Steubenville Rape Case

[farmteam]

IMO what these chicks did, while abhorrent, should never the less be protected. Generally the rule of law is that unless the speech is going to lead to immediate action it's protected. The victim might have had a case for assault if she really felt threatened by it, but that requires some level of immediacy. I can't threaten you and then 2 weeks later claim that I was assaulted.

 

They were threats over Facebook and Twitter. People have said worse things. They're physically not anywhere near each other so that immediacy concern is gone. Arresting these girls is a bit much IMO. Perhaps the school could have suspended them. That seems more appropriate.

But how could it be protected speech and still have the school suspend them for it? Seems like there's a disconnect there.

 

EDIT: Though, I know there are limits on what you can say in school, if that's what you were going under. Might be covered by Morse v. Frederick (that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case out of a Alaska from a few years ago).

Edited March 20, 2013 by farmteam

[StrangeSox]

IMO what these chicks did, while abhorrent, should never the less be protected. Generally the rule of law is that unless the speech is going to lead to immediate action it's protected. The victim might have had a case for assault if she really felt threatened by it, but that requires some level of immediacy. I can't threaten you and then 2 weeks later claim that I was assaulted.

 

Is harassment consisting of threats of physical violence covered under the 1A? What about restraining orders based on verbal threats?

 

 

If I took to facebook and started posting messages threatening to rape your wife, would you find that to be protected speech?

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah I'm not sure where the right to threaten people with bodily harm supposedly comes from. This isn't some abstract threat or from some random person on the other side of the country, it's from a couple of girls in the same town.

 

Over Facebook and Twitter.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

They were threats over Facebook and Twitter. People have said worse things. They're physically not anywhere near each other so that immediacy concern is gone. Arresting these girls is a bit much IMO. Perhaps the school could have suspended them. That seems more appropriate.

 

So phone calls or letters threatening physical violence are protected speech?

 

Isn't there quite a bit of jurisprudence on this finding exactly the opposite?

[StrangeSox]

Over Facebook and Twitter.

 

Why does this threat become not-serious because of the medium it was made in?

[Jenksismyhero]

But how could it be protected speech and still have the school suspend them for it? Seems like there's a disconnect there.

 

EDIT: Though, I know there are limits on what you can say in school, if that's what you were going under. Might be covered by Morse v. Frederick (that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case out of a Alaska from a few years ago).

 

Yeah in the law schools have always been a different forum with different considerations. I don't know if it applies in Ohio, but some other states have adopted those anti-online bullying laws and I'd imagine they're written to allow school to act in concert with the authorities.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why does this threat become not-serious because of the medium it was made in?

 

Because it negates the immediacy of the threat.

[StrangeSox]

Because it negates the immediacy of the threat.

 

So me threatening to rape your wife via letter, email, facebook, phone call, text or tweet should be protected speech simply because I'm not physically next to your wife at the time?

 

edit: assume, for the sake of argument, that I know you and your wife's real names.

Edited March 20, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

So phone calls or letters threatening physical violence are protected speech?

 

Isn't there quite a bit of jurisprudence on this finding exactly the opposite?

 

Again it goes back to assault and the reasonable apprehension of immediate harm. It depends on the situation. If it's an ex-spouse that has a history of abuse, then yeah, that's probably not protected. Some random girls on the internet being dumb b****es? I don't see it.

[StrangeSox]

Again it goes back to assault and the reasonable apprehension of immediate harm. It depends on the situation. If it's an ex-spouse that has a history of abuse, then yeah, that's probably not protected. Some random girls on the internet being dumb b****es? I don't see it.

 

They're not exactly "random" in this case, though. They're relatives or friends of one of the convicted, live in the same town and know the girl.

 

Why wouldn't this fall under some form of harassment?

[Jenksismyhero]

They're not exactly "random" in this case, though. They're relatives or friends of one of the convicted, live in the same town and know the girl.

 

Why wouldn't this fall under some form of harassment?

 

Well that could be. I don't know what Ohio law is. Maybe they have an anti-harassment statute.

 

Threats and free speech haven't really been defined well in the law. Threats can be unprotected, but it comes down to a reasonable person standard from both the listener and the speaker. And to me, girls saying stupid s*** over the internet doesn't create a reasonable fear on the part of the victim. This is obviously closer to that then being hyperbolic and saying something like "I hope that b**** gets hit by a car."

[StrangeSox]

Well that could be. I don't know what Ohio law is. Maybe they have an anti-harassment statute.

 

Threats and free speech haven't really been defined well in the law. Threats can be unprotected, but it comes down to a reasonable person standard from both the listener and the speaker. And to me, girls saying stupid s*** over the internet doesn't create a reasonable fear on the part of the victim.

 

I can't agree here. The rape victim of a national story that resulted in the conviction of two hometown heroes is going to be reviled by some in that community for "wrecking" those boys' lives. There's no reason to assume that these threats aren't legitimate--kids fight over dumber s*** every day, much of it originating on the internet.

 

This is obviously closer to that then being hyperbolic and saying something like "I hope that b**** gets hit by a car."

Agreed here.

[Jenksismyhero]

I can't agree here. The rape victim of a national story that resulted in the conviction of two hometown heroes is going to be reviled by some in that community for "wrecking" those boys' lives. There's no reason to assume that these threats aren't legitimate--kids fight over dumber s*** every day, much of it originating on the internet.

 

 

Agreed here.

 

The problem is we have no idea what they actually said. I can't find it anywhere. We're presuming what the cops read was that direct.

[StrangeSox]

Well if the cops are lying about what was said and falsely charging them with threatening the victim's life and threatening bodily harm, that's a different story. I don't see any reason why we should assume that they are lying, though, and you never brought up this objection previously. In your first post you seemed to be saying that this speech was covered by the 1A regardless.

[StrangeSox]

So me threatening to rape your wife via letter, email, facebook, phone call, text or tweet should be protected speech simply because I'm not physically next to your wife at the time?

 

edit: assume, for the sake of argument, that I know you and your wife's real names.

 

is there some reason you're avoiding this hypothetical?

[Jenksismyhero]

Well if the cops are lying about what was said and falsely charging them with threatening the victim's life and threatening bodily harm, that's a different story. I don't see any reason why we should assume that they are lying, though, and you never brought up this objection previously. In your first post you seemed to be saying that this speech was covered by the 1A regardless.

 

Even if they were direct I'd still argue there's a lack of reasonable apprehension of fear and they shouldn't be prosecuted. I pointed that out to you only to say it might have been something less direct. One was charged with threatening death, the other bodily harm. And yes, prosecutors/cops always overreach so it easily could have been something like "i hope someone hits you with a car" which isn't a threat that involves their personal involvement.

[Jenksismyhero]

is there some reason you're avoiding this hypothetical?

 

I've said I think that should be protected unless the circumstances support that I could reasonably believe that you'd follow through on it. Do I know you? Have you made threats before? Have you committed acts like this before? Etc.

 

If I just randomly received a letter from you because we disagreed over Soxtalk? No. I don't think you should be arrested for that. Harassment maybe, if Illinois has a law like that (and it doesn't take more than one act to violate the law). But something along the lines of threatening violence/assault? No.

 

Harassment is different because it's less about the words being used and more about the fact that you're, well, harassing someone.

[StrangeSox]

I've said I think that should be protected unless the circumstances support that I could reasonably believe that you'd follow through on it. Do I know you? Have you made threats before? Have you committed acts like this before? Etc.

 

If I just randomly received a letter from you because we disagreed over Soxtalk? No. I don't think you should be arrested for that. Harassment maybe, if Illinois has a law like that (and it doesn't take more than one act to violate the law). But something along the lines of threatening violence/assault? No.

 

Harassment is different because it's less about the words being used and more about the fact that you're, well, harassing someone.

 

These girls know the victim, there's no doubt about that. And the motivation is clear, it isn't some random threat.

[StrangeSox]

Even if they were direct I'd still argue there's a lack of reasonable apprehension of fear and they shouldn't be prosecuted. I pointed that out to you only to say it might have been something less direct. One was charged with threatening death, the other bodily harm.

 

I don't know why you think the fear would be unreasonable here. The community was protecting the rapists because they were small-town heroes until this story got national attention. Even people outside of the community are engaging in a good amount of victim-blaming and attacker-sympathizing. There's going to be many in the community who revile her, especially close friends and relatives of the two boys.

 

I think it'd be unreasonable to assume that threats from close friends and relatives weren't serious. These aren't some random article comments or something.

 

And yes, prosecutors/cops always overreach so it easily could have been something like "i hope someone hits you with a car" which isn't a threat that involves their personal involvement.

 

If that's what the threat amounts to, agree. But I really don't see the DA going with that big of a stretch when it's only going to look bad for him in the end.

[Jenksismyhero]

These girls know the victim, there's no doubt about that. And the motivation is clear, it isn't some random threat.

 

They're high school girls man. They're f***ing evil b****es to begin with.

[StrangeSox]

They're high school girls man. They're f***ing evil b****es to begin with.

...which makes the likelihood of them doing something dumb and retributive higher and fear of their threats more reasonable.

[Jenksismyhero]

...which makes the likelihood of them doing something dumb and retributive higher and fear of their threats more reasonable.

 

No, it just means they're full of crap because they're high schoolers. Kids are stupid and say stupid things all the time to look impressive/sound intimidating to gain some reputation. I don't think we should assume that what high schoolers say or what they post on the internet is the gospel truth.

[DukeNukeEm]

So me threatening to rape your wife via letter, email, facebook, phone call, text or tweet should be protected speech simply because I'm not physically next to your wife at the time?

You should be a lot more worried about the guy who's wife your harassing than whether or not its covered under the 1A.

[bmags]

No, it just means they're full of crap because they're high schoolers. Kids are stupid and say stupid things all the time to look impressive/sound intimidating to gain some reputation. I don't think we should assume that what high schoolers say or what they post on the internet is the gospel truth.

 

I think the vast majority of these hyperbolic tweets are ignored. But in this case a number of those high schoolers have proven to do extraordinary things, and precautions are warranted.

[RockRaines]

HS girls are ALOT meaner than this, which is scary. This is kind of mild in comparison.