them) We have radical left win groups trying to take the rights of the right wing radicals, the right wing radicals trying to opress the left wing radicals, and the normal citizens sit in the middle getting abused. right now in america, if you are a white hetero male you are evil it's self. It's not a racist thing, it's just that if you are a white hetero male, you are a very easy and safe target to take out. The government can torture you and no-one will care, or raise a fuss. the ACLU couldnt care less, and the media spotlights another damn white hetero male causing trouble in our schools (Espically if you have an IQ!)
It also depends on your "value" to the school. will they sell fewer ticket to the football game next week? better not keep "superstar billy" out of the game just because he broke a students arm while he was stealing an mp3 player from the student.... let's expell the student for causing trouble by bringing that to school/looking wierd/not bowing to our star player.
This is LIFE... get used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:BIG difference - saying it brings bad (Score:2)
Re:Assumed Danger of Net Speech (Score:2)
WTF is Criminal Libel ? (Score:2)
Libel - Russian style (Score:2)
I know this guy who looks a lot like Mr. So-and-So, and he is a
Apparently this cannot be considered a legal libel, even though the end effect is the same.
IANAL!
Libel isn't the problem. (Score:2)
The problem is this kid is being treated like a criminal, put in juvie, etc, simply because he published statements. People SHOULD sue him for libel if they really feel so hard done by.. but he should not have a criminal record because of it.
I'd like to see this one go to court... (Score:2)
I think the best defense would be establishing reasonable doubt that the things he said were lies. (assuming it really is criminal libel, which ought to put the burden of proof on the prosecution... IANAL)
When I was in high school, I knew girls who were sluts (both those who were promiscuous and, in the older sense of the word, those who were slobs). I knew a teacher who picked his nose openly in front of the class (one of the most important things you learn in school is what is acceptable public behavior; a student would be punished and ridiculed for the same thing). One of my teachers would always respond to a question with "I don't know, but I'll look it up" and never look anything up; she'd also mark any sufficiently long and complex answer as correct (laziness? ignorance? stupidity? I never could decide...). Another teacher continually had strange impulses that he'd enforce for a few days, then forget ("Okay, from now on, everybody in the class call each other Mr. or Ms.").
Now, calling girls "sluts" is rude and generally unproductive (although not necessarily slanderous or libelous if it's accurate), but in my experience, half or more of public school employees are not fit for the work, and this should be brought out in the open. A public trial might help get the ball rolling.
One screams "libel!" at one's own risk, it tends to make people look for evidence...
white hetero males... (Score:2)
Regardless of the degree of oppression (which certainly isn't equal in all cases), we all have the choices of going with the flow and avoiding situations where we would be oppressed or butting our heads against a brick wall hoping that enough others are doing the same to make some cracks, and of spitefully oppressing members of other groups to "even the score" or being impartial and fair in the hope that others will follow your example.
Revenge is an odd pendulum; when you push it one way, it comes back even harder.
in loco parentis (Score:2)
"in loco parentis" is typically only granted to boarding schools, esp. when those are state-funded (i.e. math/science magnet-type schools that have an admissions process but are still paid for with public funds).
The whole reason for granting "in loco parentis" is to provide legal rights to a body that will be literally that, "in place of the parents," and needs the authority of a parent/guardian.
Either way, regular school districts can not arbitrarily decide to act "in loco parentis", it must be specifically granted to a particular body for a specific reason, and most schools do not have this advantage...
Anthony
Right (Score:2)
In the Larry Flynt case the Court established that free speech includes the right to insult and hurt people's feelings, so we've dodged "doom" yet again. It's what he said about the teachers, which could harm them professionally, that might be libel, but ONLY if he knew that the things he said weren't true. If he really thought his teacher was a drunk, it isn't libel, which makes trying libel cases pretty tricky.
-jpowers
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Maybe somebody needs to start a defamation search engine, which links defamation to defenses against same, and lets people compare to see which is more plausible.
-russ
Re:There's only one way to fight back (Score:2)
-russ
No Brainer -- This is well-settled law (Score:2)
The Supreme Court has made abundantly clear in ACLU v. Reno that publications on the Internet is protected with equal force under the First Amendment as publication in any other format. Defamation law is likewise closely circumscribed by First Amendment issues.
The case will stand and fall on the same issues any pamphleteering case has stood or fallen.
We aren't provided the actual content for evaluation, and I'm sure I wouldn't take the time to study it at this point anyway.
You CAN commit defamation, regardless of media, and, I suppose, it could go over the limit to the level of a crime. But to be constitutionally sustainable, there are incredible hurdles the government can overcome. It is far easier to be egregiously offensive than it is to be criminally libelous, which is the most likely scenario. (But, as I said, I don't know the facets).
But there is no interesting techological question here -- this is a routine first amendment case.
And the courts... (Score:2)
For Beaver country, the applicable county. Note that the direct office addresses of the judges are available as well.
http://courtlink.utcourts.gov/dir/5th dist.htm [utcourts.gov]
Below, someone mentioned that the press likes political controversy. If we start kicking-up enough dust, the *local* press (i.e. in the town where this is happening) will have no choice but to cover it. They won't want to look like bumpkins under the national spotlight, and as such will likely be on their best behavior.
----
Re:The School's address (Score:2)
Beaver High School
195 E Center - PO Box 71
Beaver, Utah 84713
435-438-2301
Principal - Richard Albrecht
Milford High School
62 N 300 W - PO Box 159
Milford, Utah 84751
435-387-2751
Principal - Walter Schofield
----
Re:Not Libel -Libel checklist (Score:2)
Re:Not Libel -Libel checklist (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Agreed, there shouldn't be any difference. But they don't confiscate all your pens when you libel someone in print, so why should they be confiscating his computer?
Re:Welcome to the new net (Score:2)
Re:It's a kid! (Score:2)
I wasn't going against the kid. I think that he has the right to speak his mind and according to the story has proof for everything he said. If he believes it to be true then he's not libeling. He might have to apoligize if someone proves him wrong but libel is a long shot. I see a counter-suit coming from this kids friends who were slandered by the school paper (see the story)... and I say more power to them. I've noticed that in school as long as you toe the line for the admistrators you can get away with a lot. Be different (as this kid was) and you're going to get slapped down (or in this case suspended, arrested, have your computer stolen by the police, and shipped out of state).
What's the difference? (Score:2)
Wave (Score:2)
And just think, Wave America could have caught this dissident and "normalized" him.
(/caustic sarcasm)
So where can donations go?
Truth is a defense (Score:2)
> Does that mean that I can be jailed if I say "Microsoft Sucks"
Nope. Truth is an absolute defence against libel. From the article:
> "and prove that there is a basis for everything said on his Web site."
Which means I'd really like to see the transcripts of the kid's trial:
Failing that, let's crank up the time machine and read the following fictional account of the trial from "Tackhead's Ideal Universe Where People Who Launch Stupid Lawsuits Get What's Coming To Them":
"Your Honor, I have here a love note from Miss Kaitlynn Frobozznitz, age 16, to Richard (to whom she coloquially refers as "Big Dickie") Johnson, Principal, age 37, and I have here an office memo from the same Principal to the custodial staff, detailing that the custodial staff is to have every third Wednesday off work and is to vacate the building by 4:00 pm. I will now present another memo in the same handwriting, addressed to 'Katiep00', arranging what appears to be a tryst at 4:15 pm, and telling her to bring her brother Bratney and three gerbils, for reasons which should probably not be discussed in open court.
An nslookup and WHOIS query reveal a "Dick Johnson" as the owner of "kaitlynnspanties.com", which purports itself to be a pornographic web site, hosted in the principality of Sealand. A subpoena to AOL revealed that the katiep00 account is, indeed, owned by Ms. Frobozznitz. The folks at Sealand were kind enough to provide us with a full mirror, but we (surprisingly) found a copy in the cache of the DA's web browser, so the tapes from Sealand may be redundant. We have also subpoenaed Kaitlynn, Bratney's, and Big Dick Johnson's computers and are able to present their chat logs and emails for the past two months, because the threesome were obviously too stupid to use PGP.
But we believe the circumstancial evidence alone is sufficient to prove Kaitlynn's sluttishness. The defence rests."
What is libelous (Score:2)
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).
Ok, so if libel is a civil wrong, then the authorities really don't have much to say about the issue. The people who were offended need to sue the teenager, no?
Also, there are a lot of conditions in libel cases. Namely, the offended party has to prove that the statements are false, and furthermore that the offender *knew* that they were false, or at least that he never cared whether they were true or not. Secondly, the statements are libelous only if the offended prty can prove that the statements have ruined their reputation or standing in the community. This reminds me of the Falwell vs. Larry Flynt case -- Flynt's statements were so unbelievable and false that no reasonable person would think they were true, therefore, they weren't libelous.
This is all my speculation, as IANAL. Help me out if I'm wrong about anything.
for the record (Score:2)
there are no bad words; only bad people
Re:Hmmm ... two sides to this (Score:2)
M.L. was almost always filled with completely random sentences and weird rants. It acquired a few dozen dedicated readers.
So then, in an extra-large issue for the Millennium, they decided to take the names of everyone in the sophomore class from the yearbook, and put one of their classic random thoughts next to each name. The problem was, word got around that this issue had a comment about everyone in the class, and even though they only managed to publish 7 copies of that issue, they got around to basically the entire sophomore class, 90% of whom had never read M.L. before.
The sentences without the names next to them would have been basically meaningless. In fact, that was what the issue was going to be in the first place, just meaningless funny sentences like all other issues, and they inserted the names later. But the names made everyone try and read into those sentences. Practically everyone was insulted. Various students even went so far as to report it to the school administrators as a "hit list", and that idea was fueled by the fear left over from Columbine.
The most extreme case I can remember is when "Open All Night" fell next to a girl's name.
So the two students who wrote M.L. got suspended for 5 days, with a threat that it would be extended to 20 days if they tried to dispute it. They tried to publish an apology issue (a few paragraphs explaining the situation, and "Sorry." next to everyone's name), but the school had already decreed that they could never ever write another issue or else they'd be expelled. And I had to take down the entire web page, not just the page for that issue, meaning that nobody could even read the archives to get an idea of what M.L. was like before the "Millennium Issue".
The school sent them to counseling sessions, they recieved a few death threats from fellow students, and then Christmas break came and everyone pretty much forgot the situation, except the fans of M.L. who were now deprived of the only thing they could look forward to on a Monday morning.
I suppose I should be glad it didn't turn into a situation like this article describes, though.
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Too Much Katz, Too Few Facts (Score:2)
This Katz piece is a failure, like so many others, because it's long on Katz's philosophy, but short on facts.
Understandable, of course, because the facts (the few provided) don't completely deliver the "punch" Katz seeks.
A prime example: Katz states that the boy was "sent out of the state" (implying it was at the behest of authorities) and "driven out-of-state" but the linked article makes no mention of a specfic attempt on behalf of the authorities to coerce him into leaving the state. Although the Father does use the phrase "run out of town", he plainly states that getting "run out of town" was his son's goal!
I understand the importance of Free Speach. I don't need yet another Katz diatribe against the 'anti-free-speech-machine'. What I need are facts. Tell me how and why the Principal, the Judges involved, and the Sherriff's department were able to do what they've done.
Specifically, what laws allowed the authorities to sieze the computer? I assume a court order was obtained. Under what pretext? What was the text of the court order? Why did the boy leave the state? Was a court involved in the process? Was it merely coercion on the part of an overzealous Sheriff's department, eg, "If you can get the boy out of the State we won't be obligated to pursue the matter any further. If he stays, we intend to prosecute" Was it simply the boy's choice, as the Father seems to infer? What does the ACLU have to say about it? What does the community think about the entire incident? Will it have a political impact? Will it jeopordize the Sherriff's
Of course, Katz is incapable of providing the details so essential to understanding the issue. A competent and experienced Journalist is required to give the public the facts neccesary to fully understand the circumstances. Katz is a dilettante with an agenda, and it shows. He's keyed off of a few convenient facts, and ignored those facts that don't further his goal. The entire episode is merely a springboard for his pet causes.
It's a damn shame that a story like this, that is at the cutting edge of so many of the changes taking place in our society, is given such two-dimensional coverage. Oddly, Katz regularly criticizes traditional media sources as out of touch with the "new age", yet a 'dinosaur' like the New York Times is just what's needed, a journal that employs professionals capable of sorting out all of the details and then communicting the facts to readers who then make up their own minds. It's ironic that Katz's obvious limitations, as revealed in this piece and many others, are the proof that "dinosaurs' still have their place.
Re:Two different issues (Score:2)
Kintanon
Re:Assumed Danger of Net Speech (Score:2)
Ok, I now fear businesses.
For a PRIVATE CITIZEN what you just described is called CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER and is illegal as hell.
People are routinely arrested for such things after they are caught planning to rob a bank, kill someone, etc...
So you might want to go find your business law professor and check his degree, he might have gotten it from one of those mexican correspondance courses.>:)
Kintanon
Re:Katz Misses the Mark (Score:2)
Libel is libel, plain and simple. Your claim that it is simply high-tech bullying is misguided. Bullying is a very personal action (believe me, I've been subjected to it, too), while publishing a web page constitutes using a public medium. As a result, it is subjected to libel laws. Of course, if a bully makes hurtful and *damaging* statements about a student, he can sue for defamation.
While I do not invoke the Katz filter, I can understand why people do. Katz has a strong analytical ability but his tendency for sensationalism is rivaled only by the tabloids. Here, he is trying to connect two very different and independent issues in an attempt to make a grandiose statement about how society unfairly treats people who don't fit in--again. Try again, Jon; if you cast often enough, you may catch something.
Hrmmm, so you are saying that if the officials were investigated and found to be drunken incompitants then you would have a problem with it? If what he says is true then it isn't libel.
Also, this webpage is only his side of the conflict, before he did this he and his friends were attacked by a school sponsored news paper and a school sponsored website.
Kintanon
Re:Two different issues (Score:2)
If his action was illegal then why have the students/faculty responsible for the newspaper and website not been arrested as well? I don't see anyone holding them responsible for their actions.
Kintanon
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
But if it's TRUE then that might actually be the poroblem. He hasn't done anything worthy of having his comp confiscated, or any kind of legal action beyond a lawsuit. And then, if he's found to be in violation of something during the suit they have grounds to punish him in some way. But simply making accusations against government officials is NOT punishable by incarceration in this country.
Kintanon
Re:Two different issues (Score:2)
Seems to me libel has always been more capable of taking legal action against that slander.
Our rights online may be being taken away left and right, but this seems a pretty clear cut case to me. The fact that online libelous writing hasn't been taken up in courts before this has no bearing on it.
It's not libel if it's true.
Also, he and his friends were libeled first. The school news papers gossip column and a school run website. His retaliation might have been a bit harsh, but it was justified and in a similar manner to the abuse he recieved.
Kintanon
Re:Two different issues (Score:2)
Why are any of us sitting in judgement of this kid, or the school, when, quite frankly, 99% of us probably do not have all the facts?
Hrmmm, so claiming that one of his friends is ummm, promiscuous, in the school newspaper is OK.
But him saying it about other girls in school on a website is an Arrestable offence?
Kintanon
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
heh, that was too easy...
Did you just respond to abuse with abuse?! Gad! You hypocrite!
My pent up anger is fairly easily controlled by years of Martial Arts. I can choose to unleash it (Which is why I can break 2" pressure treated hardwood with my kicks) or I can keep it reigned in, which is why I haven't killed anyone.
BUT, It's been many many years since I sat still and endured abuse from anyone. I don't put up with it anymore. And I don't think anyone else should either. It's not this guys fault he got harassed. We should be finding out why he was this pissed off and punished the people responsible before they push the kid over the edge.
Not everyone can find a way to control their anger and focus it. This kid opened fire with a website, not a machine gun. I think should be encouraged.
Kintanon
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
This is exactly the sort of activism I'm planning.
What did you think I meant? Blowing up their cars?
Yeesh...
I'm going to organize student protests over unfair treatment. Try to get funding re-allocated from sports to academics. Try to get some of the more incompetent teachers fired. All manner of annoying things like that.
I'm not going to shoot anyone.>:)
Kintanon
karma is like that (Score:2)
My comment didn't get moderated up; for some reason inside the mysterious whirring gears of the secret slarsh-tit status script I have "earned" the semi-permanent state of automatically getting my posts entered at two goody-points. And it's not as though I'm anybody special or worthwhile, like Bruce Perens, either; over the years I've written a mess of programs but basically they all suck, I can't code my way out a wet paper sack. Even when I merely stand and applaud the alluring yet minus-one literary works of some of slarsh-tit's most eminent trolls, like 80md or spiralx, I come in at two. Gladly would I lend a point or two to 80md when he's on a roll, to help keep the troll train bouncing merrily along!
(...say, did you ever read the story about the guy who learned Latin and then later forgot it? Old, old, old. I'd pay $1.00 right now to remember which Jack Vance story it was where "slarsh-tit" was local-planet slang connoting a cute adolescent girl.)
I suspect that there may be something in the automatic scoring that looks at the length of your posts (and maybe spell-chex 'em too, I'm real good though not perfect at spelling). So maybe I get ahead because, being semi-senile, I go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on; I'm real loquacious or logorrhaeic or whatever.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:Except that life IS like that. (Score:2)
Amidst this foul, miserable world, jam packed with fools and liars, how rare a relief it is to read someone with the sense, honesty and simple decency to defy convention and state the truth. Thank you.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:Hmmm ... two sides to this (Score:2)
OTOH, what if what he wrote is true? It's hard to say since we haven't seen the page. Maybe the principal is a drunk, girls in his class are "sluts", and the faculty sucks. Gee, is it possible that such a high school exists--even in Utah?
Two sides indeed, but I think I prefer to err on the side of protecting freedom of speech when it comes to this kind of dilema.
numb
The Internet used to work just fine... (Score:2)
Anyone who knows anything about the Internet social makeup is going to have a very hard time swallowing someone bitching about getting defamed on the 'net. What someone says about you -- good OR bad -- means practically nothing here. I'm sure anyone who's been around for a while on the 'net has had the glorious opportunity to be defamed, verbally attacked, and otherwise misaligned by a few people here and there on the 'net. I know I've faced more than my share of such attacks. The great thing about the 'net, though, is that anyone whose opinion I might give a damn about will find out my side of the story and decide for themselves. Does ANYone out there still take someone else's word for it when you have access to so much raw data nowadays?
The best part of the Internet is that, traditionally, you CAN say whatever you want. The part that's even better than that, though, is that what you say has the impact of an ant sneezing. You'd either have such an incredible sneeze that someone notices, or else get a million other ants to sneeze with you, if you want anyone to hear. This kid did neither; he called a couple of people some bad names, which isn't very remarkable, and he did it all by himself, which isn't very influential.
Fax and Phone Numbers for Milford High, District (Score:2)
- Milford High phone 435-387-2751, Fax 435 387 2494
- EDNET Site Facilitator Cathy Palmer, cathy.palmer@w.beaver.k12.ut.us [mailto]
- Beaver School District phone 435 438 2291, fax 435 438 5898
- James E. Robinson, Mayor, phone 435 438 2451, fax 435 438 5826
- City Manager Steve Atkin, atkin@inquo.net [mailto]
The mayor's address is:60 West Center Street
Beaver, UT 84713
USA
I think EDNET is the Utah state education Internet.
Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations (Score:2)
If you'd like to drop them a line, here's their email addresses [slashdot.org] and here are their fax and phone numbers. [slashdot.org]
Tell them the hardcopy edition of the cluetrain is well worth buying.
It will be helpful for their 21st Century Project [usu.edu]:
City of Milford Numbers (Score:2)
26 South 100 West, P.O. Box 69
Milford, UT
USA
435 387 2711, fax 435 387-2748
nkennedy@milford.state.ut.us [mailto]
Email addresses at Milford High (Score:2)
Here's some email addresses that are pertinent, why don't you drop them a line:
- Beaver Counter School District Superintendent Henry Jolley, henry.jolley@m.beaver.k12.ut.us [mailto]
- Assistant Superintendent Donald Willden, donald.willden@m.beaver.k12.ut.us [mailto]
- Technology Director Tracy Davis, tracy.davis@m.beaver.k12.ut.us [mailto]
These all came from the Beaver County School District Homepage [k12.ut.us] MikeRe:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Part of the difference is the difference in scope. These kids called him names in front of 10 people (or however many people were standing around when they did it). He put up a website that could be viewed by potentially millions of people a day. It's the difference between me calling you an idiot in front of 3 people, or doing it in front of a crowd of millions.
On a slightly more legal angle(although IANAL), doesn't libel mean that the speech had to cause harm? What actual harm happened because of the web page being up? Did the school administrators get fired because this kid claimed they were drunks? It seems to me that while as immature and obnoxious as writing a nasty web page is, its hardly something you should get arrested and kicked out of the state for.
I believe your right, it has to be harmful. Of course we don't know exactly what all was put up on the website, so it may or may not have been able to cause harm. If it was something like "Teacher X has sex with children" they may be able to prove it, because that could definitely impact his job. Even some of the things he did say (specifically about teachers being "drunks") could put enough doubt in parents minds to cause problems. It's a tough call, because obviously his intent was to harm, and some things could possibly have some effact, but it seems extreme for a web page were he basically calls people names.
What frightens me most is the father basically saying what he did was okay. He stands up for the kid and says he didn't do anything really wrong, and even seems proud that he accomplished his goal of being run out of town.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
I didn't mention the other sites for 2 reasons. Number 1 is that I don't have any idea what was on those sites. Did they say "Joe is dumb" and everyone just assumed it was him, or did they go into detail about what they think is wrong with him, or did they claim he had sex with farm animals? I have no idea, so I can't comment on their sites and what happened to them. Number 2 is that he went far beyond talking about a few students to talking about a large amount of students and faculty. Saying "Joe is gay" can't really cause harm to a student. They may get picked on a little more, but it's not going to cause harm. Saying it about a teacher could cause him to lose his job if parents here this and believe it and are homophobic enough to want him fired. I'm not saying the other web sites were all right, but I don't know enough about them to comment on them.
let it prove there nots sluts and drunks (Score:2)
Don't Just Write SlashDot About This (Score:2)
Does this story make you angry? Does it make you think an injustice has been done? Do you want to actually do something about it?
Remember two key facts of public life:
Thus, a little political controversy will thrill the local newspaper, and make life miserable for the bozos who think they're the Big Shots in the "close-knit" community of Milford, Utah.
And how do you engender a little political controversy? Posting a comment here on SlashDot can help (the more comments, the more people read the article--the more people read the article, the more will hopefully express their concern to people in Utah). But expressing your thoughts directly to the Utah press will do even more. All you have to do is write to the electronic version of Letters to the Editor of the Salt Lake Tribune at mailto:letters@stltrib.com. Be sure to include your name, your address, and a daytime phone number. Be polite, don't be crude, and be sure to use words like "fairness", "concern", and "fair play". Here's what I just sent them:
Not the first time - Previous student victorious (Score:3)
Unfortunately, this case was settled at the local level, and no national precident is there. However, this case should help the defence of the student as it argues *for* his rights outside of school grounds.
Facts, precedents, citation, TWIAVBP (Score:3)
1) This is not 'one of the few cases'! As far as straight (civil) libel goes, existing 'cyberlaw' goes back to the 80's, with mailing lists and BBSs and has definitely been upheld internationally. "international" is important, because you can be sued in jurisdiction where the 'damage' occurs or where the 'victim' resides. Here are some cases/sources:
2) Do a websearch for "criminal libel" and you'll find that its primary use worldwide, historically and currently is against journalists . One of the 'Inciting Abuses' that contributed to the American Revolution was a (then British) court verdict that a newspaper was guilty of defaming the reputation of the Governer-General of New York by (accurately) revealing his corruption.
3) To address another of Katz's points, here are mini-case studies in dysfunctional human behaviour on the net [anu.edu.au]
Katz was on my 'exclude list' for a few months, not because I dislike his writing, but because his loose use of facts and analogies leads to a sloppy, infuriating discussion. A profesional writer should investigate his facts and limit his speculation to what those facts support; If he doesn't, the readers will certainly go hogwild. This is the first Katz article I've read in a while. I am not pleased.
Re:Hmmm ... two sides to this (Score:3)
Whether you believe that you should be allowed to post whatever you want on the net or not, you must agree, jailing someone over their speech is just downright wrong. These things should be dealt with in civil court, there is no reason for police to get involved, computer seziure, or jailing. I'm quite disgusted by the US for doing this.
-- iCEBaLM
The School's address (Score:3)
Milford High School
62 No. 300 W. / PO Box 159
Milford, Utah 84751
You all know what to do. If even 10% of Slashdot writes a physical letter, that's about 10,000 pieces of mail. Even send a post card with "Good luck Ian!" scrawled on the back. Show these asses that, yes, the outside world knows what they've been up to and are not happy.
----
Loyalty (Score:3)
It seems to have gotten lost in this discussion (it was at the bottom of the cited article) that he was not merely disparaging his classmates and teachers out of a personal grievance: he was defending and avenging a friend of his who had been publically disparaged in the school newspaper and on several private sites.
The story says she (the friend) was the butt of some "unsavory criticism" in the school paper's "gossip column filled with tidbits about the romantic lives of Milford students." In other words, evidently his friend was the victim of public, in-print, school-sanctioned sexual harassment. Not to mention libel.
This changes nothing of the fundamental legal issues, but it does color the character of the case. This is not just some twerp flaming people because they hurt his feelings (though considering how ill he was treated, from the account of his father, I think he would not be out of line if he had). This guy was attacking the people who hurt his friend, probably committed a crime against her (libel and/or sexual harassment), and did it with complete impunity. He was was standing up for a friend.
Bless his heart.
----------------------------------------------
he's not an adult (Score:3)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:3)
So you recommend taking the abuse quietly, dealing with it in some quiet, non intrusive manner, and allowing people to keep piling shit on you while you deal with it all nice and neatly by some mechanism which doesn't inconvenience anyone.
Well, Fuck you.
I say fight back. If you can kill the mother fuckers then at least expose then for the shit eating bastards they are. I still have a lot of rage pent up inside me at high school officials and students because of the abuse I recieved. I'm a martial artist, I work out a lot, I play quake, I relieve stress with all of these. But it doesn't always work. Especially when something like this comes up. All of the rage I have inside of me starts to bubble to the surface because it's still there. I can never get rid of it because I didn't have any effective way of preventing the abuse I was recieving. Sitting quietly and taking their shit is NOT AN EFFECTIVE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. And I'm getting tired of sanctimonious bastards that claim it is. You might be content to get the shit kicked out of you every other day, endure verbal abuse, and psychological abuse while quietly dealing with it but some of us are NOT. We want it to STOP and we WILL stop it. I'm 20, I eventually plan on ending up back near my old high school where I will become a serious pain in the ass for the administration there. I don't like to see kids get crapped all over and have no recourse but to sit and take it.
If someone pulled that kind of crap at work I'd have them fired. But in school there's nothing he can do. The administration doesn't help people like him, they want him to conform and shut up.
So don't get all holier than thou and tell us to sit quietly and take it. Get your sorry ass out there and try to put a stop to it. Because if it goes on long enough more people are gonna start seeing columbine as a viable solution to their problems.
Kintanon
Another, perhaps more humorous net-libel situation (Score:3)
The person who has filed suit also claims he is going to bring civil and seek criminal RICO related charges against ANYONE who he judges has posted defaming comments about him.
One interesting twist, is that on a number of occasions, he has stated he will consider NOT filingsuit against those who "turn" on the gang, and give him information he can use against others.
The groups which are home to this ongoing battle of words are: alt.sports.gymnastics, alt.romance and alt.seduction fast.
The individual who brought suit runs a web based sports handicapping and seduction-related publishing business called Snodgrass Publishing, his site can be reached here [cybersheet.com]
The Civil Court Docket for his first of what he promises to be many suits is here [phila.gov].
I will leave it to anyone who wishes to investigate the various postings in these groups, and read the court docket (though it lacks any information other than dates for meetings/hearings, etc) to decide if this is kookery, or someone defending their civil rights.
btw, I go by a similar name on USENET.
Going on means going far
If it is, don't accept it. (Score:3)
I don't know what to say to you about that, because I didn't know your friends, and I don't know you. I do know that the same things happened to me however. I lost one friend to suicide, another to heroin addiction (to this day I don't know if he's still alive, because he wouldn't talk to me), and one to what I still believe to be a grisly murder at the hands of a group of yobs with nothing better to do than make other people's lives hell. I also know that he was a bright kid with a bright future. That was the one incident that made me stop being so maudlin, wake up and start standing up for myself. I don't mean physically, any heavily-built human could probably kick my butt if they wanted to, but that's irrelevant, because as you do get older, brains do become more important. You're obviously bright enough, to see as far as you do. I bit my tongue, finished my exams and got the hell out of Dodge, moved to town and am currently heading towards the last year of a Uni course that will (hopefully) see me financially secure at the end of it. Every so often I go back to my home town (to see my family), and see those that used to taunt me, still stuck in their mindset. It's been years, but they haven't moved on. I see them, and realise that I was mentally killing myself with fear and worry over nothing. I may not make much of a difference on a global scale yet, but I'll do my bit from where I'm standing to help those who were in my position out. If you have the ability to think like that, you've already got the f**kers beaten. They're stuck on their islands, proclaiming their manhood, but they've never touched anyone deeply, and it's them who are condemned to eke out an existence as a mediocrity until they keel over.
We're so hyped-up on the sanctity of life that we won't let people opt out of living - people who the rest of the world has already decided are totally worthless;
If I were them, I'd set about trying to prove the rest of the world wrong. Worked for me ;-)
But seriously, If you can transcend the prison that they built for you (and you finished, by letting them get to you) in your head (It will be rebuilt from time to time, recurring depression still affects me. I've done my fair share of crying, but now some people depend on me, and they're so important to me that, well, any problem I have can wait), and look at it from the outside, hopefully you'll see that you don't deserve to be there, not for them, not for anyone. If you're bright enough to use a computer, you have a skill that many don't (even if you're only starting out). Remember, though they don't understand it yet, they'll be working on cars and in factories, or maybe even working in stores when you're outclassing and out-earning them.
Few ever achieve happiness, and the rest either live in their misery or delude themselves that they really are happy, after all, painting on hollow smiles and crying themselves to sleep every night.
I used to think that, and I have the right to feel pain over my problems, but compared to Jason Haas, or the guy on here whose wife was killed by a speeding drunk, or my friends, lying passed out under a bridge, or six feet under somewhere more permanent, hell, I've got a better chance of dealing with my problems than they have. My smile when it shows is definitely not painted. I won't fake emotion for anybody. You can get out of the ruts you're in without letting go of life. For those who genuinely didn't believe otherwise, it's a tragedy. I wish the old adage 'Only the good die young' wasn't true, but sometimes it is, and all we can do is not add to the statistics.
When you wake up tomorrow morning, look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, "Where did I say I was going to be today, when I was 6?" Then let me know whether you start crying.
When I was 6, I said I was going to be a pilot. And you know what? I joined the Air Training Corps, hated the herd mentality there and left. But one day, either with money from my music or my work on computers, I'm going to take my money, learn to fly, and I'm going to plot a course directly over my old school, and the places I've been taken to remind me of 'the way it is' with sticks, fists and white trainers, and I'm going to spit on them from a thousand feet.
A hard goal, but not impossible. Please don't give up. Life was much simpler and nicer when you were young, don't think I don't know that. We all wish we could go back sometime [geocities.com], but the sad truth is, we can't. All we can do is take what we've learned and pass it on, while trying to make our lives as much fun as we can (and I can still have a lot of fun at 21). Read Only Forward by Michael Marshall Smith for a more eloquent analogy on this and other things.
Obviously something shitty has happened to you, and I hope that it can be resolved. Just remember that pain fades, hate becomes irrelevant and life can be worth it. You could blow your brains out tomorrow, and they wouldn't care, because they don't have the mental capacity to go beyond certain things. They fuck rather than love, they work/drink/fight rather than think and they'd rather die than admit they are wrong. I suspect you are more than that. Don't die because of them, we need more people like you. Live to prove them wrong. And I hope you can hear me too, Ian.
Schools are like this. (Score:3)
In my experience, school authorities are most afraid of students who know how to use comptuers. Why? Because they are afraid of anything they know nothing about, they don't want someone to make them look stupid, so they overreact.
I used to work for our public school system. They fired our former Technology guru, basically because they did not like him. They shut down the network for a month, during the school year. Most students were back up within 3 weeks, however those who worked with the former techonology guru were still locked out. We were told that they wanted the system 'secure' before they let us back on. A few phone calls by our parents fixed that, but they are still afraid of us.
Just the other week, a student was sent into time out for using the Microsoft Chat program provided to every student in the Start menu. According to the Assistant Principal, this is illegal in the district's "Acceptable Use" Policy. She then refused to show this policy to the student in question.
Something needs to be done. School Officials are often good people who for the most part are just doing their job. But there are those out there who prey on the weak, the ones who school record are often times less than explemplary(sp?). If someone doesn't fight them, they could completely control students lives. They will find fault in a student who was trying to find his own way to deal with something that these officials SHOULD have known about and SHOULD have dealt with before it got to this. Its their own stupidity and they're going to make this kid pay for it.
Slut???? (Score:3)
There was a case where David Brudnoy, called some restraunt owners pigs. Another case, where an ex-MBTA employee called someone a racist. Both cases ruled that the statements in contact were opinions, not statements of fact. Therefore, is libel.
For libel, you publish statements as fact, not opinion that are false. Or opinions that imply libelous facts (not revealed).
Remember the swearing canoer case? The man was charged with using obscenities in front of women and children? That case was thrown out.
When we allow the state to dictate what speach is not proper, we start on a slipery slope.
It's been said before... (Score:3)
Are we insane? Why are we letting this happen? Every libel case, every time a site is shut down, every time another mouth is hushed we get closer to giving up our freedoms. And we're not doing anything about it. We need to stop these idiocies, we need to convince the lawmakers and the public at large that nothing is worth the abolition of free and unfettered speech. And above all, we need to do it now.
Otherwise, we'll just keep complaining about our lack of freedom until finally, one day, somebody tells us that we can't.
BIG difference. (Score:3)
If I'm in a crowded room and I yell offensive things about somebody -- even if they're untrue -- I can't get in trouble. If I do the exact same things in print -- like a magazine or a newspaper -- then I can. Because the source is claiming legitimacy, it is implying that what I say is true.
On the 'net, that's a boneheaded idea. Nothing on a website is likely to be true. Even CNN.Com publishes fraudulent virus warnings before realising they're untrue (famously, the story of an invention that lets you "fire a pulse of energy down a phone line and fry the modem" of somebody who's pissing you off). So libel should not be possible on the web.
The real issue here is that the people in charge and the people with more money are crushing an opposing view, for no good reason except that it opposes/offends them. They need to realise they do not have the right to do that! I can curse you to your face if I want to, and if I'm a beggar on the street and you're Bill Clinton you still can't touch me, once I don't threaten you.
Small town politics (Score:4)
If anything, the fact that this sort of thing can now get instantaneous national attention will probably help put a stop to it. But let's not overreact, OK? It's just the same old story with a new form of media thrown in.
Insane. (Score:4)
So let me see here.
Something ain't right here. Seisure of equipment? For writing something that yes, was bad, but was a thousand times better than opening fire?
Maybe someone should go Columbine on that high school* just so the faculty gets it. You can't take away everything. Kids need an outlet to vent. Everyone does. They're taking them away one by one and then wondering what the hell is wrong with America's Youth. Things don't escalate(sp?) by themselves. It takes a continual pressure and a lack of vent. The pressure's there, but there's no vent because no matter what you do you you're chastized and maybe even arrested.
I'm not saying what the guy did was right, I'm commenting more on the fact that the faculty (and parents, wtf is up with "not letting them go to school until he was gone?") completely overreacted.
Once. Just once I'd like to see the faculty deal with the shit these kids have to put up with and not get themselves expelled, arrested or otherwise torn apart by the rules they themselves have set out (or better, not even set out until after the fact). Yes I'm a parent and every day I see this and think to myself "My kids are getting homeschooled, fuck this, I'm not putting my kids though this."
* - No, I don't honestly mean that. Columbine was a horrible horrible tragedy and should have never happened. See, everyone says things when they're mad. It doesn't mean they mean them. Fuck even my four year old does it and understands this concept.
If It Can Be Proven True, It Cannot Be Libel (Score:4)
Oh my god.
These are going to be the most incredible court records in Utah history. I cannot be the only person imagining a Clinton Impeachment like mass subpeona'ing of anything that could prove the truth or falsity of the various claims.
"I did not have sex with that prepubescent girl. Momma says it ain't sex if we do it like that." Can't wait to start hearing that out of fifteen year old boys, on the stand, in a suit that's not big enough but "it's the good one".
What's just cruel is that this is bound to be more the work of parents than the kids themselves, and there are likely more than a few girls who--shocker of schockers--actually are sexually active who are going to have to watch a court ordered sexual inquisition brought on by their hapless parents who couldn't imagine that Their Daughters---theirs! What could they have done wrong as Parents(TM)!--would in anyway deserve such labels.
I've got the popcorn right here. This should be rather fun to watch, if your definition of fun is "watching the forces of the legal system brought to bear against a 16 year old boy who called some other kids bad names, like football players and cheerleaders never ever do."
Fug.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Double Standards (Score:4)
This reminds me of a ridiculous and stupid thing I read a while back in some columbine-reactionary-editorial. It said, and I'm paraphrasing, It's a shame that such violence happens in high school, the one place where kids are supposed to feel safe.
I read that and I thought, "What fairyland, mythical high school did this person go to!" I don't know about y'all, but high school (and middle school, too) for me was the most brutal, cruel, dehumanizing, and horrible social experience I can remember. In high school people can do things with minor repercussions that, in the adult world, are called "slander," "assault," "sexual harrassment", and "battery." Adults and legislators look on this and say, "This is just normal high school activity" and then act shocked when one of them has had enough and decides to kill some of his/her tormentors.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has fantasized more than once during school about murdering some of his evil classmates.
So if assault, battery, sexual harrassment, and slander are "ok," then why are people having such a cow over mere libel? And when I say "ok" I mean "punished very lightly despite the severity of the crime." I once had a person tell me to my face, "I'm going to rip off your f*cking head and ram it up your g*ddamn ass, you f*cking f*ggot" and he meant every word of it. (No doubt he could have made good on his promise, too. I was a little crybaby kid in high school.) What defense does the average high school kid have against that crime? And this poor kid was arrested for calling people "drunks" and "sluts"?
So why is there a double standard? What makes libel so egregious while assault and sexual harrassment are overlooked as "typical high-school kid-stuff"?
Hmmm ... two sides to this (Score:4)
Chris Wareham
Re:Small town politics (Score:4)
Agree 100%. Read Irving Stone's "men to match my Mountains" as it is one of the few easily accessible non-censored prints of Utah history.
For me the more intresting part here is how did the school principals actually read it. The pages contained some s-words and in Utah the filterware in public schools is abolutely obligatory.
Re:Hmmm ... two sides to this (Score:4)
My suggestion is not to confuse the crime and the punishment. Should defamation be illegal and punishable? Absolutely. But if he wrote this defamation on the school blackboard, would he be barred from using chalk?
Another question to ask is whether the ramblings of a teenager against his teachers constitutes libel. If I read a page where some rambling schoolkid called his classmates sluts and his teachers drunks, I'd be less than inclined to believe what I was reading. If no-one believes it, is it still libel? I'd call it a disciplinary problem, and a reason to talk to the kid. But not a reason to have the cops confiscsate his computer.
Sluts? (Score:4)
Normally, I'd relegate this sort of post to that of a humorous troll. But, this is wonderfully applicable here. A few people, in jest, have pointed out that in a civil trial Ian could exonerate himself by proving that his statements were completely true.
Check this shit out:
Source: http://www.42.dropbear.id.au/wrd_news3. html [dropbear.id.au] (annoying javascript keeps the window on top. bastards.)
(I'm going to presume the above is true, as 170 people in high school is about right for a town of 1100 or so. I graduated with 20 and I came from a town of 300, so it seems right.)
Now, pressuming this goes to trial, couldn't Ian just hold up the list and say, "See! She really is a slut!" Actually, that's another problem in and of itself--define slut. Drunk. Incompetent. Very relative terms, giving him a lot of wiggle room. Here in North Dakota, I know quite a few people (old country Lutherans actually; listen to Garisson Keilor) who consider any woman who has sex for reasons other than procreation, or--[sarcasm]dear god forbid[/sarcasm]--marriage is a slut. This is a rather nice chink in the plaintiff's armor I'd suppose.
Thoughts?
And please check out my previous post, just a few below, with Milford High School's snail mail address. I want to see that school office innundated with mail on this one. It's the least we could do, helping out a kid so he doesn't have to go through the shit a lot of us did/do.
----
It's a kid! (Score:4)
I remember in high school some kids put out a underground newsletter that basically blasted one of the teachers at the school (they didn't agree with his politics). I was in that teachers class and these were his exact words when I asked if it was libel or slander. "Yes, but I don't care. They're just kids screwing around."
That response has been a good guide for me. Think about it for a minute. Essentially this whole thing is someone, somewhere going "They said mean things about me. I'm going to make that poopyhead pay!" Get some respect for yourself and then you won't give a rats ass if someone is saying something about you.
If it's true why do you get offended at the messenger? If it's not why do you care?
Web site vs. Web site (Score:4)
Not likely. In 21st Century America, harassment and cruelty are fine as long as you don't do it on a computer.
He was retaliating against web-based libel by a school run website, AND by the school newspaper against one of his friends. If the students responsible for that are not held to exactly the same standards then I, myself, despite the consequences will fly to Utah, walk into that school, and well... Leave the rest to the imaginations of the people involved.
I'm tired of these fucking double standards, the school officials can harass students, punish them for nothing, anything they want without retribution. And if a student says 'Teacher suchandsuch is a fucking moron.' instant suspension. And apparently if you say it on a website you get arrested. Well I'm fucking tired of it. I talk about it all the time, I lived through it in school, I watched my little brother live through it and I watched a few people not quite make it out. I'm done talking, I'm going to start doing something about it.
*Goes looking for the phone # of the local school board*
Kintanon
Re:Small town politics .. not just Utah (Score:4)
It's more of a small town thing than a Utah thing, up here in Salt Lake City, they even had a gay rodeo. (gasp!)
There's one thing that you have to understand about utah, particularily southern utah. Most of the population there is transplanted from southern california, including myself. "native" southern utahns despise the newcomers to some degreee, but it's not usually visable.
I point to the pink hair thing, I was always given shit by everyone for having long hair, and down in st george, kids are routinely suspended for coloring their hair. The school administrators go nuts on anyone who sticks out. Besides that, when you manage to piss off enough people in a small town, you're bound to get screwed. I did the same, and that's why I have over fifty moving violations on my driving record. It's all about being high profile.
How this got national attention, who knows. I read about this in the Salt Lake Tribune a couple weeks ago, so it's already old news here in Utah.
Ian did his research to avoid libel charges! (Score:5)
Here's the link: SLTrib article [tribaccess.com]
Too bad the original site isn't still up, allowing us to judge for ourselves.
Pray for us here in Utah, ok? :)
Comment removed (Score:5)
Not Libel -Libel checklist (Score:5)
Look for material that identifies a person or an entity. Keep in mind that it is possible to identify people or entities like corporations without actually using a name. If the material contains identifiable voices, likenesses, or descriptions of or concerning a person or a company, it could be a problem.
The material identifies a person or entity. STOP HERE if the material does not identify a person, business or other entity. You can't have a libel without someone to complain about it!
Is any identified person dead? There is little reason to be concerned with statements or other material reflecting badly on dead persons because the law only protects "the memory of the dead," giving no cause of action to decedents. So long as the material concerns only the dead person, you need not answer the rest of the questions on this form.STOP HERE if the person identified is dead.
If material identifies a living person, is it:
A private individual.
A public person.
A political person.
Would the material negatively influence a reasonable reader's opinion of the person or entity identified?
a. It would reflect badly on the character of the person or entity.
b. It could harm the reputation, diminish the esteem, respect or good will in which the person or entity's relevant community holds him, her or it.
If the material might reflect badly on character and/or harm reputation, would the harm be the result of:
An explicit statement.
An insinuation.
A sarcastic statement.
A parody or cartoon.
An opinion that implies that there are unstated defamatory facts underlying it.
Other.
There are several possible defenses to a claim of defamation, although none may apply in a particular case. Check one of the following defenses only if you are fairly certain it would apply.
The statement or other material is true.
The statement or other material is a fair report of an official or public record or proceeding.
The statement or other material is purely an expression of opinion and not an assertion of fact.
The statement or other material constitutes a fair comment - that is, a comment or opinion on a matter of public concern, for example, the use of public money, disbarment of attorneys, management of public institutions and charities, management of private companies whose activities widely affect the public (pollution, delivery of medical services, common carriage, employment practices, discrimination, etc.) or the review of books, public entertainment, sports events or scientific discoveries.
No one could reasonably interpret the statement or image to be an assertion of actual fact about the person or entity.
The statement or image can be characterized as mere words of abuse, indicating dislike for the person or entity, but does not suggest any specific charge.
The subject of the statement or image has given consent to or approved the material.
The fact that material has already been printed somewhere else is not a defense except in the narrow fair report circumstance. Republication of a libel creates another libel.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:5)
Rant Mode: On
So what is the way to deal with it???
The kid did NOT resort to violence. He couldn't go to the authorities, they were part of the problem. Remember, one of the incidents he was responding to was an attack on one of his friends by the school newspaper. So should he have walked into his school with a machine gun and a backpack full of bombs?
No.
He vented on the web. What's wrong with that? Are we going to take away all mechanisms for dealing with stress that people have and let them explode and commit suicide or mass homicide?
I'm tired of people saying 'That's not the way to handle it' and not offering a better way.
So either put up or shut the fuck up and get the fuck out. We don't need people pretending they are all holy and don't get angry and rant at people that piss them off.
The kid didn't kill anyone, he relieved his stress and made his point. I think he did the RIGHT thing by defending his friends.
He also complimented some of the teachers he thought deserved it, AND he claims he can prove all of his accusations. If he can do that then it's not Libel.
Rant Mode: Off
Kintanon
Double standards are rife everywhere. (Score:5)
Or even on a computer, as long as you do something that raises the school's profile. I remember being told in school to cut my hair, smarten my attire and cut out my slacker attitude (by teachers who were quite blatantly drunk as hell on occasion) on a regular basis, while the school (& county) champion runner/rugby player/cricketer could look like how/do what the hell he wanted (including verbally abusing the less athletically inclined). When I questioned those double standards (directly to the head teacher, no less), I was told that that was the way life could be sometimes, that he brought a lot of attention onto the school, that that was a good thing, and by the way, cut your hair, or I'll suspend you. My (admittedly childish) retaliation was to cut my hair to within a millimetre of the regulation, form a band, and use the schools' rock concert for charity as a sounding-board. 'There's only one way of life (and that's your own)' was a good starting point, and 'Killing in the name of' was a good follow-up (Although we covered it badly, the look of shock on the teachers' faces as we screeched 'F**k you, I won't do what you tell me' time after time is an image burned forever onto my mind, and raises a grin every time I think about it - I also wound up with a nice young lady that evening ;-). I got canned for it, but it felt good to make the statement. Athletic boy put a band together the following year, played Oasis covers and didn't pull. *grin*
This was in the UK at a fairly cold-shower independent school, and I believe that any child in a repressive environment should be allowed to sound off, at least once, for what they feel is right, as long as they can back up their arguments well. If I had been born 5 years later, I would probably have sounded off on the Web. I would have expected maybe detention, but arrest? I can't help but think that the powers that be are way off-base here. Those that fail to acknowledge history are doomed to repeat it. Any kid who feels that life is unfair only has to look at how the Columbine two were portrayed to know that the answer doesn't lie with Dylan and Klebold's methodology. You'll die (which sucks), You'll be hated by everyone (which sucks), and you'll make it worse for others likes you (which sucks more than anything has ever sucked before)
Use your brain, not a Beretta. And just because Utah is fairly backwater doesn't make it right. No-one should have to endure it. Only when a disillusioned kid kills themselves and others do the words 'Life's like that, deal with it' sound kind of hollow.
Criminal libel - no way (Score:5)
Civil libel, maybe. But civil libel cases have to be brought by private parties. It's also a defense in libel cases that the libelled party was a "public figure", which includes government officials generally and probably includes a school principal.
The kid may have a good case for false arrest.