7 ms·

Teen arrested for ranking looks of classmates on Facebook.

38 points by d0ne 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
CWuestefeld 15y ago
I've got to assume that the headline is wrong; it's not the Facebook page that got him into trouble, but that he passed his list around while at school. I think there's no question that comments on a Facebook page are protected speech.
- yodasan 15y ago
  What's the difference between a person handing out printed pages and a server handing out data?
  - MartinCron 15y ago
    I think the key is actually the difference between a person handing out printed pages and a person handing out printed pages at school.
Wickk 15y ago
While his expulsion is completely expected, arresting him? Really?
- nevinera 15y ago
  A lot of misdemeanor language is intentionally vague, to allow for officer interpretation of the situation. As in every walk of life, some take that liberty further than others. The justice system is designed to handle this sort of misapplication intelligently, it probably won't come to anything.
tokenadult 15y ago
The linked Chicago Tribune report http://triblocal.com/oak-park-river-forest/2011/05/10/student-arrested-in-flap-over-list-ranking-high-school-girls/ http://triblocal.com/oak-park-river-forest/2011/05/10/studen... hardly provides any more detail. What is the basis for the disorderly conduct charge? AFTER EDIT: Thanks for the helpful comments. It sounds like the kid in question might be able to get the charges dismissed, with help from a competent constitutional lawyer.
- hugh3 15y ago
  In Illinois it is, apparently, incredibly vague: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K26-1 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=07... a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly: (1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >What is the basis for the disorderly conduct charge? absence of any other vaguely formulated charge that could have been stretched enough to cover this case. I mean, if the ranking list was factually incorrect, they would bring a libel.
  - pyre 15y ago
    I wasn't aware that libel suits were brought by prosecutors. I though that it was civil law. Or am I mistaking that for slander?
    - VladRussian 15y ago
      depends on the state, while it was repealed years ago in CA, it results in 20 years sentences for some in CO: http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/article_5eb6b458-f637-527a-b84d-a256c511693e.html http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/article_5eb6b458-f637-52...
f1gm3nt 15y ago
So, instead of cracking down drug dealers and gangs they decide to arrest a minor for making a list of how hot/ugly the girls are at his school? Glad to see the police force there is hard at work.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  existence of drug dealers and gangs supports and promotes the police force and power increase. Getting habit of freely expressing your non conformist opinions is a path to subversion of existing power (dis)balance.
  - zzzmarcus 15y ago
    Wow. That is an incredibly insightful, concise (and cynical) comment. Well said.
  - nevinera 15y ago
    Really? You think this is part of a careful long-term plan, motivated by a fundamental characteristic of municipal power structure? I would lean toward 'officer applying vaguely worded rules to make the law behave as he feels it ought to', but yours is certainly easier to get behind. Fuck the man!
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      It doesn't have to be a careful long-term plan. I suspect a lot of "conspiracies" are actually emergent behavior in the system of laws and incentives.
      - nevinera 15y ago
        I'm sure many of them are. But equally many are mere functions of human nature. The long-term impacts of individual actions on the power of the police-force as a whole are both non-obvious and very slow. In particular, I really doubt that the social pressure to empower the institution, transmitted down the chain of command, has more impact on police officers than the violence and abuse they witness first- or second-hand.
DanI-S 15y ago
So, when are they going to arrest the makers of America's Next Top Model?
- hugh3 15y ago
  When the contestants are entered against their will and described using racial slurs? The charge in this case was unreasonable, but on the other hand so was the kid's behaviour. If a TV show did pick on fifty random women from the street and start pointing out the flaws in their appearances then people would be rightfully upset about that too...
  - endtime 15y ago
    Offensive and illegal are distinct concepts. Being offensive isn't against the law - if it were, there are plenty of racial supremacists who are far higher priority arrests than some kid playing Facemash.
    - pyre 15y ago
      I don't see how you and the comment your are responding to are in disagreement. Edit: Since people feel the need to downvote, I'll go into detail... > The charge in this case was unreasonable, but on the other hand so was the > kid's behaviour. Translation: The kid shouldn't have been arrested, but it's also not like he was minding his own business when a bunch of government goons just decided to randomly pick on him either. > If a TV show did pick on fifty random women from the street and start > pointing out the flaws in their appearances then people would be rightfully > upset about that too... Translation: There is a difference between people volunteering themselves to be judged (and possibly trashed) in public, and someone who has not volunteered (and would rather not participate in such a thing). Note that none of these things promotes the idea that offensive and illegal are married concepts.
      - endtime 15y ago
        You conveiently left out half the comment I was replying to. Grandparent said: >So, when are they going to arrest the makers of America's Next Top Model? Parent said: >When the contestants are entered against their will and described using racial slurs?
gigantor 15y ago
Ironic that this concept is identical to the very first implementation of Facebook itself.
Groxx 15y ago
Makes sense, actually. >The list ranked 50 female students and in describing them, rated their body parts and used racial slurs. The teen also is being accused of printing out the list and passing it around during lunch periods at the high school on Jan. 14, the Tribune reported. ie, creating and distributing what amounts to hate-speech. This goes much further than a hot-or-not list, rather definitively landing on the abuse side of the line. Not completely definitively, as I don't know the contents, nor the culture of the area, but it seems to be pretty clear from a legal perspective.
- blake8086 15y ago
  Does the 1st amendment only apply to nice-speech?
  - Groxx 15y ago
    It doesn't apply to slander, which isn't nice-speech. (edit: nor "fighting words": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire )
- DavidSJ 15y ago
  Hate speech is constitutionally protected in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul
  - tokenadult 15y ago
    I was a judicial clerk on the Minnesota Supreme Court when it ruled on that case. If I remember correctly [checking references, I see I do], the United States Supreme Court reversed the Minnesota Supreme Court in that case, being especially zealous to guard federally guaranteed individual rights.
  - Groxx 15y ago
    >Holding The St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was struck down both because it was overbroad, proscribing both "fighting words" and protected speech, and because the regulation was "content-based," proscribing only activities which conveyed messages concerning particular topics. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed. Well yeah. "protected speech" and "[specific] content-based" are good reasons to strike it down. Only defining certain things as offensive enough is just asking to become obsolete and have people toe the line. But note that "fighting words" are specifically not protected, not that it particularly applies to the OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire Meanwhile, we have successful cases for harassment. Are you arguing that verbal harassment is constitutionally protected?
blhack 15y ago
I guess innocence has died with the internet. People have been doing this since the beginning of time. There was a south park episode about "the girls" having a list like this. There was a "Recess" (another cartoon, this one geared towards adolescents) with the same plot. It's a common theme because exactly this behavior has been happening forever. This type of thing is part of childhood. It sucks, and the kid should be ostracized by his peers for it, not locked in a cage. You're not going to be able to legislate social interactions between kids, and you shouldn't be trying. /I was teased relentlessly as a kid. It sucked, but nobody was arrested for it, thank god; we were kids.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
bfung 15y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10AeyTCeZJM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10AeyTCeZJM Mark Zuckerberg: I need you. Eduardo Saverin: I'm here for you. Mark Zuckerberg: No, I need the algorithm you used to rank chess players. Eduardo Saverin: Are you OK? Mark Zuckerberg: We're ranking girls. Some get billions while others get arrested... yeah, I'm being cheeky.

38 points by d0ne 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

I've got to assume that the headline is wrong; it's not the Facebook page that got him into trouble, but that he passed his list around while at school. I think there's no question that comments on a Facebook page are protected speech.

yodasan 15y ago
What's the difference between a person handing out printed pages and a server handing out data?
- MartinCron 15y ago
  I think the key is actually the difference between a person handing out printed pages and a person handing out printed pages at school.

Wickk 15y ago

While his expulsion is completely expected, arresting him? Really?

nevinera 15y ago
A lot of misdemeanor language is intentionally vague, to allow for officer interpretation of the situation. As in every walk of life, some take that liberty further than others. The justice system is designed to handle this sort of misapplication intelligently, it probably won't come to anything.

tokenadult 15y ago

The linked Chicago Tribune report http://triblocal.com/oak-park-river-forest/2011/05/10/student-arrested-in-flap-over-list-ranking-high-school-girls/ http://triblocal.com/oak-park-river-forest/2011/05/10/studen... hardly provides any more detail. What is the basis for the disorderly conduct charge? AFTER EDIT: Thanks for the helpful comments. It sounds like the kid in question might be able to get the charges dismissed, with help from a competent constitutional lawyer.

hugh3 15y ago
In Illinois it is, apparently, incredibly vague: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K26-1 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=07... a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly: (1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace
VladRussian 15y ago
>What is the basis for the disorderly conduct charge? absence of any other vaguely formulated charge that could have been stretched enough to cover this case. I mean, if the ranking list was factually incorrect, they would bring a libel.
- pyre 15y ago
  I wasn't aware that libel suits were brought by prosecutors. I though that it was civil law. Or am I mistaking that for slander?
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    depends on the state, while it was repealed years ago in CA, it results in 20 years sentences for some in CO: http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/article_5eb6b458-f637-527a-b84d-a256c511693e.html http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/article_5eb6b458-f637-52...

f1gm3nt 15y ago

So, instead of cracking down drug dealers and gangs they decide to arrest a minor for making a list of how hot/ugly the girls are at his school? Glad to see the police force there is hard at work.

VladRussian 15y ago
existence of drug dealers and gangs supports and promotes the police force and power increase. Getting habit of freely expressing your non conformist opinions is a path to subversion of existing power (dis)balance.
- zzzmarcus 15y ago
  Wow. That is an incredibly insightful, concise (and cynical) comment. Well said.
- nevinera 15y ago
  Really? You think this is part of a careful long-term plan, motivated by a fundamental characteristic of municipal power structure? I would lean toward 'officer applying vaguely worded rules to make the law behave as he feels it ought to', but yours is certainly easier to get behind. Fuck the man!
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    It doesn't have to be a careful long-term plan. I suspect a lot of "conspiracies" are actually emergent behavior in the system of laws and incentives.
    - nevinera 15y ago
      I'm sure many of them are. But equally many are mere functions of human nature. The long-term impacts of individual actions on the power of the police-force as a whole are both non-obvious and very slow. In particular, I really doubt that the social pressure to empower the institution, transmitted down the chain of command, has more impact on police officers than the violence and abuse they witness first- or second-hand.

DanI-S 15y ago

So, when are they going to arrest the makers of America's Next Top Model?

hugh3 15y ago
When the contestants are entered against their will and described using racial slurs? The charge in this case was unreasonable, but on the other hand so was the kid's behaviour. If a TV show did pick on fifty random women from the street and start pointing out the flaws in their appearances then people would be rightfully upset about that too...
- endtime 15y ago
  Offensive and illegal are distinct concepts. Being offensive isn't against the law - if it were, there are plenty of racial supremacists who are far higher priority arrests than some kid playing Facemash.
  - pyre 15y ago
    I don't see how you and the comment your are responding to are in disagreement. Edit: Since people feel the need to downvote, I'll go into detail... > The charge in this case was unreasonable, but on the other hand so was the > kid's behaviour. Translation: The kid shouldn't have been arrested, but it's also not like he was minding his own business when a bunch of government goons just decided to randomly pick on him either. > If a TV show did pick on fifty random women from the street and start > pointing out the flaws in their appearances then people would be rightfully > upset about that too... Translation: There is a difference between people volunteering themselves to be judged (and possibly trashed) in public, and someone who has not volunteered (and would rather not participate in such a thing). Note that none of these things promotes the idea that offensive and illegal are married concepts.
    - endtime 15y ago
      You conveiently left out half the comment I was replying to. Grandparent said: >So, when are they going to arrest the makers of America's Next Top Model? Parent said: >When the contestants are entered against their will and described using racial slurs?

gigantor 15y ago

Ironic that this concept is identical to the very first implementation of Facebook itself.

Groxx 15y ago

Makes sense, actually. >The list ranked 50 female students and in describing them, rated their body parts and used racial slurs. The teen also is being accused of printing out the list and passing it around during lunch periods at the high school on Jan. 14, the Tribune reported. ie, creating and distributing what amounts to hate-speech. This goes much further than a hot-or-not list, rather definitively landing on the abuse side of the line. Not completely definitively, as I don't know the contents, nor the culture of the area, but it seems to be pretty clear from a legal perspective.

blake8086 15y ago
Does the 1st amendment only apply to nice-speech?
- Groxx 15y ago
  It doesn't apply to slander, which isn't nice-speech. (edit: nor "fighting words": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire )
DavidSJ 15y ago
Hate speech is constitutionally protected in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul
- tokenadult 15y ago
  I was a judicial clerk on the Minnesota Supreme Court when it ruled on that case. If I remember correctly [checking references, I see I do], the United States Supreme Court reversed the Minnesota Supreme Court in that case, being especially zealous to guard federally guaranteed individual rights.
- Groxx 15y ago
  >Holding The St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was struck down both because it was overbroad, proscribing both "fighting words" and protected speech, and because the regulation was "content-based," proscribing only activities which conveyed messages concerning particular topics. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed. Well yeah. "protected speech" and "[specific] content-based" are good reasons to strike it down. Only defining certain things as offensive enough is just asking to become obsolete and have people toe the line. But note that "fighting words" are specifically not protected, not that it particularly applies to the OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire Meanwhile, we have successful cases for harassment. Are you arguing that verbal harassment is constitutionally protected?

blhack 15y ago

I guess innocence has died with the internet. People have been doing this since the beginning of time. There was a south park episode about "the girls" having a list like this. There was a "Recess" (another cartoon, this one geared towards adolescents) with the same plot. It's a common theme because exactly this behavior has been happening forever. This type of thing is part of childhood. It sucks, and the kid should be ostracized by his peers for it, not locked in a cage. You're not going to be able to legislate social interactions between kids, and you shouldn't be trying. /I was teased relentlessly as a kid. It sucked, but nobody was arrested for it, thank god; we were kids.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

bfung 15y ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10AeyTCeZJM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10AeyTCeZJM Mark Zuckerberg: I need you. Eduardo Saverin: I'm here for you. Mark Zuckerberg: No, I need the algorithm you used to rank chess players. Eduardo Saverin: Are you OK? Mark Zuckerberg: We're ranking girls. Some get billions while others get arrested... yeah, I'm being cheeky.