9 ms·

Why is "abuse" in scare quotes?

by s_kilk 8y ago

tomp 8y ago
Read the article
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jstalin 8y ago
It’s a legal method of quoting terms of art.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  No, it's not, its rhetorical device to indicate that the law calls things “verbal” and “abuse” but the author disagrees with the characterization.
colejohnson66 8y ago
Probably because > A 16-year-old girl is cheated on by her 17-year-old boyfriend. She's angry, so she sends several e-mails to her girlfriends disclosing this and calling him names. One of them forwards it to someone who then forwards it to the ex-boyfriend. The boyfriend feels humiliated. That's a crime on the girls' part: She engaged in "repeated" "verbal" "abuse" using "any form of electronic communication," and this "would reasonably be expected to cause ... emotional harm" to the ex-boyfriend, and makes him feel like school is a "hostile environment" (since everyone now knows his misconduct). The girl is a criminal. Why is the girl the criminal and not the forwarders?
- adamnemecek 8y ago
  How is this different from of this were done in the real world?
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    Wow that's a good point actually. I guess they cant prove that you said what you said verbally in person, but can prove it electronically
    - adamnemecek 8y ago
      That's a good point. However if that were provable would this be punishable?
      - DanBC 8y ago
        If it's a pattern of unwanted behaviour it might meet the threshold for harassment. In the UK this would be words of advice from police to stop, followed by a court order to stop, followed by punishment for disobeying the court order. In reality victims of harassment spend years trying to get it to stop so in the example given almost nothing would happen. If there's anything untrue and damaging to his reputation the defamation laws are available, if he can afford to take it through court.
- JeremyBanks 8y ago
  Why not both?
- Bud 8y ago
  We don't actually know that the girl would be found to be a criminal. This is a very carefully constructed test case by the author, designed to attack the law.
  - finnthehuman 8y ago
    >This is a very carefully constructed test case by the author, designed to attack the law. As it should be in the context of discussing laws. If legislation can't stand up to the light level of scrutiny that comes from spit-balling hypotheticals to test for unintended consequences, then the law is poorly drafted.
extralego 8y ago
The article, including the title, is not in favor of the legislation. I personally am in favor of it, but I also think it’s complicated. I was bullied growing up, but in real life. I do have a hard time imagining what it’s cyberbullying is like. I am familiar with online-mob behavior, though. If anyone has a link on what it’s like, please share. The law has a low ceiling on what it can do about bullying. As long as our society lacks the social/cultural nuance to identify instead of reward so many forms of bullying, we can expect it to continue. Due to the difficulty of identifying bullying behaviors (reaction over prevention) and the environment enforcing them, laws like this often punish the bullied more than the bully.
woodruffw 8y ago
Because it's "reason," an online libertarian "thinkpiece." This is the ideal story for them: it involves regulation (a priori bad), and it's regulation concerning speech directed at minors (perfect for painting anybody left of them as illiberal). Note that it's already illegal to harass people, and NY already has anti-bullying laws for minors[1]. This new law is the legal extension of existing protections into a domain that minors already inhabit. In other words, this law brings existing protections into the 21st century. Note, also, that the standard for prosecution under this new law is precise: the minor's status as a minor must be known by the harasser, and the harassment must be part of a repeated course of action. Volokh's examples (except for maybe the first) conveniently gloss over these conditions. His third, fourth, and fifth examples also conveniently muddle the legal process: nobody is a criminal until convicted, and the fact that any group of people "can be prosecuted" is not any sort of evidence of either guilt or innocence. [1]: https://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/new-york/index.html https://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/new-york/index.html
- true_religion 8y ago
  I don't understand why existing protections must be brought into the 21st century. Was it not already illegal to harass minors, regardless of how you do it? Were people able to say 'Oh, I only wrote words about it, and didn't verbalize it so it doesn't count'?
  - woodruffw 8y ago
    It was already illegal, but poorly scoped. We now know how effective of a medium the internet can be for harassment, and our legislation should reflect that. Mechanically, this sort of legislation is no different from proposed modernizations of things like the CFAA.

Why is "abuse" in scare quotes?

by s_kilk 8y ago

Why is "abuse" in scare quotes?

tomp 8y ago

Read the article

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jstalin 8y ago

It’s a legal method of quoting terms of art.

dragonwriter 8y ago
No, it's not, its rhetorical device to indicate that the law calls things “verbal” and “abuse” but the author disagrees with the characterization.

colejohnson66 8y ago

Probably because > A 16-year-old girl is cheated on by her 17-year-old boyfriend. She's angry, so she sends several e-mails to her girlfriends disclosing this and calling him names. One of them forwards it to someone who then forwards it to the ex-boyfriend. The boyfriend feels humiliated. That's a crime on the girls' part: She engaged in "repeated" "verbal" "abuse" using "any form of electronic communication," and this "would reasonably be expected to cause ... emotional harm" to the ex-boyfriend, and makes him feel like school is a "hostile environment" (since everyone now knows his misconduct). The girl is a criminal. Why is the girl the criminal and not the forwarders?

adamnemecek 8y ago
How is this different from of this were done in the real world?
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  Wow that's a good point actually. I guess they cant prove that you said what you said verbally in person, but can prove it electronically
  - adamnemecek 8y ago
    That's a good point. However if that were provable would this be punishable?
    - DanBC 8y ago
      If it's a pattern of unwanted behaviour it might meet the threshold for harassment. In the UK this would be words of advice from police to stop, followed by a court order to stop, followed by punishment for disobeying the court order. In reality victims of harassment spend years trying to get it to stop so in the example given almost nothing would happen. If there's anything untrue and damaging to his reputation the defamation laws are available, if he can afford to take it through court.
JeremyBanks 8y ago
Why not both?
Bud 8y ago
We don't actually know that the girl would be found to be a criminal. This is a very carefully constructed test case by the author, designed to attack the law.
- finnthehuman 8y ago
  >This is a very carefully constructed test case by the author, designed to attack the law. As it should be in the context of discussing laws. If legislation can't stand up to the light level of scrutiny that comes from spit-balling hypotheticals to test for unintended consequences, then the law is poorly drafted.

extralego 8y ago

The article, including the title, is not in favor of the legislation. I personally am in favor of it, but I also think it’s complicated. I was bullied growing up, but in real life. I do have a hard time imagining what it’s cyberbullying is like. I am familiar with online-mob behavior, though. If anyone has a link on what it’s like, please share. The law has a low ceiling on what it can do about bullying. As long as our society lacks the social/cultural nuance to identify instead of reward so many forms of bullying, we can expect it to continue. Due to the difficulty of identifying bullying behaviors (reaction over prevention) and the environment enforcing them, laws like this often punish the bullied more than the bully.

woodruffw 8y ago

Because it's "reason," an online libertarian "thinkpiece." This is the ideal story for them: it involves regulation (a priori bad), and it's regulation concerning speech directed at minors (perfect for painting anybody left of them as illiberal). Note that it's already illegal to harass people, and NY already has anti-bullying laws for minors[1]. This new law is the legal extension of existing protections into a domain that minors already inhabit. In other words, this law brings existing protections into the 21st century. Note, also, that the standard for prosecution under this new law is precise: the minor's status as a minor must be known by the harasser, and the harassment must be part of a repeated course of action. Volokh's examples (except for maybe the first) conveniently gloss over these conditions. His third, fourth, and fifth examples also conveniently muddle the legal process: nobody is a criminal until convicted, and the fact that any group of people "can be prosecuted" is not any sort of evidence of either guilt or innocence. [1]: https://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/new-york/index.html https://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/new-york/index.html

true_religion 8y ago
I don't understand why existing protections must be brought into the 21st century. Was it not already illegal to harass minors, regardless of how you do it? Were people able to say 'Oh, I only wrote words about it, and didn't verbalize it so it doesn't count'?
- woodruffw 8y ago
  It was already illegal, but poorly scoped. We now know how effective of a medium the internet can be for harassment, and our legislation should reflect that. Mechanically, this sort of legislation is no different from proposed modernizations of things like the CFAA.