

Teen arrested for ranking looks of classmates on Facebook. - d0ne
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/05/teenager-arrested-for-ranking-female-classmates-looks-in-facebook-list.html

======
blhack
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.

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

------
f1gm3nt
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.

~~~
tzs
If you draw some line and say "we are only going to work on crimes more
serious than this", you are in effect saying that anyone is free to do the
crimes that don't make the cut.

That would be a pretty crappy society in which to live. It's much better to
devote some effort to the less serious crimes too. The more serious ones
should be the priority.

~~~
mentat
No, it would be a great society in which to live because you'd have a
reasonable number of crimes and you'd have a fair chance of knowing if you
were committing them. As it stands now there are an indeterminate amount of
crimes specified in such a way that if you upset someone representing the
state they will find one to apply to you.

~~~
Yzupnick
Something Ayn Rand predicted.

------
bfung
<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.

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

~~~
hugh3
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
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
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
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?

------
tokenadult
The linked Chicago Tribune report

[http://triblocal.com/oak-park-river-
forest/2011/05/10/studen...](http://triblocal.com/oak-park-river-
forest/2011/05/10/student-arrested-in-flap-over-list-ranking-high-school-
girls/)

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.

~~~
VladRussian
>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
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
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-f637-52...](http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/article_5eb6b458-f637-527a-b84d-a256c511693e.html)

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

~~~
nevinera
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.

------
CWuestefeld
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
What's the difference between a person handing out printed pages and a server
handing out data?

~~~
MartinCron
I think the key is actually the difference between a person handing out
printed pages and a person handing out printed pages _at school_.

------
Groxx
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.

~~~
DavidSJ
Hate speech is constitutionally protected in the United States.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul>

~~~
Groxx
> _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>

Meanwhile, we have successful cases for harassment. Are you arguing that
verbal harassment is constitutionally protected?

~~~
DavidSJ
_Are you arguing that verbal harassment is constitutionally protected?_

No, but hot-or-not with a little bit of racial innuendo doesn't sound like
harassment to me. It just sounds offensive.

The comment I was replying to took the position that it "makes sense" to
arrest American citizens for "disorderly conduct" simply because they engaged
in offensive hate speech.

