Missouri Prosecution for Emotionally Distressing a Minor

The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | 8-22-2009 | Eugene Volokh

[stan_sipple]

Elizabeth Ann Thrasher is being prosecuted under the Missouri felony harassment statute passed in the wake of the Lori Drew case. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports:

Elizabeth A. Thrasher, 40, [was involved in] online [bickering] with the 17-year-old daughter of a woman Thrasher's ex-husband was dating.... The teen [then] sent a MySpace message to Thrasher, telling her to grow up.

Thrasher ... then created a listing on Craigslist's Casual Encounters section, investigators said. The listing included the teen's picture, employer, e-mail address and cell phone number. Banas said the posting's language would lead people to believe it was an invitation to sexual contact.

Investigators said men called the girl and sent e-mails, text messages and pornography to her cell phone after Thrasher posted the listing....

Now this is bad behavior, and I'd see no First Amendment problem with criminalizing such deliberate lies about particular other people. They are in any event probably civilly actionable as libel or false light invasion of privacy, and there's no constitutional barrier to making them criminal as well. But the statute under which Thrasher is prosecuted isn't limited to false statements

[Mr. Silverback]

This kid could have been raped because of her. If the facts are as presented, I recommend hanging.

[stan_sipple]

Bringing kids down to the adults’ level, definitely

[Clintons Are White Trash]

This woman needs to be punished for this. How awful to do to a teenager.

[Moltke]

Could someone give a precise definition of “emotional distress” please, and how someone could prove “emotional distress” (other than claiming “Boohoo, I was emotionally distressed.”) in a court of law? I don’t mean this particular case, but the language in that statute sounds awfully vague and broad. Abuse (by slimy lawyers) seems pre-programmed.

[Gondring]

So I guess nobody cares to comment on the actual point of the article. It’s funny to see so many Obama supporters here, standing up in favor of overly broad statutes.

[Gondring]

Could someone give a precise definition of “emotional distress” please, and how someone could prove “emotional distress” (other than claiming “Boohoo, I was emotionally distressed.”) in a court of law? I don’t mean this particular case, but the language in that statute sounds awfully vague and broad. Abuse (by slimy lawyers) seems pre-programmed.

Wow, you actually read the article! :-)

It's ridiculous, isn't it? "Emotional distress" has many of the problems of the concept of "hate crime," I think.