Can you be charged with a crime for online shit-throwing?

[Rocknrule]

Immature as it may be, I have engaged in several political fights on Topix. I don't feel like I ever went too far - that is, I never threatened violence or anything. One of my debators, an unstable Bush supporter/Obama hater (well I guess that's redundant) threatened to report me to the police for online harassment, even though she herself engaged in some of the things she accused me of (harassment, malace, persistant insulting, slander, etc.). Is this something I should worry about or is it covered by the 1st Amendment? If worst comes to worst, I'd say she's not in a very good position herself (one of the things she said was "Just keep starting with me, and you'll be soon to have a fist in your face and a hand on your crotch" - an example of threats of sexual violence, I'd say). Are there really laws that regulate political fights on message boards like this? I just don't want to get involved in this sort of thing over a stupid political debate.

[virgogal]

1. A grandmother here. Just stop doing it and you'll have nothing to

worry about.

[pacalo]

10. Yes, indeed.

[Patsy Stone]

2. Doubt it, but I am not a lawyer.

Wouldn't you think we'd have heard of a lot of suits from DU alone by now if that were the case? Do you remember the primaries? :)

Stalking is one thing, but arguments about substantive things? Probably not. Also, since it's written, it's libel, not slander.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. "If you keep posting my angry letters, I'm going to sue you."

Ah, the good old days of the DU hatemail bag.

[tanngrisnir3]

4. Nothing's going to happen unless someone follows through

Local police departments have neither the time, money nor inclination to get involved in online insult matches.

[Laelth]

5. Political speech is strictly protected by the 1st Amendment.

Personal threats are not. Threats against the President definitely are not, and nor is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but political speech is precisely what the 1st Amendment was intended to protect from government interference (including the criminal law).

:dem:

-Laelth

P.S. You have not retained me to represent you, and I am not giving you legal advice--only an explanation of my understanding of the 1st Amendment.

[ThomWV]

6. There is a long tradition of shit slinging - and so you'd probably be grandfathered in

Sling to the best of your ability. Never suffer a fool.

Hail to the Chief

[iamthebandfanman]

7. youre fine.

just so long as it doenst get to the point where you are literally stalking her.
itd be different if you were trying to contact her on a personal level all the time without stopping after being told to, but as long as its in the dialog and context of a forum.. no , u have nothing to fear.


by posting on a forum, she is inviting criticism and hostility.

[H2O Man]

8. "America's Most Wanted"

Hopefully, you'll only serve a few years, then be let out for good behavior.

On a more serious note, you appear to have nothing to worry about, unless you care to ask yourself why you waste time arguing with that type of person.

[TahitiNut]

12. (lol!) "The unexamined life is not worth living."

Now... I think I'll indulge in a little hemlock. :silly:

[Canuckistanian]

9. The 1st Amendment only concerns GOVERNMENT censorship

So, unless the state wanders in and silences your opinions, you're free to voice your opinions (as long as you don't slander anyone).

You haven't slandered anyone, have you?

[PeaceNikki]

11. 'MySpace Suicide' Case Expands Web Law

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/11/myspace_suicide_ruling_a_water.html

In what legal experts are calling the country's first cyber-bullying verdict, a Missouri mother has been convicted of impersonating a teenage boy online in a hoax that led to a young girl's suicide.

Lori Drew was convicted of three misdemeanors for violating MySpace's "terms of service," which requires users to submit "truthful and accurate" registration information.The impact of the case in a Los Angeles federal court is significant, experts say, in that it expands the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was passed in 1986 as a tool against hackers, to include social networking Web sites.

The case has drawn worldwide attention and criticism from online experts, including the Center for Democracy and Technology, which accused the government of misusing the law.

The case was tried by the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, Thomas P. O'Brien, after Missouri officials determined that Drew had broken no state laws. MySpace is based in Los Angeles. O'Brien said the verdict yesterday sent an "overwhelming message" to Internet users.

More at link