5 ms·

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

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.

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.