General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCyberbullying which led to suicide leads to two arrests.
Rebecca Sedwick cyberbully suicide leads to two arrests
The Polk County Sheriff's Office has arrested two girls in the Rebecca Ann Sedwick cyberbully suicide.
One of the girls is 12 and the other girl is 14, said Carrie Eleazer, sheriff's office spokeswoman.
They have been charged with felony aggravated stalking.
The 12-year-old from Lakeland jumped to her death at an old cement business after other children cyberbullied her for months
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-rebecca-sedwick-cyber-bully-arrests-20131015,0,6659095.story
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...unless one commits suicide.
Then behavior which was common suddenly becomes a felony.
That isn't how Free Speech should work.
Drale
(7,932 posts)They don't arrest someone for saying they want the President dead, unless they believe there is a real threat or an actual attempt. That's they way these things work today.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)These girls aren't charged with wanting the other girl to kill herself.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)That is the speech (and felony cyber stalking ) that you want protected ? or are you saying they should act BEFORE someone is killed?
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)"Free speech" most commonly refers to the protection of dissemination of unpopular ideas into PUBLIC discourse. People directly threatening others or encouraging violence toward them is the basis of millions of restraining orders every year.
There are other articles and sources of information on this. The charges against these two girls are felony cyber stalking and are based on a pattern of action, not a single action or statement. Florida 784.048:
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) Harass means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) Course of conduct means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of course of conduct. Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) Credible threat means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(d) Cyberstalk means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the persons child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that persons property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
(7) Any person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).
http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/784.048
Emphasis (bold) added.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Harassment should be handled with a restraining order while both parties are alive.
Not with a prosecution after one party is dead.
Children who harass don't think of themselves as harassing, and with no restraining order, the parents of the accused didn't know that anything was wrong.
alp227
(32,026 posts)The reality is, kids get swayed by anything they think is personal. Same even applies to adults. And somebody's gotta be held accountable. Quit hiding behind "free speech" in defending these stupid girls. Maybe I should PM you a bunch of harassing messages so you get the point?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Felony stalking charges have little to do with the 1st Amendment.
(insert rationalization here...)
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)"'Cyberstalk' means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose."
The government putting someone in prison because that person's criticism of someone else supposedly has "no legitimate purpose" is a First Amendment issue.
ChazII
(6,205 posts)That message posted Saturday on Facebook by Rebecca's 14-year-old persecutor ended with a heart symbol. And resulted in an arrest."
Hope Karma will be a bitch to her.
Sound harsh, too bad. I recently lost a former student to suicide because he was getting similar messages from his peers.
Edited for spelling.
Mojo Electro
(362 posts)A certain percentage of human beings are born clinically psychopathic/sociopathic. They just do not feel empathy the way other people do. The entire concept is foreign to them. It's like a person who is blind from birth experiencing color, they cannot conceive of it. They cannot and will never care for the welfare of another person or even understand what it feels like, they lack the mechanism for it. They are born that way and it cannot be fixed. We can only hope that they wind up locked up before they kill someone, join the police force or go into politics.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Correct