Justices: MySpace use not harassment

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A teenager's use of the social networking site didn't rise to the level of harassment because her expletive-laden postings criticizing her principal about school policy weren't available to everyone online, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled.

In a unanimous ruling late Tuesday afternoon, the state's five justices agreed to reverse a lower court's decision in A.B. v. State of Indiana, No. 67S01-0709-JV-373.

While the case presented justices with a chance to explore free speech rights as they pertain to online activity in the 21st century - largely whether online postings at a social networking site are considered protected speech - the court sidestepped that underlying issue by the fact that the site used in this case wasn't completely open to public viewing.

The case stems from a February 2006 incident involving Greencastle Middle School and its principal, Shawn Gobert. He discovered a MySpace page online supposedly created by him, but since it was set to "private" and only designated "friends" could see or post comments, Gobert obtained another student's information and was able to log on to read the posts.

A 14-year-old referred to in court documents as A.B. hadn't created the page, but she'd posted derogatory comments online concerning the school's policy on body piercing. Another post read, "die ... Gobert ... die." She also created a separate publicly accessible page on MySpace with a profane name.

The state filed a delinquency petition and alleged the juvenile's acts would have amounted to harassment, identity deception, and identity theft, if committed by an adult. Most charges were dropped, but the juvenile court determined A.B. was a delinquent child and placed her on nine months of probation, ruling that the comments alone were obscene.

In April 2007, the Indiana Court of Appeals ordered the lower court to set aside its penalty against A.B. because it said Putnam Circuit Judge Matthew Headley's decision had violated the girl's free-speech rights. The Supreme Court disagreed with that rationale and instead overruled the trial court because it found the state had failed to prove that the girl's post constituted harassment.

Analyzing the difference between "public" and "private" pages on MySpace, the court determined that the postings on this "private" page were not intended to be viewed by Gobert. Another posting on a public "group" page, though, indicates A.B.'s "legitimate communication of her anger and criticism of the disciplinary action of Mr. Gobert and the Greencastle Middle School against her friend, the creator of the private profile," the opinion stated. The court determined that it also made the state unable to prove its case that her posting included an "intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person but with no intent of legitimate communication," as required by statute.

"We also observe that it is even more plausible that A.B., then 14-years-old, merely intended to amuse and gain approval or notoriety from her friends, and/or to generally vent anger for her personal grievances," Justice Brent Dickson wrote. "We find no evidence or reasonable inferences sufficient to prove A.B., in making the MySpace statements with which she was charged, did so with the requisite statutory intent."

An interesting element of the ruling also included a comment at the beginning that pointed out how little evidence was presented about the operation and use of The court noted that a judicial canon prohibits judges from independently investigating facts of a case and requires them to only look at the evidence presented.

"Notwithstanding this directive, in order to facilitate understanding of the facts and application of relevant legal principles, this opinion includes information regarding the operation and use of MySpace from identified sources outside the trial record of this case," Justice Dickson wrote.

The case then cites information from the site itself, last visited on March 31.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?