Cyberbullying Is Not Free Speech, California Court Rules

switched.com:

Online threats of violence and acts of cyber-bullying are not protected free speech. That's according to a California appeals court that upheld a decision from a lower court, allowing a hate crimes and defamation suit (PDF) to continue. The case dates back to 2005, when a then 15-year-old student at a private high school in Los Angeles launched a personal Web page to promote his pursuit of a film and singing career.

Read the whole story: switched.com

Comments

[ObamAtomic]

09:07 PM on 03/22/2010

Radio bully?

[Dayahka]

10:23 PM on 03/21/2010

It's about time! Cyberbullying is not free speech and neither is calling members of Congress racist terms free speech, and neither is misinforming people in the name of a "free press' as the foreign-owned FOX network does daily.

[ipastor02]

12:49 PM on 03/20/2010

As hard as it may be to defend, and it is. Expression of extreme disgust aught not to be criminalize. Violence aught not to be treated the same as, for example, flag burning, ripping bibles, hanging effigies, showing cartoons of the prophet, burning crosses, some of the most vile expressions aught to be tolerated. Do not create rap sheets for people who happen to be just dickish writers. Because that is inviting a true police state, where only stringing words together become motives for incarceration or penalty.

I'm sure Danny didn't like some of the attention he was getting. But he decided to publish publically. Journalist, pundits, politicians and personalities receive similar letters and that must be completely disgusting and even scary. But to created new laws that would define what "cyberbullying" is and isn't, I think is inviting new ways for people to get arrested and penalize over human interaction.

I'm not saying threats should not be looked into, not at all. Perhaps earlier intervention by police or civil authorities would be preferable to enforcing new laws after the fact.

[moutonnoir]

03:36 PM on 03/20/2010

threats of death by ice pick? you defend this as the deserved compensation for a kid stating publicly that he is interested in a career in performance?

great...

[ipastor02]

03:49 PM on 03/20/2010

"Deserve compensation," since when freedom of speech, for anyone, is dependent on appropriate compensation? Is it fair to be single out for being black, a blonde woman, or any other distinction that some people may use as for a focus of derision? Well, let see what we are talking about in case by case basis. But moving the penalty line closer to encompass hurt feelings of public publishers, well that is more legislation than I can support.

[AlienC]

02:28 PM on 03/21/2010

Incredible.
There are restrictions and this notion of an "Absolute Right" is misguided.
"Freedom of Speech" is not a blanket release to say anything. The elementary example of yelling "FIRE" in a public space comes to mind.

In case you are unaware, if someone accosts someone else in public with verbal attacks as were posted online (kill you with an ice pick, etc) that person can be prosecuted for assault. And convicted.

[SystemLink]

11:09 PM on 03/19/2010

Good. I can't stand how people can say WHATEVER they want with zero responsibility for it.

Hate speech, threats, etc....by people who know they won't get caught

[hulagirrrl]

03:23 AM on 03/23/2010

I can't stand it either. Sometimes I am so shocked when I read some of the hateful expressions about public officials or a movie star or whatever. I think though, if we are chasing every person that posts "foulmouthed" things, then we are really turning into a country that I would not like to live in.
Maybe we could all try a little bit of: "if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all..." but I do realize there are very many traumatized and neglected unloved souls out there who can not help but spew the hate that torments them.....

[blackstarpictures]

04:36 PM on 03/19/2010

The pussification of America continues. It's never a good thing to take away rights.

Whatever happened to sticks and stones?

[AlexFTW]

11:03 AM on 03/20/2010

Bullying is not a right.

[moutonnoir]

03:37 PM on 03/20/2010

speech is not passive. speech is an active thing and very much akin to sticks or stones.. have you been paying attention to society?

[yesyesyes]

03:39 PM on 03/19/2010

Now on to the paparazzi

[ebanks84]

03:20 PM on 03/19/2010

IT'S ABOUT TIME that vile speech is upheld in the court as NOT belong to the FREE SPEECH category. Now if we can just get to the LIARS and BRAINWASHERS in our media, we will be doing something to protect the people for a change.

I approve of this decision!

[hypnotoad72]

06:16 PM on 03/19/2010

As do I!

Free speech was about the right to criticize actions. NOT to emotionally berate people until they commit suicide.

[deepintheheartoftejas]

09:29 PM on 03/19/2010

That's not what the case is about; under the decision issued, that kind of speech may arguably be protected.

This one is about people making explicitly violent threats online: 'The judges ruling in the majority referred to the posted messages as "unequivocal" and "serious expression[s] of intent to inflict bodily harm." Even if the threats of violence were empty, claims that you plan to put an ice pick through someone's head or rip their heart out aren't usually made in a "jocular manner."'.

And it's hardly a surprising ruling. Similar threats would be illegal in person or over the telephone.

[jwadvocate83]

01:59 PM on 03/19/2010

I agree insomuch that certain threats of imminent violence are considered not only unprotected speech, but a form of assault, in a lot of states. That said, I'd be curious to see who draws the line and how the draw it, between cyberbullying and mere "animosity."

[Non Sibi]

02:09 AM on 03/20/2010

I prefer the term cyber-stalking, which brings it closer to exactly what it is. And I don't think there are many states that don't have some level of a stalking law. And some have very clear cyber-stalking laws.

[La Vida Judoka]

12:38 PM on 03/19/2010

I'm left wondering what exactly is cyberbullying. In other words, a lot of posts I see in the comments section in different stories *could* be classified as cyberbullying by others. Not me, as I'm not some oversensitive bleeding heart liberal.

[ebanks84]

03:22 PM on 03/19/2010

When you threaten people physically, that can definitely be construed as cyber bullying because you don't know if they're going to really do it or not and you become afraid.

[Kamen Gullberg]

10:00 PM on 03/20/2010

“Welcome to America were "intent" to harm is a crime. The question in this matter determined if what was said covered by "free speech." Not whether it was prosecutorial. And when you perhaps some day is threatened like the young man, thank the bleeding heart liberals that the police could legally do something about it.