#8 - An Internet Murder

It is a terrible shame when any form of life is taken away. However, it is an even greater shame if that life is that of a 13-year-old girl who died at the hands of an Internet prank.

Thirteen year old Megan Meier was, as most teenage girls would be, thrilled to see a friend request from an attractive boy of a few years older [1]. After receiving her mother Tina’s permission to accept 16 year old Josh Evans as a friend, Megan began exchanging messages with this mysterious boy.

I could write an endless amount of blogs concerning the dangers of MySpace and websites of the like. We are all aware that nothing posted on the Internet is private and even the slightest bit of information can bring about a whirlwind of trouble. An individual must only be 14 years old to create a MySpace, but there is no way to enforce this age limit. Over Thanksgiving break I was shocked to see that my 11-year-old neighbor had created a very thorough MySpace page. There is a great deal of naivety at that age and after prompting him to at least make it private if he wouldn’t remove it, he responded, “Gezz Jen, you’re like so overreacting, nothing bad is going to happen.” Well, Megan Meier and her family believed the same idea.

Suddenly this conversation between Megan and Josh gave Megan things to smile about and feel confident about [1]. Their interaction even led others to notice that Megan “Was the happiest she had ever been in her life," remembers her father, Ron [1].

I’m all for Free Speech, there’s no doubt about that. And even after all of this blogging, I’m still struggling between identifying myself as a Libertarian or a Neoliberal. I think, that at least for now, this conflict will continue. The Internet is an extraordinary thing that offers a free flow of information with more anonymity than Catholic Confession.

One day, on October 16, 2006, that all changed. Josh’s messages suddenly began to become unfriendly. He had shared their prior conversations with others and Megan was being bombarded by others calling her ‘fat’ and a ‘slut’ [1]. Defensively, Megan used to vulgar language to respond to them. However, when her mother was finally able to intervene, Tina was shocked at Megan’s retorts. Feeling abused and alone, Megan fled upstairs in hysterics. She met her father at the top of the stairs. He tried to calm her, but Megan flew past him. Ron proceeded downstairs to cook dinner with his wife and discuss what was bothering Megan. Suddenly, Tina could not concentrate on her and her husband’s conversation, "I had this God-awful feeling and I ran up into her room and she had hung herself in the closet [1]." Megan died in the hospital the next day. Ron checked Megan’s MySpace to find the last message between his daughter and Josh Evans. “According to Ron's best recollection, it said, ‘Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you [1].’" Hours later, Josh Evan’s MySpace had been deleted.

I can’t say that I want Internet Watchdogs perusing every site at every hour, but there really must be more protection. Megan’s death is a tragedy that should never have happened. Its success came from the ability to act and speak anonymously. Many preach parental monitoring of such forums like the Internet, but that didn’t help Megan. Her mother was the only individual that had Megan’s password. Tina’s watchful eye never allowed Megan to get into trouble, or so she thought [1].

Six weeks after Megan’s death, a lady from down the street contacted the Meiers. She said that Josh Evans never existed - he was created by the mother of one of Megan’s former friends, a family that also lived down the street. The mother created Josh to gain Megan’s trust and to understand why Megan had ended the friendship between her and this mother’s daughter [1].

I understand that the risky part of Internet protection laws is that it is quite easy to step on First Amendment rights. However, there is no First Amendment protection for those that use harassment and true threats. My blog from last week touched on a similar topic, but these two situations are yet so different.

As for the Meiers, there is little sun in their lives. Ron and Tina have divorced under the pressure of their guilt. Tina continues to blame herself and Ron cannot keep himself together. There have not been any charges filed because, according to Lt. Craig McGuire, "We did not have a charge to fit it. I don't know that anybody can sit down and say, 'This is why this young girl took her life [1].'" However, the Meiers “want the law changed, state or federal, so that what happened to Megan - at the hands of an adult - is a crime [1].”

Well, the day the Meiers have been wanting has finally arrived. “City officials in this eastern Missouri community unanimously passed a measure last week making online harassment a crime, just days after learning that a 13-year-old resident killed herself last year after receiving cruel messages on the Internet [2].” On November 21, 2007 the board “made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail [2].”

“According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 44 states now have some form of cyberstalking or computer-harassment law on the books [2].” These policies often mention that this form of coverage can easily intrude of First Amendment rights. Dave Sobel, the general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center agrees that, “'The Internet shouldn’t be a safe haven for activities that should otherwise be prohibited [2].’” President Bush had passed a bill in 2005 declaring that any perpetrator using the Internet to annoy other individuals must not be anonymous [4]. However, ‘Josh Evans’ did not annoy Megan, he greatly harmed her. Therefore, this cyber-harassment bill was not used to protect Megan.

I find myself wracking my head against a wall. How could one individual do such a terrible thing to another. There is no excuse for this type of activity. And fortunately, some justice has been served. 'Josh Evans' is truly an abuse of the First Amendment.

[1] http://stcharlesjournal.stltoday.com/articles/2007/11/10/news/sj2tn20071110-1111stc_pokin_1.ii1.txt

[2] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19361

[3] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=cyberstalking

[4] http://www.news.com/Create-an-e-annoyance,-go-to-jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.htm

#7 - I freaking hate HATE SPEECH

Dr. David Gunn was only 47 when he was murdered for his profession [1]. As a licensed OB/GYN that performed abortions, Gunn was not considered a popular man amongst anti-abortion groups like the Army of God. Therefore, when leaving his clinic on March 11, 1993, Gunn was shot three times by Army of God member, Michael F. Griffin [2]. This brutal murder was the first killing of several abortionists in the early 90s. This and the following acts led to the creation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE).

The Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act is a piece of legislation passed in 1994 used to protect an individual’s right to chose. “FACE makes it illegal to intentionally use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with individuals obtaining or providing reproductive health care services [3].”

Between 1994 and 2000, FACE helped reduce the violence directed toward clinics, doctors, and patients by 20% [3]. However, this problem is far from over. Pro-Life activists are incredibly determined to ensure that all people know their stance, and in doing so can overstep the line between speech and conduct.

Later last week a US District Judge declared that an anti-abortionist must remove his webpage that condoned the execution of a former abortion doctor. These postings, dated since 2005, forced this clinician to leave the practice because she feared for her life [4]. Seventy-two year old John Dunkle is the web manager of the site that published a post that “Featured the [abortion] provider's name, photo and address, stat[ing] that ‘While it does not sound good to say go shoot her between the eyes, it sounds even worse to say let her alone [5].’"

Dunkle is not even sure that he agrees with the printed statements, and he continues to reiterate that he is not the writer of these messages, only the publisher. “’If they tell me not to print it, I won't print it,’ [Dunkle] said [5].”

U.S. Attorney, John Meehan, sought this injunction in August saying that “’This type of intimidation and scare tactic, regardless of one's beliefs or religious convictions, simply cannot be condoned. Using a public forum, such as the Internet, to incite and instruct people to kill is tantamount to a form of domestic terrorism [5].’"

The injunction also forbids Dunkle from printing any future posts “Containing names, addresses or photographs of health-clinic staff members [5].”

Dunkle’s website took the form of a blog. I’m sure Dunkle believed that he, just like the students in JOUR 199, was exercising his right to the First Amendment. His postings were the written opinions of others and the protection of minority viewpoints is a main function of the First Amendment. However, at what point can Dunkle’s posts be considered hate speech or fighting words?

The First Amendment Center has an excellent site dedicated to the understanding of Hate Speech on the Internet. From the get-go it acknowledges that the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on online hate speech and that only previous decisions on non-virtual hate speech set the standards for future cases [6].

The concern regarding hate speech legislation is that it can either be overbroad or under-inclusive and often infringe on First Amendment rights.

The most closely related ruling to the situation involving Dunkle is Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. vs. American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) [6]. This 2001 case was ruled on by the 9^th Circuit Court.

The ACLA ran a website called the “Nuremberg Files.” This page published the personal information of abortion doctors [6]. After these doctors had been threatened, abused, wounded, or killed by various Pro-Life activists, their names would be crossed out or changed to a grey color. While this site did not expressly threaten the doctors, it did, perhaps, encourage individuals of a certain mindset to bring action upon those they did not agree with.

The court acknowledged this idea as an implied threat, but declared that this form of danger does not constitute as an imminent threat and thereby cannot be restricted without violating the First Amendment.

However, I do not agree with the court. To me, this list of doctors is a hit list. How can they allow for this information to be printed? This is not meant to be a directory for those seeking health services. It is meant to be a published list for Pro-Life activists to act upon. This information does not automatically mean that those listed are in danger, but what sort of redeeming social qualities might this list possess? I can see no reason to allow for its publication. The source marked [7] is a link to the current “Nuremberg Files.” Search around and try not to lose your breakfast. I have yet to decide if I am Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, but this website makes me sick to my stomach.

On that note, have a great Turkey Break!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gunn_%28doctor%29

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_F._Griffin

[3] http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/face_act.html

[4] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/%5Cnews.aspx?id=19312

[5] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18977

[6] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=internet_hate_speech

[7] http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity

#6 - Giving your own slander case media coverage

As recent graduates from the high school scene, we know the bitter taste of rumors. These blatant lies or extensions of the truth can do significant damage to those discussed in the gossip. A person’s reputation is, unfortunately, the most frequent way in which individuals are judged and when damage is done to these mighty reputations, the outcome can be devastating. However, in the right setting, legal action can be taken to defend someone’s honor.

“Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper” [1].

As we have previously learned in class, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for issuing a defamatory statement. I believe that our broad First Amendment protection stems from the ability to speak freely in order to maximize our democracy. Often times certain statements must be issued. Therefore, if the supposed slander or libel may be vital to furthering our nation’s freedoms, the public’s right to know greater outweighs the individual’s desire to avoid being discussed. And let’s be honest, the more true a statement is, the more likely an individual will do whatever they can to avoid being conversed about, even if that means declaring the incriminating statements as slander or libel.

As a broad refresher, the defenses to issuing a defamatory statement include truth, statements made in good faith with reasonable belief that they were true, privilege, opinion, fair comment on a matter of public interest, consent, innocent dissemination, and incapable of doing further defamation to one’s reputation [2].

Asma Gull Hasan is an American lawyer, writer, and Muslim. Her and her family are outspoken supporters of George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Hasan, unlike traditional Muslims, does not cover her hair in public and does not dress as a many of her fellow Muslim women do. Her written and spoken scrutiny of Muslim ways has gained her much support, but also much dissent. [3]

“ Hasan claims Michael Muhammad Knight wrote an unflattering portrayal of her in his book "Blue-Eyed Devil" and influenced a band called The Komina’s to write defamatory lyrics describing her performing a sex act” [4].

This false representation of Hasan in written and spoken form has prompted her to sue Knight and the five members of The Kominas for libel and slander.

Hasan’s attorney, Glenn Merrick is arguing that, “The purpose, intent and effect of these highly offensive, denigrating and defamatory lyrics - written and performed by the Kominas with Knight's knowledge, encouragement and support - was to mock, deride and ridicule Hasan, and to hold her up for public scorn and contempt. Of course, the verse was written and has been performed with actual malice toward Hasan - it was written and performed as knowingly false within the meaning of the applicable law of defamation" [5].

While I could find numerous stories referencing this website that linked directly to The Komina’s lyrics, I could not access the actual page. This leads me to believe that due to the buzz about this suit, the page has since been taken down. I also tried searching for the song in a lyrics web bank, but had no such luck. Eventually, I was able to gain entrance to the cached version of the former site. (This cached version is what is going to get all those scandalous facebook users in trouble. It is a service that goes to all searchable websites and takes photographs of the screenshot. These pictures are then saved in a database for use when webpages are taken down or are temporarily unavailable.)

The portion of the lyrics involving Hasan have been removed from this blog on 1/13/09.

The lyrics are very crude. My caution to you is that is does use foul language and depicts explicit images. And do not expect anything musically aesthetic. Personally, I think Hasan was remiss for giving this song media coverage. She should have let it go, and few would have heard of the song. However, since doing this, she gave the song media attention, which was, I’m sure, The Komina’s point.

The fuzzy area in this case is that it involves matters of race, religion, and political preference. People are allowed to disagree on such matters, but at what point do these disagreements cross the line from being portrayed appropriately to being uncalled for?

“Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault” [2].

The song lyric, while inappropriate, is not sung to be a true statement. I assume it is said for entertainment purposes. And there is a difference between saying something in jest and saying something to be truthful.

Hasan should have left these sleeping dog rest. Little would have come of it and few would have recognized the song as being a direct diss to her. In giving this national attention, people are searching for the song and giving the band media time. I understand her desire to keep her name in tact, but she should have ignored it all together.

[1] http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

[3] http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/asma-gul-hasan-suing-progressive-muslim-kids-for-defamation/

[4] http://www.dailypress.com/features/dp-life_religionbrfs_11032nov03,0,6317004.story

[5] http://pueblochieftain.com/metro/1193837385/21

[6] http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:a4eyRU21YacJ:sinsanctuary.com/kominas/lyrics.php+Rumi+was+a+Homo&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1

[7] http://muslimwakeup.com/clips/KominasRumiWasaHomo.mp3

[8] http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.html

#5 - You can Equally Access my Blog

Toward the end of last school year, I remember seeing specific posters around my school. These posters contained silly sayings or funny pictures to gain student attention. Needless to say, I was suckered in by the bright colors and for once, actually stopped to read a school poster. The poster advertised free food and fun through a club called “The Word.” In smaller print, a list followed. I can’t remember verbatim what the declarations said, but it was something like, “This club is student initiated, student run, and completely separate from Elk Grove High School and School District 214.”

At the time, I did not realize why it was necessary for an after-school club to declare themselves as detached from the school. But this week’s search for a blog topic has given me my answer.

A “lawsuit, filed…in U.S. District Court in Burlington, claims the Middlebury Union High School has violated the federal Equal Access Act and First Amendment by refusing official club status to the Youth Alive Club, while granting it to other groups such as the Gay/Straight Organization, the Arabic Club and the Outing Club” [1].

My initial response to the suit put forth by a female student is of curiosity. How can a school grant access to the Arabic Club but not to a Christian-oriented group? That doesn’t seem fair. This girl’s intention is simple. She wants a space to advertise, a photo in the yearbook, listing in the school’s handbook of clubs, and access to supplies. She is not trying to force anyone into the club nor is she trying to cause harm or a disruption to the day.

Early cases involving high school’s and religious clubs held that in order to separate church and state, schools do not need religious messages in the scholastic environment. However, as time went on, Congress came to understand a different reasoning. “While Congress recognized the constitutional prohibition against government promotion of religion, it believed that nonschool-sponsored student speech, including religious speech, should not be excised from the school environment,” [2]. This realization helped procure the Equal Access Act in 1984.

“Congress’s primary purpose in passing the act, according to the Supreme Court, was to end ‘perceived widespread discrimination’ against religious speech in public schools” [2] and the Equal Access Act has several different concepts. “The first [basic concept] is nondiscrimination…The second basic concept is protection of student-initiated and student-led meetings… The third basic concept is local control” [2]. In simple, this means:

• “If a public secondary school permits student groups to meet for student-initiated activities not directly related to the school curriculum, it is required to treat all such student groups equally.

• The school cannot discriminate against any students conducting such meetings “on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.” This language was used to make clear that religious speech was to receive equal treatment, not preferred treatment.

• The act does not limit the authority of the school to maintain order and discipline or to protect the well-being of students and faculty” [2].

It seems like a no-brainer that the Youth Alive Club should be given equal access to the things the other clubs receive. However, for some, it obviously isn’t. When denying the petition, the school’s principal William Lawson said, “’Even assuming…that Youth Alive could be deemed accurately as ‘co-curricular,’ such club status would mean that Youth Alive’s activities would become school sponsored with monetary support and an advisor assigned’” [1]. However, the plaintiff acknowledges the point that the Arabic Club and Outing Club are both co-curricular. Therefore, I cannot seem to understand why Youth Alive would not receive the same benefits.

The student’s attorney is arguing the same idea, “The school has recognized other non-curriculum clubs, and “’the government doesn’t endorse religion merely by allowing it on a neutral basis’” [1].

The Equal Access Act applies only to high schools and “School districts can opt out of the Act by not allowing any non-curriculum clubs” [3].

The answer to this question may vary at each different school district, but I wonder that if the Equal Access Act allows for a faculty member to be present for meetings, does this person get paid for their time? Also, if a club can receive school funding, how much money should these religious clubs get? The answer to this question seemed hazy. No particular source would make a clear cut declaration. However, this too probably varies at different schools. I know that at my school, each club got different amounts of money based on need and involvement, but each club could ask the Student Council for more funding if needed.

“The Word” ended up failing after a few months. However, it had nothing to do with lack of equality from the school when compared to other after school clubs. I believe the students of my high school were not ready for such a group, because it seemed that at my suburban high school it was so much cooler to be a hardcore atheist and an anarchist. But that’s a topic for another time. : D

[1] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19224

[2] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/publicschools/topic.aspx?topic=religious_clubs

[3] http://www.religioustolerance.org/equ_acce.htm

OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/VOComplaint.pdf

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_24_37/ai_73624116

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18065

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=4955