As we all know the Internet is the greatest avenue to free speech, and it should have the greatest protection, but where does harassment fit in? The internet has become the newest avenue to harassment. People are allowed to say just about anything on the internet. Take for example the Kathleen Benz v. The Washington Newspaper: Benz had private details of her personal life (real and fake) posted on a public website. On this website John Bisney, the creator, revealed who she dated, her sexual relations, and false information about her personal life. The internet provided Bisney with the opportunity to invaded her privacy and publicly harass her (1).
Lately, more and more forms of harassment have been showing up on the internet, and it is getting pretty serious. About a year ago, 13 year-old Megan Meier, hung herself, a few minutes after receiving mean messages on the Web site MySpace. She died the next day. MySpace is a popular social networking site a lot like Facebook (2), and on Myspace Megan met a boy named Josh. Josh was new to the community; he used to live in Florida, 16-years-old, cute, and home-schooled. For over a month Josh and Megan corresponded and became "friends.” Then things suddenly changed and Josh no longer wanted to be her friend (4). Minuets before her death, Megan showed her mother electronic bulletins, posted by Josh, saying things like, "Megan Meier is a slut. Megan Meier is fat.” He later went on to say that the world would be better off without her (3).
Megan suffered from depression and ADD, which she was on medication for, but her relationship with Josh seemed to lessen her symptoms. Obviously she felt Josh might be romantically interested in her and it was a major blow when Josh harshly ended their relationship (4). The harassment from Josh pushed this unstable girl towards her tragic end, but there is a sick twist to this story. Josh was not a real boy.
About six weeks after her death, Megan’s parents found out that “Josh” was created by a mother down the street who wanted to know what Megan was saying about her own daughter, who had had a falling out with Megan (2). Josh was created by an adult with sick intent, she went far enough to say that “the world would be better off” without her (1). This lady was so worried about teenage gossip that she drove a young girl to commit suicide, but no criminal charges have filed. Needless to say, Megan’s parents are livid.
And here is where the freedom of speech conflict appears: How do you limit harassment without limiting freedom of speech. What this woman did to Megan is hard to define. Her words weren’t fighting words because they didn’t incite an instantaneous riot, so I suppose it would be considered hate speech more than anything. Hate speech is legal… but is it legal when it drives the recipient to suicide? “State lawmakers question how the state law could be altered without running afoul of First Amendment issues” (2).
The Meiers' hometown, just outside of St. Louis, has proposed a new ordinance related to child endangerment and Internet harassment, and Republican Rep. Cynthia Davis, a state lawmaker who represents their area, said she is trying to see if existing Missouri laws can be improved. But, she noted, any legal reforms must protect freedom of speech rights (6).
Myspace, and the internet in general, has also become an outlet for sexual harassment as well. Wired News reporter Kevin Poulsen conducted an experiment that proved this. He wrote a computer program that matched databases of registered sex offenders with MySpace profiles and found hundreds of matches. “On Poulsen's list: A thrice-convicted sex offender who had recently finished a nine-year jail term for sexually abusing two young boys. It turned out he was using MySpace to approach and proposition young boys” (5). MySpace isn’t the only problem. MSNBC’s T.V. show To Catch a Predator reinforces Poulsen’s findings. They have caught a countless number of men seeking underage, sexual relationships in chat rooms on various websites (7).
There is a culture lag between new technology and the law. Since the internet is fairly recent current laws do not cover its surfacing consequences, like in Megan Meier’s case (4). Our legal system will have to adapt to the conflict between freedom of speech and harassment on the internet. How do we preserve freedom of speech on the internet without risking the safety of the people on the internet? I guess if I were truly a libertarian I would accept the risk involved in allowing true freedom of speech, but these days the risk is awfully high. I surely wouldn’t want my sexual relationships posted on a website, have my 13 year-old daughter kill herself because of online harassment, or have my curious 12 year-old daughter enter a chat room with a bunch of men ready to seduce her. When risk increasingly turns into reality, a change needs to be made.
Sources:
1.) https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv1760-28
2.) http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Internet-Suicide.html?_r=1&oref=slogin\
3.) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21844203/page/2/
4.)http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/internet_harassment_is_legal
5.) http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/05/myspace_and_sex.html6.) http://games.consumerelectronicsnet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=237673
7.)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17601568/
3 comments:
Kelly, great last blog. As you so convincingly describe, real risks have been and continue to manifest themselves on the internet. Fantastic subject for First Amendment discussion.
As you bring up, the internet has become a new and easy avenue for harassment. Legally, harassment is defined as “...unwanted conduct that violates a person's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment” (1). As seen in this legal definition, and as you stated, harassment is a somewhat ambiguous term- uneasy to define. Mostly this is due to the fact that harassment is “...defined by the perception of the victim rather than the intent of the person causing offence” (1). Because harassment is so enigmatic and circumstantial, it is difficult to, and I sympathize with those lawmakers in the Meiers' hometown for the difficult task ahead of them, create an ordinance or law instituting consequences for harassment over the internet. As one of the most democratic mediums in existence, lawmakers must be weary of overbroad laws that could inhibit the flow of robust interaction over the internet. That said, not all hope for action against harassers on the internet is lost. In fact, there has been a case where those who have harassed others online have come to some real world consequences.
A certain James Robert Murphy of Columbia, South Carolina, was sentenced to “...5 years of probation, 500 hours of community service, and more than $12,000 in restitution for two counts of Use of a Telecommunications Device (the internet) with Intent to Annoy, Abuse, Threaten or Harass” (2). Apparently, after a somewhat sporadic romantic relationship with Joelle Ligon, an employee of the City of Seattle, Murphy had “...disseminated false information about Ligon's background... [sent] pornographic material...” and “...dozens of uninvited and harassing emails to Ligon and her co-workers” (2). It is clear that this case does differ markedly from the one your blog centered around- no one died or was driven to a horrific act of any kind. However, this does demonstrate a case where negative actions perpetrated online can affect reality, even if it is technically the “,..first federal prosecution of cyber harassment in the United States” (2).
From how you described the actions of “Josh” I am not sure how they would be viewed in a court of law, however, I hope they would be viewed with distaste and animosity. Hopefully the Cyber Crime Task Force, composed of “...the FBI, United States Secret Service, Internal Revenue Service...” (2) and others will be able to prevent tragedies like the one you mentioned and the million others that are perpetrated every day. Thankfully though, we know that cyber crimes, specifically harassment, do have tangible consequences. Neoliberal or libertarian, children are worth protecting- not perhaps at the cost of adult speech- but by means instituted to deter manipulation.
Sources
(1)http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:MBwqud86SWMJ:www.rdg.ac.uk/Personnel/rdg-only/documents/harassment_guidance.doc+legal+definition+of+harassment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a
(2)http://crime.about.com/od/online/a/web_harass.htm
Great blog, Kelly. You're blogs have been the most interesting and my favorite all semester!
One of your beginning points comments on how the internet opens a marketplace to reveal sexual history. A few years ago, you couldn't open a newspaper without hearing about Bill Clinton's sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky. The Benz case is quite similar. John Bisney, like Linda Tripp, used sexual history to exploit and defame an individual. Bisney ruined a reputation; Tripp ruined a nation's morality. This is not a culture lag between technology and the law. It is a basic right. If you restrict cyberbullying, you also restrict the public's right to know and a journalist's right to expose. Although I despise the effects of the media scandal with the Lewinsky case, I cannot ask for a law restricting the right to speak.
Megan's situation is terribly tragic, but again I don't believe the law has a place. Limiting cyberbullying is not constitutional, but it shouldn't have to be limited. America is morally decrepit, and I don't have a solution. I do know that it does not involve stripping First Amendment rights.
Kristen
Internet harassment is certainly a problem. However, I think that the problem lies less in the medium of communication and more, as Kristen mentioned, in the state of society.
My point is that there should be no greater control over internet speech than any other type of speech. Courts have never discriminated between mediums, whether paint, print, or video, before. This, the information age, is no time to start. Free exchange of ideas is far too important to allow government meddling.
Post a Comment