The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Cyber-Bullying Law OK for Protecting Minors; Unconstitutional If Speech Bullies Adults

Posted on July 10, 2015 by Larry Bodine
Conviction upheld under NC law prohibiting cyber-bullying against minors.

Conviction upheld under NC law prohibiting cyber-bullying against minors.

A North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a guilty verdict against a 19-year-old student for posting hateful social media post targeting a classmate, violating North Carolina’s Cyber-bullying law.

The court also ruled that cyber-bullying law N.C. Gen. Stat. §14-458.1, passed in 2009, is constitutional and does not limit freedom of speech rights.

In the first jury trial under the cyber-bullying law, Robert Bishop of Walking Stick Lane, Liberty, was placed on probation for 48 months and ordered not to be on Facebook and other social media sites for one year.

Bishop, along with other students, posted derogatory and hateful messages and manipulated photos about another student, Dillion Price.  Other students in the case were found guilty and received probation.

Illegal intent to intimidate minor

See also: Parents Liable for Son’s Facebook Page that Bullied Classmate

Bishop appealed the conviction on grounds that the cyber-bullying law is over broad and criminalizes speech protected by the First Amendment.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the cyber-bulling law is “not directed at prohibiting the communication of thoughts or ideas via the internet,” and that the content of Bishop’s Facebook posts is not what violated the law.  Instead, the “intentional and specific conduct” of using the posts to “intimidate or torment” the minor student is prohibited by the cyber-bullying law.

The court made a distinction between North Carolina’s cyber-bullying laws and other state’s laws that have not been constitutional.  Its law specifically pertains to minors and prohibits the use of online networks to post “private, personal or sexual information pertaining to a minor” with “the intent to intimidate or torment a minor.”

Laws that have been overbroad in restricting online speech have been found to violate free speech rights.  The New York Court of Appeals ruled in 2014 that an Albany County cyber-bullying law was too broad and vague and would have applied to any communication aimed at adults, corporations or other entities, not just minors.

Supreme Court reverses Facebook threat conviction

The Supreme Court has also weighed in, in a separate case.  The Court reversed a Pennsylvania’s man conviction under a federal threat statute for making threatening comments and posts on Facebook and social networking websites against his estranged wife, co-workers, and an FBI agent.

Anthony Douglas Elonis picked up a Facebook pseudonym “Tone Dougie” and posted rap lyrics he called “therapeutic” and inspired by the rapper Eminem, according to court documents.  The lyrics included “graphically violent language and imagery” including threats to kill his estranged wife, prompting her to obtain a restraining order against him.

First Amendment speech not addressed

Elonis also, in the form of rap lyrics, made threats to “initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined” and to “slit her throat” referencing the FBI agent who was monitoring his online activity.  Interspersed in his posts, Elonis added disclaimers that the lyrics were fictitious and that he was exercising his First Amendment rights.

The Court however, did not find it “necessary to consider any First Amendment issues” and instead ruled on criminal law procedures, requiring that a mental state requirement must be applied proving that Elonis intended to communicate a threat, not just that he intended to make the communication.

“[W]rongdoing must be conscious to be criminal” and a mental state of negligence would not suffice for criminal liability.  The Court reversed and remanded the case stating “Elonis’s conviction cannot stand.”

 

The case is Elonis v. United States, Case No. 13-983 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

Posted in Blog, Personal Injury

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.