Steubenville Rape Case

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

Here is the problem I have. If we are saying speech is protected (including threats), then why is harassment (verbal) allowed?

 

It would seem that the harassment law was in violation of the 1st amendment, if you believe that the 1st amendment protects violent speech.

 

This is probably one of the most difficult arguments for 1st amendment supporters, because even I have to admit that there is a line where the speech is of so little value, that I just do not believe it is worth protecting.

 

Harassment for the sake of intimidation would fall under that.

 

The problem is, that once you create a law that disallows "harassment" then I can try and use that law to prevent you from free speech.

 

Catch 22 and in my opinion, no real good answer.

[StrangeSox]

[pedantry]

 

Catch-22 isn't the same thing as slippery slope

 

[/pedantry]

[witesoxfan]

More of a paradox. We have freedom of speech, yet we do not have freedom of speech.

 

OK, back to serious discussion

[Jenksismyhero]

Here is the problem I have. If we are saying speech is protected (including threats), then why is harassment (verbal) allowed?

 

It would seem that the harassment law was in violation of the 1st amendment, if you believe that the 1st amendment protects violent speech.

 

This is probably one of the most difficult arguments for 1st amendment supporters, because even I have to admit that there is a line where the speech is of so little value, that I just do not believe it is worth protecting.

 

Harassment for the sake of intimidation would fall under that.

 

The problem is, that once you create a law that disallows "harassment" then I can try and use that law to prevent you from free speech.

 

Catch 22 and in my opinion, no real good answer.

 

For the same reason I can call a black person the N-word if I wanted to and it's protected, but I can't fire him/her for being black. You're free to say the word, you're not free to act a certain way. I think you should be free to tell someone you'll beat the crap out of them, and if you reasonably believe it'll happen call the cops and they'll get arrested/charged with assault. If they do it in a harassing manner (which I think is weak unless they did it more than once, but perhaps there's a victim exception I could agree too), same thing.

 

I mean, I get where you guys are coming from. No one should be supporting these girls as they are awful human beings. But at the same time i'm looking bigger picture and I don't want Billy the Cop deciding if what I say is threatening enough to warrant me being physically arrested, hauled to a jail and brought before a judge. That's pretty severe for saying something that in 99.9% of cases will never result in actual violence.

 

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

So saying words is assault if I reasonably believe it'll happen? Is that even the law? And how is that any different from this exact situation where these girls threatened to beat the victim up, she reasonably believed it was a real threat and called the cops to report it? How does your preference remove Billy the Cop's or Donny the DA's judgement or make it different in any way from this case?

[southsider2k5]

An interview with the person who did most of the screen caps in this case.

 

http://www.xojane.com/issues/steubenville-...medium=facebook

[Jenksismyhero]

So saying words is assault if I reasonably believe it'll happen? Is that even the law? And how is that any different from this exact situation where these girls threatened to beat the victim up, she reasonably believed it was a real threat and called the cops to report it? How does your preference remove Billy the Cop's or Donny the DA's judgement or make it different in any way from this case?

 

Sec. 12-1. Assault.

(a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he or she knowingly engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.

 

I think in case law though verbal threats aren't enough. You need some kind of physical motion as well (short of physical contact though, that would be a battery). Waiving my fists in the air, running towards you, etc.

 

There's zero immediacy in this example. They posted it on facebook and on twitter. She didn't know if it was coming 5 minutes from now or 3 years from now. Penn law might be different, I dunno. I don't think this would fly in Illinois unless there's another more specific statute for online bullying/threats that I don't know about.

 

Btw, here's what they wrote apparently:

 

The 16-year-old, a cousin of Richmond, allegedly sent a threatening tweet that said, “You ripped my family apart, you made my cousin cry, so when I see you b—- it’s gone be a homicide.” The Steubenville Journal-Star reported her older sister and guardian saying the line comes from a rap song.

The 15-year-old allegedly tweeted she would beat “the s— out of” the rape victim and apparently apologized later on Twitter.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-th...-by-mean-girls/

 

 

Bunch of skanks mouthing off. I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that they got arrested. But I don't think it's really appropriate either.

 

Edit: I should add too that they got arrested and they'll be in juvenile detention for over a week since their court date isn't until March 27th. So. Yeah. A total overreaction, IMO, even if they are pieces of s***.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

ugh, and that grammar! atrocious!

 

The first case seems like an overreaction, the second more of a legitimate threat. It seems you agree that there's some threshold for verbal assault, which means that either the police or a DA are going to have discretion at some point and that you don't have unlimited 1A rights to make threats of physical violence.

 

Agreed that it's unnecessary that they'll be held for over a week. A few hours would be one thing, but not that long.

[bmags]

Sec. 12-1. Assault.

(a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he or she knowingly engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.

 

I think in case law though verbal threats aren't enough. You need some kind of physical motion as well (short of physical contact though, that would be a battery). Waiving my fists in the air, running towards you, etc.

 

There's zero immediacy in this example. They posted it on facebook and on twitter. She didn't know if it was coming 5 minutes from now or 3 years from now. Penn law might be different, I dunno. I don't think this would fly in Illinois unless there's another more specific statute for online bullying/threats that I don't know about.

 

Btw, here's what they wrote apparently:

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-th...-by-mean-girls/

 

 

Bunch of skanks mouthing off. I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that they got arrested. But I don't think it's really appropriate either.

 

Edit: I should add too that they got arrested and they'll be in juvenile detention for over a week since their court date isn't until March 27th. So. Yeah. A total overreaction, IMO, even if they are pieces of s***.

 

enough with the usage of b****es and skanks, please.

[Soxbadger]

For the same reason I can call a black person the N-word if I wanted to and it's protected, but I can't fire him/her for being black. You're free to say the word, you're not free to act a certain way. I think you should be free to tell someone you'll beat the crap out of them, and if you reasonably believe it'll happen call the cops and they'll get arrested/charged with assault. If they do it in a harassing manner (which I think is weak unless they did it more than once, but perhaps there's a victim exception I could agree too), same thing.

 

I mean, I get where you guys are coming from. No one should be supporting these girls as they are awful human beings. But at the same time i'm looking bigger picture and I don't want Billy the Cop deciding if what I say is threatening enough to warrant me being physically arrested, hauled to a jail and brought before a judge. That's pretty severe for saying something that in 99.9% of cases will never result in actual violence.

 

Im not sure what side you are arguing here. Either you think that 1st amendment protects speech, including harassing speech, or it does not.

 

The hypothetical you referenced has no relevance to the discussion.

 

This is about harassing speech, and I asked if you thought that since speech is generally not actionable, that a law that was created making "harassing speech" illegal, should be unconstitutional.

 

You can say you are looking at the big picture, but the problem for me, is who do we err on the side of caution for? Do we err for the people who are making death threats? Or do we err for the people receiving death threats?

 

For example:

 

so when I see you b—- it’s gone be a homicide.”

 

Why should this be protected? Why should someone be able to threaten another with physical violence in an attempt to coerce or intimidate them? Does that seem like something that should be protected under 1st amendment? By not allowing people to make death threats, will there be a substantial erosion of rights?

 

I personally think that under assault this could be good enough. Im not a criminal lawyer, but I do believe that threat alone can be assault. Now there may be some questions about "immediacy", but as the threat said "when I see you", I would argue that is as soon as possible, which means immediate. Im sure there is plenty of case law.

 

 

 

 

[lostfan]

Because it negates the immediacy of the threat.

No, it doesn't

 

I can see your IP address as a mod here - if I PM you and tell you I'm coming to your house and going to kill everyone there does the fact that I did it on Soxtalk mean that I was never serious about it? I mean... it happened. The medium I used is irrelevant. (goes without saying that is purely hypothetical and I'd never do that)

[StrangeSox]

Given that you're in Maryland, it's a bigger stretch. If you were both in Chicago, though?

[lostfan]

Given that you're in Maryland, it's a bigger stretch. If you were both in Chicago, though?

I am flying to Chicago on Friday, so there's that.

[StrangeSox]

I've already reported you to the FBI.

[StrangeSox]

enough with the usage of b****es and skanks, please.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

enough with the usage of b****es and skanks, please.

 

I can say what I want. Free speech FTW!

[StrangeSox]

You sure can!

[Jenksismyhero]

Im not sure what side you are arguing here. Either you think that 1st amendment protects speech, including harassing speech, or it does not.

 

The hypothetical you referenced has no relevance to the discussion.

 

This is about harassing speech, and I asked if you thought that since speech is generally not actionable, that a law that was created making "harassing speech" illegal, should be unconstitutional.

 

You can say you are looking at the big picture, but the problem for me, is who do we err on the side of caution for? Do we err for the people who are making death threats? Or do we err for the people receiving death threats?

 

For example:

 

 

 

Why should this be protected? Why should someone be able to threaten another with physical violence in an attempt to coerce or intimidate them? Does that seem like something that should be protected under 1st amendment? By not allowing people to make death threats, will there be a substantial erosion of rights?

 

I personally think that under assault this could be good enough. Im not a criminal lawyer, but I do believe that threat alone can be assault. Now there may be some questions about "immediacy", but as the threat said "when I see you", I would argue that is as soon as possible, which means immediate. Im sure there is plenty of case law.

 

The same can be said for hate speech - why do we allow it, why protect that speech. Well, because we deal with that in a free society. We're more concerned about the slippery slope than of the offense of the speech. And I agree with that position.

 

 

[bmags]

The same can be said for hate speech - why do we allow it, why protect that speech. Well, because we deal with that in a free society. We're more concerned about the slippery slope than of the offense of the speech. And I agree with that position.

 

I feel like there's a compelling difference between saying something offensive (like calling a 15 year old a b**** and a skank), vs stating that you would kill or assault someone. WIth one, there is a reasonable assumption that they may follow through, or cause someone stress if they believe they will follow through.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, it doesn't

 

I can see your IP address as a mod here - if I PM you and tell you I'm coming to your house and going to kill everyone there does the fact that I did it on Soxtalk mean that I was never serious about it? I mean... it happened. The medium I used is irrelevant. (goes without saying that is purely hypothetical and I'd never do that)

 

Illinois law is pretty clear:

 

"Mere words, no matter how abusive, cannot justify an assault." Daraska v. Dauksha, 64 N.E.2d 204, 327 Ill.App. 333 (1st App. 1945)

 

"Words alone are insufficient to establish offense of assault." People v. Ferguson, 181 Ill.App.3d 950 (1st Dist. 1989)

 

"Merely verbal threat of indefinite action in indefinite future is not assault under Illinois law." Kijonka v. Seitzinger, 363 F.3d 645, (C.A.7 Ill. 2004)

 

"Under Illinois law, “assault” is defined as an intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury by force, or force unlawfully directed, under such circumstances as to create a well-founded fear of imminent peril, coupled with the apparent present ability to effectuate the attempt if not prevented." Lunini v. Grayeb, , 305 F.Supp.2d 893 (C.D. Ill. 2004)

Edited March 20, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

The same can be said for hate speech - why do we allow it, why protect that speech. Well, because we deal with that in a free society. We're more concerned about the slippery slope than of the offense of the speech. And I agree with that position.

 

No because hate speech has a legitimate place in society. You have the right to have a negative opinion of others. Nazi's have the right to hate jews. They can say Jews are responsible for all the evils of the world, that Jews are the worst thing ever.

 

The reason that needs to be protected because otherwise people can use "restrictions on hate speech" to stop their opponents from saying negative things about them. Allowing for public discourse, is one of the fundamental reasons for having the 1st amendment.

 

Unlike threats of violence, I can defend hate speech easily. People should have the right to say they hate something, just as much as people should have the right to say they love something.

 

But why should anyone be allowed to threaten someone else with a crime? What rationale purpose does it serve to allow people to threaten crimes against each other?

 

The purpose of hate speech is to convince people to follow your cause.

 

Not really a good comparison in my opinion.

 

Just to apply it to the example at hand.

 

If the person posted hate speech: "I hate you, you ruined my cousins life, I hope that you die in a horrible fashion, I hope that you go to hell..."

 

That would be entirely protected. It may be abhorrent, but there is no legitimate reason why someone cant hate another person.

 

But that is completely different than actually threatening to harm someone and saying that the next time you see them they are dead.

 

I really see no way to justify that speech, and I consider myself pretty hardcore first amendment.

[southsider2k5]

I've already reported you to the FBI.

 

Plus he is black, so that ups the threat like three notches!

[Jenksismyhero]

No because hate speech has a legitimate place in society. You have the right to have a negative opinion of others. Nazi's have the right to hate jews. They can say Jews are responsible for all the evils of the world, that Jews are the worst thing ever.

 

The reason that needs to be protected because otherwise people can use "restrictions on hate speech" to stop their opponents from saying negative things about them. Allowing for public discourse, is one of the fundamental reasons for having the 1st amendment.

 

Unlike threats of violence, I can defend hate speech easily. People should have the right to say they hate something, just as much as people should have the right to say they love something.

 

But why should anyone be allowed to threaten someone else with a crime? What rationale purpose does it serve to allow people to threaten crimes against each other?

 

The purpose of hate speech is to convince people to follow your cause.

 

Not really a good comparison in my opinion.

 

Just to apply it to the example at hand.

 

If the person posted hate speech: "I hate you, you ruined my cousins life, I hope that you die in a horrible fashion, I hope that you go to hell..."

 

That would be entirely protected. It may be abhorrent, but there is no legitimate reason why someone cant hate another person.

 

But that is completely different than actually threatening to harm someone and saying that the next time you see them they are dead.

 

I really see no way to justify that speech, and I consider myself pretty hardcore first amendment.

 

Not everyone intends to follow through with the threat. I've been to a bar and told a guy that I'd f*** him up if he kept bothering my then-girlfriend. It would have been ludicrous to arrest me for that even though it was a threat. I was trying to get him to leave us alone. I wasn't trying to hurt/kill the guy. You really think that warrants being arrested and held in jail for X number of days?

 

Also, I think people can spin "threats" in the exact same way you can spin hate speech. Your example of hoping someone will die in a horrible fashion, that's a threat. You want that person to die and you might be the one to do it. Better be safe and arrest you just in case you follow through with it. What's it matter if i'm being indirect about it.

 

Add to all of this the fact that it was on the internet and IMO it's even more ludicrous. It's the most unfiltered medium for communication and all of a sudden we're going to take a hard line rule with it? Come on.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kyyle23]

Not everyone intends to follow through with the threat. I've been to a bar and told a guy that I'd f*** him up if he kept bothering my then-girlfriend. It would have been ludicrous to arrest me for that even though it was a threat. I was trying to get him to leave us alone. I wasn't trying to hurt/kill the guy. You really think that warrants being arrested and held in jail for X number of days?

 

Also, I think people can spin "threats" in the exact same way you can spin hate speech. Your example of hoping someone will die in a horrible fashion, that's a threat. You want that person to die and you might be the one to do it. Better be safe and arrest you just in case you follow through with it. What's it matter if i'm being indirect about it.

 

Add to all of this the fact that it was on the internet and IMO it's even more ludicrous. It's the most unfiltered medium for communication and all of a sudden we're going to take a hard line rule with it? Come on.

 

That isnt a threat. That in no way indicates that you might be the one to do it. These girls explicitly said they are going to f*** this girl up and that there will be a homicide. That is a direct threat to this girl, one day after one of their cousins was found guilty.

 

You keep indicating random in your defense, but this isnt a random person at a bar that you are trying to get to leave your girlfriend alone, this isnt a random letter that you recieved saying that you should die. This is a direct threat because of something that happened.

 

I just dont agree with your defense here and how it applies to the first amendment

[Soxbadger]

Not everyone intends to follow through with the threat. I've been to a bar and told a guy that I'd f*** him up if he kept bothering my then-girlfriend. It would have been ludicrous to arrest me for that even though it was a threat. I was trying to get him to leave us alone. I wasn't trying to hurt/kill the guy. You really think that warrants being arrested and held in jail for X number of days?

 

Also, I think people can spin "threats" in the exact same way you can spin hate speech. Your example of hoping someone will die in a horrible fashion, that's a threat. You want that person to die and you might be the one to do it. Better be safe and arrest you just in case you follow through with it. What's it matter if i'm being indirect about it.

 

Add to all of this the fact that it was on the internet and IMO it's even more ludicrous. It's the most unfiltered medium for communication and all of a sudden we're going to take a hard line rule with it? Come on.

 

Jenks,

 

Oh so because "not everyone is actually going to follow through" we should allow people to be terrorized, because thats fair?

 

You seem to think that you should have a right to threaten violence on people, I just dont agree. Sure your not a bad guy for threatening that you would f*** someone up, but if you actually werent going to do it, then its kind of meaningless anyways?

 

I personally dont make threats that I am not go follow through on. So when a stranger at a concert on Saturday said that I should do something that I thought was classless to one of the girls I was with, I told them that "This is why I am at a concert with girls and you are not." Had he kept bothering me, I would have told him that if he didnt leave something bad would happen. If he kept it up, something bad would have happened.

 

 

And my example is not a threat. You can try and spin something, but most reasonable people can understand the difference between:

 

"I hope you die"

 

and

 

"I am going to kill you"

 

If they cant, well that is presumably why we have judges and juries who are there to determine what a reasonable person would think in that situation.

 

But you have to give me a single good reason why there should be a blanket privilege for threatening speech. Just because you want to be able to threaten people, does not mean its a good reason for allowing it.

 

And the entire internet thing is just a joke. If the internet is the wild west, why cant I gamble, buy drugs and do whatever I want on it?

 

Maybe because laws still apply to the internet?