Posted on 01/14/2011 11:21:05 AM PST by markomalley
Have you impressed yourself yet with your bloated, contrarian horse manure?
Do some homework. There are limits to “free speech”, and whether or not the “alleged perpetrators ... enriched themselves or benefited in any way” requires an assumption on your part. Or maybe you think it’s fine and legal for somebody to point a gun at your head as long as they don’t pull the trigger?
The meanest creatures on the planet are teenage girls.
“I passed the Florida bar - on the first try, no less. How about you?”
No I have not.
Nevertheless I don’t believe you are a lawyer.
If you are a lawyer it should be very easy for you to post a Lexis Nexis link (or content of that link if not accessible to outside world) to a case tried on the Florida statute above dismissed on the grounds you claim.
Please provide or at least a link to a comparable case.
>Is it possible that the Floridan law is in violation of the First Amendment?
Good question!
The First amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, as written, it prohibits CONGRESS from certain actions. To apply this against the states would have no effect unless that state had a ‘Congress;’ unless you changed the word ‘congress’ to mean ‘legislature.’
Isn't that the effect of any great parody? You don't think Tina Fey's parody of Sarah Palin had "actual consequences" for her [Palin's] reputation? Of course it did.
As you might have guess, I'm not a fan - at all - of these cyber-bullying laws. They are at least tangential to the case in Tuscon. We cannot limit speech, to include mean-spirited or satirical speech because it might compel a crazy person to do something untoward.
If a teenager kills themselves, it's not because someone was mean to them. It's because they don't have basic social coping skills to deal with the obstacles of life - like verbal bullies.
When we start to define any antagonistic speech as bullying or stalking, and then criminalize it, we are infringing on rights that shouldn't be infringed. If the girls libeled the teen, then that teen should seek remedy with the civil court, not the criminal court.
You can’t holler “fire” in a crowded theater. You can’t post doctored pornographic photos of someone online; that definitely could affect their ability to earn livelihood in the future and is libelous. - Of course, it could drive someone to suicide, and that ain’t nice. If your daughter were driven to suicide by these “mean girls”, you’d be mad.
So, technically, from that argument, a state legislature could pass a law that could bar people from establishing or practising a religion, bar people from making any comment that criticises the state government, and bar people from assembling, as long as the state legislature, and not Congress, has passed that law?
Oh good grief. The First Amendment was, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, fully incorporated into the states in a series of Supreme Court case throughout the 20th century.
“You don’t think Tina Fey’s parody of Sarah Palin had “actual consequences””
But you still knew it was a parody.
If Tina Fey and and a reporter collaborated to do a fake interview where Tina was presented as the actual Sarah, there would be civil charges at a minimum.
Criminal charges depend on the state in which it occurs.
Thanks. I was waiting for that, actually.
Some pass the Florida bar while others simply frequent bars. lol
Believe what you want. I won't loose any sleep over it.
The statute is barely two years old. To date, I am unaware of any person even being charged with the statute, let alone any instance of a case being fully litigated. Ergo, there have been no constitutional challenges to the statute itself.
Could you please expand on this statement? There are millions of websites that post pictures of individuals without their knowledge....take Flickr as an example.
Technically, yes.
If that is ‘wrong’ then it should not be reinterpeted to mean what you wish it to mean, but the Constitution amended.
” there have been no constitutional challenges to the statute itself.”
Then go take ‘em on. You won’t lose sleep but you will lose in court.
Regardless of entertaining my beliefs, it would actually be helpful to provide a link to a similar case. I find it quite hard to believe that slander/libel was never discussed in law school. One of many reasons I don’t believe your personal claims.
Even I, not a product of law school, know that rights are often “balanced” against each other. All rights have limits.
Or had you not heard of that?
>Oh good grief. The First Amendment was, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, fully incorporated into the states in a series of Supreme Court case throughout the 20th century.
Um, that’s why I said “as written.”
And to I even tangentially addresses ‘incorporation,’ to make the First Amendment effective against all the states the word “Congress” must be re-interpreted as ‘legislature.’
I do not believe that sort of re-interpretation to be good law.
Our Constitution is fully changeable, via amendment, to address any shortcoming; the 14th Amendment CANNOT, without explicitly saying so, alter the meaning [or validity] of the other amendments; allowing ‘incorporation’ to do so implicitly is, in my view, incorrect.
First, that was Holmes writing the majority opinion in the Schenk case - a case that has been substantively reversed in the intervening years because it barred protesting the draft during WWI. Be that as it may, yes, the Supreme Court has said clearly that the legislature can establish 1A "time & place" limitations, under some specific guidelines. The one you mention is described as an "imminent lawless action". This case has nothing to do with an imminent lawless action.
"You can’t post doctored pornographic photos of someone online"
Actually, you can - with some considerations. Generally, at worst, you might expose yourself to a CIVIL complain, not a criminal charge. See the difference?
"If your daughter were driven to suicide by these “mean girls”, you’d be mad."
I raised three girls to adulthood. Their mother and I made sure they understood the adage, "sticks and stones etc". We didn't need the police to intervene.
There is a legal remedy for these kids of scenarios. It's a CIVIL legal remedy, not a criminal legal remedy.
“If you wish to criminalize “mean speech” because the meanness of the of the speech might make someone do something untoward - either to themselves or to others, then yes, we could not disagree more.”
_____________
These kids stole the other child’s identity to hurt and harass. It was evil, wrong and should be severely punished.
It’s a little odd how a group of adults are debating the rights and wrongs of the theft and malicious manipulation of a child’s identity, when the whole time all of the adults are making comments shielded by screen names intended to hide our identities.
Smoking Gun has the sheriff’s report posted and they were each charged with a felony count of aggravated stalking of a minor under 16.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/florida/girls-busted-phony-facebook-pages#lightbox-popup-1
Link to report:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/fake-facebook-stalking?page=0
Honestly, are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you just argumentative by nature?
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, no one has been (before these two girls) charged with this statute.
"I find it quite hard to believe that slander/libel was never discussed in law school."
Sweetheart, they aren't being charged with "slander/libel" are they? They're being charged with "cyber-bullying"
In this country, defamation of character suits are NOT litigated in criminal court as they are NOT crimes - not federal crimes, not state crimes. They are CIVIL torts. Do you understand what a TORT is?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.