Recently, Judge Roger Titus of Maryland declared unconstitutional a federal law that makes it a crime to use the Internet "with the intent to harass [or] cause significant emotional distress to a person in another State" . Following this decision, legislatures and courts of the country will have to rethink the existing laws on cyberbullying.



In the case of Maryland, William Cassidy had been accused of cyberbullying Alyce Zeoli, a former colleague and a Buddhist religious leader, based on their tweets, such as: "the world a favor and go kill yourself PS. Have a nice day. "Zeoli said tweets have raised fears for their safety had not left his house for a year and a half, except to see his psychiatrist. But the judge dismissed the case. His reasoning are lively in legislative debates on changing state and federal laws.

Judge Titus said that "threats of harm" may be punished, but no communication "intended to" emotional distress. Also considered relevant to the support (a tweet ) was communicated to the general public and not just the victim. The purpose of harassment may choose not to follow the tweets. "This," said the judge, "is in stark contrast to a phone call, letter or e -mail specifically addressed to and directed toward another person, and the difference ... is fundamental to the analysis of the First Amendment in this case. "Tito The judge also seemed to think it was unreasonable to have a reaction spectacular Zeoli said Cassidy tweets were not a "real threat".



Words are powerful. You can move the listeners or readers to action, even hurt themselves or someone. But in general, our society does not punish those who speak or write. Think of Ozzy Osbourne. Thirty years ago, recorded the song
Suicide Solution


. The song says that "Suicide is the only way out" and contains the letters barely recognizable, sung at a faster pace, "take the gun and try that, shoot, shoot, shoot."



When shooting 19 years himself in the head with a handgun of .22 caliber, having spent five hours listening to the music of Ozzy His parents sued Ozzy grief and dealer registration. The California Court of Appeal rejected his claim (pdf), noting that the speech does not lose its First Amendment protection simply because it "can evoke a mood of depression." The court said that the letters do not "order or mandate specific action at some point."



But the courts have ruled differently if the speech is addressed directly to an individual. In a case currently under appeal in Minnesota, William Melchert-Dinkel was accused of pressuring two people on the Internet to commit suicide. He posed as a nurse young woman attempting to enter in a suicide pact with his victims. The judge in the case of Minnesota said that Melchert-Dinkel "encouragement and advice prompted the imminent suicide of Nadia Kajouji and may have this effect." The judge in the If the label instant messaging as "lethal defense" and said that Melchert-Dinkel's words is "analogous to the category of unprotected speech known as" the fight against the words "and" incitement to imminent violation of the law. "" The judge distinguished the messages sent to the general public, Melchert-Dinkel said he had the right to make their pro-suicide message to the public - through the Internet, television, and so on - but has the right to send this message to a person vulnerable. Melchert-Dinkel lawyer appealed the case on the basis of the First Amendment.

How to be a direct threat? What if Melchert-Dinkel Nadia had just sent an mp3 file with Suicide Solution Ozzy? The courts are already considering the possibility of people "as" a social network can be used as evidence against them. In Wisconsin, a judge admitted evidence of a party referred MySpace a story in which a judge was injured. However, a court of Mississippi refused to use MySpace after a father of Ronald McDonald was wounded in the face to show that the mother should have custody of children.

"intent" standard is also problematic. As Judge Titus suggested, the standard is very broad and includes speech that is constitutionally protected. But the "intent" standard is, in some cases too narrow. It could allow someone to circumvent the legitimate prosecution arguing he had no intention to hurt, just made to be fun.


This strategy has worked for 40 years Elizabeth Thrasher, of which the victim was the daughter of the new girlfriend of her ex-husband. Thrasher published photos, phone number and email address in the 17 years of age in the "free field" to Craigslist, where people express their interest in casual sex. Due to "vent" the publication, 17 years was inundated with phone calls sexually explicit e-mails and text messages containing nude photos and requests for sex. A man even came to the restaurant where she worked Sonic after failing to scope on his phone, which eventually led to leave work because of fear. He said that the publication of the information made her feel as if "was created to kill and rape someone." Thrasher lawyer argued that the photos of the girl and her place of work and were available on the MySpace profile of the girl. He said the messages were "tantamount to a hoax" - and Thrasher was acquitted. under the standard Judge Titus, for example, a video was not a concern because the woman could have died. This problem of a contact person in front of the general population will be key in where the messages of personal information (such as a Google map to the house of a woman with a complaint, she wants men to act rape fantasy) and the sign itself does not intend to violence.
Find best price for : --When----Elizabeth----Nadia----suicide----Alyce----Cassidy----William----Maryland----Titus----Roger--