Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

I agree, this is treading a very thin line concerning free speech. Calling someone hateful names isn't libel, but it may be considered harassment to encourage constant unwarranted name calling and belittling. People should also be able to live in peace. It's easy to see how a bullied teenager can be driven to desperate measures(suicide) since they're at a time when self-esteem can be vulnerable. We'll have to see how this plays out in courts.

In the United States, minors are not protected by the Bill of Rights. Legally they have more in common with a piece of furniture, that can be taken from parents and placed in with different parents at will - with no recourse.

The other point I would make is that the response of this child to the website is half the problem. People say mean things and make fun of each other all the time. It is part of life that she's going to have to deal with eventually. Calling the police is not the solution to every little problem in life.

You certainly have a right to your own opinion about something or someone, but NO ONE has the right to bring harm to another using words or *speech*. The fact that you didn't physically assult someone doesn't mean haven't caused *harm* to them. There are more forms of *harm* than just physical --- verbal assults and emotional distress count, too. For those who try to justify their hateful words by hiding behind the first amendment, please educate yourselves a step further. Do you really think when our founding fathers created the first amendment, they meant for it to protect the right to harm another through slanderous and malicious speech?

Yes, the First Amendment protects speech, but one has to use it responsibly, whereby, there are limitations like defamation, libel, slander, threats, bodily harm, inciting a mob, or yelling fire in building when none exists. The Constitutional Right to Speech, if you bothered to read the intent of the framers, was so the People could speak out against the the "Government" and it could not tyrannize them for doing so, which had ocurred throughout history. It also protected an individuals religon, and freedom of the press to make sure the Gov. wasn't acting illegally. It wasn't never intended to give people the right to disparage, slander, harm or speak offensively about others.

You have the right to speak, act and do as you please in this country as long as you don't infringe on another persons rights. Harrassment is illegal and she should be punished for her actions.

Free speech, fine, but I don't think that these freedoms are actually extended to children. After all, kids aren't "free." They have to be "emancipated" if they want to cut ties from their negligent parents (think Drew Barrymore--in real life). They cannot vote, can barely drive, and don't face the same punishment as adults (normally). The guarantee of free speech falls in the same category. I'm thinking that after 18, "kids" can bully all they want (and face adult charges for the consequences), but other rules apply for underage kids. You cannot have children say whatever they want, when they want. You'll have a society full of primates.

There is a big difference between freedom of speach and slander, let alone the fact that it is bullying pure and simple. Do you honestly think its okay to act such a way in person to another human being????? Same scenario, no one has the right to attack some one in such a way. Violence is Violence and it does not need to be physical to severly affect someone.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As a law enforcement officer I know that the laws can be quite vague. However, many laws have gray areas or areas where people can stretch the meaning. For LEOs, we get Legal Bulletins that help clarify these gray areas even if it is not written into the law, but once in effect are implied. Hence, I do agree with freedom of speech. However, the implication [from the reference I have mentioned] is that freedom of speech cannot cause rioting or public chaos. Your words, "As long as I'm not advocating violence against that person, or spreading false information, I would think I should be safe" completely go against the context of your comment [no offense] since one teenager already committed suicide due to cyber bullying. On top of that, are we so quick to forget the events are Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Jena 6 case. Were those moreless not cases of bullying and discrimination? The actions resulting is a damn shame and death in any event is tragic because no one deserves such a fate, but if there were anti-bullying laws then how many could possibly still be alive and not mentally scarred?

Mark, come on. We all know what you're really getting at. You want to be able to set up a website where you can call Pres Obama a socialist, communist, anti-American and the Anti-Christ, and get away with it. That's the "freedom" you're really getting at.

Stop beating around the bush, and just come out with it.

It's called verbal assault. These bullies need to be stopped. Several girls have been tortured and murdered by what started out as bullying and jealousy. This kid needs to be locked up for a long time. SHe is obviously angry and hates herself.

I find your comments about "free speech" to be ill considered.

Even if you have the right of free speech, you acknowledged that libel isn't legal. How can calling a fellow schoolmate a slut, and posting it under namec***t.com NOT be libel and illegal.

Further, doesn't society have the RESPONSIBILITY to protect kids? This kind of cyber bullying leads to suicides, school violence not to mention difficulties for the bullied person in life. Finally, what about the person who bullies as a kid/teen when they grow up, and then continue bullying? Bullying has to stop. I hope that the law (and this kids parents!) come down HARD on this kid. I don't have much confidence in the child's parents acting appropriately in this instance however. If they were parenting positively, this kid wouldn't have created the website in the first place.

It's just a sad comment on our society.

It is quite unfortunate that so many individuals have come to think that they are free to spew garbage as their right to free speech. Our rights must be tempered with respect for the rights of others or we will all lose those rights.

HINT: If you don't like someone, that is your right but, slandering them is not a free speech right. Just stay away from them!

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Why? Because your actions could prove deadly. That's not a free speech issue, it's the law.

Um No Mark, you aren't well within Your Rights when Your Rights Infringe on MY Rights. I have an idea, go stand in front of a mirror and tell that person how much you dislike or hate him . I mean isn't that REALLY where this all stems from anyway. GET A LIFE DUDE

If you are an adult you are probably correct, but the supreme court has already ruled that many of the rights that apply to adults DO NOT apply to juveniles. Also freedom of speech has been found to not be an absolute right and there can be laws that infringe on this right.

Obviously you don't have children.

For every action there is a reaction. I'm afraid that it takes a significant emotional event to change behavior, and throwing this little twit in juvy detention, plus an expulsion will go a long way on changing her behavior, and the behavior of her peers. Don't give me this "Right of Free Speech" crap, kids need to learn respect for others.

technically i think this would fall into the category of "slander"

I gotta agree. Although what this girl did is shitty, I don't see how it's constitutional to arrest her for it.