Teen Arrested for Home-Made "Hot or Not" List on Facebook

[JDKJ]

You're free to write and distribute whatever you want. If people are offended, they just have to ignore you. You can't be arrested for expressing yourself or insulting someone, it's just stupid (even if your distributed opinion is). Also, US laws are the most stupid, fascist thing I've ever seen. IN MOST COUNTRIES PEOPLE UNDER 18 CAN'T BE ARRESTED OR PUT IN COURT FOR ANYTHING BUT MURDER. Makes sense. This doesn't. Seriously, US laws make no sense wahtsoever. They HAVE to let him go. NOW.

Tell me you're not in Argentina where more than 30,000 people were arrested under military rule during the 1970s and then simply "disappeared." Poof! Gone! Never seen again. Please tell me you aren't Argentinian. And stop me from rolling around on the ground, killing myself with laughter.

 

[Frikasee]

Wow. How 'bout the government takes care of actual crimes instead of this crap? The way I see it, if someone does something socially offensive like this, handle it yourselves. Expel him, shun him, hell, slap him in the face, but don't get the cops involved in the pettiest of our daily issues. Bunch of cry babies get there feelings hurt and they call big brother. Enjoy having cameras put in your houses....

 

[Torrasque]

Wow. That's about the most pure, douchiest thing I've ever seen. I'm disgusted, yet undeniably impressed at this douchebaggery.

This.
I'm impressed at how much of a cuntbag this kid is.
Why he got expelled is of no surprise, but why the police had to step in is rather strange to me.
Will someone call the cops when 2 guys play roshambo and one guy gets nutted so hard he passes out?

 

[zeldagirl]

You're slightly mis-stating my point. A woman achieves her own status via her sexuality through good judgement and restraint. In other words, predominantly through her own actions. A man achieves status via his sexuality entirely via the choice of others. Namely, women. Thus the power to grant and achieve status through sexuality for both genders lies in the hands of women. Male virgins of a certain age receive just as much ridicule, if not more, than "sluts". Because after all, what sort of man reaches (insert age here) without getting at least one woman to agree to sleep with him?

I apologize for misunderstanding. Now that I do, I have to say - I still disagree. You are given women far too much credit, and placing an agency on them over which they have no control. Your argument that women, in choosing their sexual partner, does not feel empowered in "raising" his social status, so to speak. His social status, based on his sexual partners, is entirely determined by men - MEN deem whether or not his partner is an acceptable one to sleep with. Men rate the women they sleep with as being acceptable or not. Really, that power does not lie with the woman's sexuality. A woman whom a man wants to sleep with has *temporary* power over that individual, but not in a way that gives her real agency - after all, if him sleeping with her will give him social status by making him look cool, he has the most to lose, but he's also the only one to really gain anything. And that's not real empowerment for women - only some women will have that opportunity, but again, that isn't her power.

In a sense, your argument almost works, if the man achieves his status through others - but the 'others' aren't women. They are other men.


(Also, I maintain you misjudge women's power over their own sexual choices - there is not as much control as you would claim there is.)

Your notion of men being hoisted upon the shoulders of society for multiple sexual conquests is a bit dated. Similar to the way that drunks used to be perceived as humorous, but are now considered sad, "man whores" are no longer looked upon as venerable, but as humorous charicatures. Please see Barney from "How I Met Your Mother". The portrayal of the "ladies man" as a buffoon is a regular occurrence now, and stands in starks contrast to the relatively aloof sophistication of Samantha from "Sex in the City".

I truthfully would really love to understand why this is dated - all those examples you mentioned are things I see glorified on a day to day basis. I seriously interact with people like this every. Single. Day.

As for Barney, he's a mixture of buffoon and extremely likeable character. But someone like, say, Charlie Sheen and the entire premise of Two-and-a-half men DOES follow the formula of someone who boozes and sleeps around. And it (was) the most popular show on TV, and not because people thought it was a satire...

I've never seen a feminist argument against double standards that are inarguably beneficial to women. Child custody rights, rights to alimony, maternity vs paternity leave (there are others, but these come immediately to mind): These are rarely, if ever, brought to the fore by those who claim to be feminists.

I understand that human nature is inherently selfish, but the name gives it away. Feminism. Arguing against the double standards that stand in women's way while remaining silent about the double standards that are to women's benefit is not a fight for equitable treatment. It's just a fight for women. That's okay, but don't try to turn the movement into something that it's not.

You're projecting a lot here. Mainly because it's impossible to make a blanket feminist argument on topics such as child custody rights because those are something that should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Again, I'm sorry that you perceive feminists as not standing up for double standards that may affect men instead of women, but I know that for many of us, that is not the case. Many acknowledge that sexism against females HURTS MEN TOO. I totally buy into your assertiveness agreement above - men have unfair double standards placed upon them too. But you shouldn't fight WOMEN on those topics - ultimately, that's born out of sexism, and as I've harped already in this topic, I am more than willing to work with male allies to make gender relations better for everyone. I'm sorry, but you seem to hell-bent on representing feminists as out for themselves - while it may be true for the vocal minority, it's not true for the majority of us that work actively for equitable treatment for all.

 

[vikeif]

This is the stupidest thing in the world. Arresting someone for things they posted? What a great use of money and time. Since when is talking trash about people a serious offense? I am amazed that they actually arrested him, I should be in jail as well then.

This.

This whole debacle is fucking ridiculous. The kid was an idiot yes, but that's not grounds to arrest him. Hell, if what he did was a legally punishable offense, we'd all be in prison for the entirety of our lives. This is just plain stupidity, and a complete waste of time and money.

yes, arresting a highschool **** for slander is far uncivil, I say we beat him to death with rocks. Honestly, do none of you really think this shit wasn't getting beat on a daily basis? I bet he welcome a cell away from it.

 

[JDKJ]

You're slightly mis-stating my point. A woman achieves her own status via her sexuality through good judgement and restraint. In other words, predominantly through her own actions. A man achieves status via his sexuality entirely via the choice of others. Namely, women. Thus the power to grant and achieve status through sexuality for both genders lies in the hands of women. Male virgins of a certain age receive just as much ridicule, if not more, than "sluts". Because after all, what sort of man reaches (insert age here) without getting at least one woman to agree to sleep with him?

I apologize for misunderstanding. Now that I do, I have to say - I still disagree. You are given women far too much credit, and placing an agency on them over which they have no control. Your argument that women, in choosing their sexual partner, does not feel empowered in "raising" his social status, so to speak. His social status, based on his sexual partners, is entirely determined by men - MEN deem whether or not his partner is an acceptable one to sleep with. Men rate the women they sleep with as being acceptable or not. Really, that power does not lie with the woman's sexuality. A woman whom a man wants to sleep with has *temporary* power over that individual, but not in a way that gives her real agency - after all, if him sleeping with her will give him social status by making him look cool, he has the most to lose, but he's also the only one to really gain anything. And that's not real empowerment for women - only some women will have that opportunity, but again, that isn't her power.

In a sense, your argument almost works, if the man achieves his status through others - but the 'others' aren't women. They are other men.


(Also, I maintain you misjudge women's power over their own sexual choices - there is not as much control as you would claim there is.)

Your notion of men being hoisted upon the shoulders of society for multiple sexual conquests is a bit dated. Similar to the way that drunks used to be perceived as humorous, but are now considered sad, "man whores" are no longer looked upon as venerable, but as humorous charicatures. Please see Barney from "How I Met Your Mother". The portrayal of the "ladies man" as a buffoon is a regular occurrence now, and stands in starks contrast to the relatively aloof sophistication of Samantha from "Sex in the City".

I truthfully would really love to understand why this is dated - all those examples you mentioned are things I see glorified on a day to day basis. I seriously interact with people like this every. Single. Day.

As for Barney, he's a mixture of buffoon and extremely likeable character. But someone like, say, Charlie Sheen and the entire premise of Two-and-a-half men DOES follow the formula of someone who boozes and sleeps around. And it (was) the most popular show on TV, and not because people thought it was a satire...

I've never seen a feminist argument against double standards that are inarguably beneficial to women. Child custody rights, rights to alimony, maternity vs paternity leave (there are others, but these come immediately to mind): These are rarely, if ever, brought to the fore by those who claim to be feminists.

I understand that human nature is inherently selfish, but the name gives it away. Feminism. Arguing against the double standards that stand in women's way while remaining silent about the double standards that are to women's benefit is not a fight for equitable treatment. It's just a fight for women. That's okay, but don't try to turn the movement into something that it's not.

You're projecting a lot here. Mainly because it's impossible to make a blanket feminist argument on topics such as child custody rights because those are something that should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Again, I'm sorry that you perceive feminists as not standing up for double standards that may affect men instead of women, but I know that for many of us, that is not the case. Many acknowledge that sexism against females HURTS MEN TOO. I totally buy into your assertiveness agreement above - men have unfair double standards placed upon them too. But you shouldn't fight WOMEN on those topics - ultimately, that's born out of sexism, and as I've harped already in this topic, I am more than willing to work with male allies to make gender relations better for everyone. I'm sorry, but you seem to hell-bent on representing feminists as out for themselves - while it may be true for the vocal minority, it's not true for the majority of us that work actively for equitable treatment for all.

Mail-order brides. The only way to go. Then all this "battle of the sexes" never has to occur.

 

[Nurb]

And on a different note: is it just me, or is there a shit-ton of sexism on this forum?

Yes, there is a shit-ton of sexism on this forum.

It only became apparent to me relatively recently, but it's absolutely appalling and to be perfectly frank, I don't feel all that welcome around here these days.

As a woman, I've got to say that I agree. I've been seriously appalled the last few months at some of the opinions here, particularly the last round of sexism over the "Slut Walks" which were protests over the double standards applied to women and sex. Most of the arguments boiled down to "women should be free to dress how they want without having to worry about rape" versus "women who dress like sluts deserve what they get". I've been avoiding the Escapist lately because I just don't feel welcome here anymore.

Oh god, absolutely. I was in that thread too and it began to make me physically nauseous after a while. So much bigotry, blindness, double standards and ignorance. Some time before that there was also a thread about feminism which got pretty ugly.

It's really sad that you've been avoiding these forums because of it, but I can't say I blame you. I guess there's just a lot of entrenched male privilege around these parts.

Just an aside: I'm a woman too. But it's not only women that are aware of the sexism here; I've seen some men getting equally spitting mad about it.

Same. The threads relating to women in games, military, or feminism in general around here tend to make me feel a bit ill when I read through them. I was surprised to see so many negative views about females shared by such a large part of this gaming community, never really experienced that before outside of the games themselves. Makes you feel a bit less welcome at times.

Being critical of women is not anti-woman or woman hating. Though some comments are nasty yes.

 

[vikeif]

You're slightly mis-stating my point. A woman achieves her own status via her sexuality through good judgement and restraint. In other words, predominantly through her own actions. A man achieves status via his sexuality entirely via the choice of others. Namely, women. Thus the power to grant and achieve status through sexuality for both genders lies in the hands of women. Male virgins of a certain age receive just as much ridicule, if not more, than "sluts". Because after all, what sort of man reaches (insert age here) without getting at least one woman to agree to sleep with him?

I apologize for misunderstanding. Now that I do, I have to say - I still disagree. You are given women far too much credit, and placing an agency on them over which they have no control. Your argument that women, in choosing their sexual partner, does not feel empowered in "raising" his social status, so to speak. His social status, based on his sexual partners, is entirely determined by men - MEN deem whether or not his partner is an acceptable one to sleep with. Men rate the women they sleep with as being acceptable or not. Really, that power does not lie with the woman's sexuality. A woman whom a man wants to sleep with has *temporary* power over that individual, but not in a way that gives her real agency - after all, if him sleeping with her will give him social status by making him look cool, he has the most to lose, but he's also the only one to really gain anything. And that's not real empowerment for women - only some women will have that opportunity, but again, that isn't her power.

In a sense, your argument almost works, if the man achieves his status through others - but the 'others' aren't women. They are other men.


(Also, I maintain you misjudge women's power over their own sexual choices - there is not as much control as you would claim there is.)

Your notion of men being hoisted upon the shoulders of society for multiple sexual conquests is a bit dated. Similar to the way that drunks used to be perceived as humorous, but are now considered sad, "man whores" are no longer looked upon as venerable, but as humorous charicatures. Please see Barney from "How I Met Your Mother". The portrayal of the "ladies man" as a buffoon is a regular occurrence now, and stands in starks contrast to the relatively aloof sophistication of Samantha from "Sex in the City".

I truthfully would really love to understand why this is dated - all those examples you mentioned are things I see glorified on a day to day basis. I seriously interact with people like this every. Single. Day.

As for Barney, he's a mixture of buffoon and extremely likeable character. But someone like, say, Charlie Sheen and the entire premise of Two-and-a-half men DOES follow the formula of someone who boozes and sleeps around. And it (was) the most popular show on TV, and not because people thought it was a satire...

I've never seen a feminist argument against double standards that are inarguably beneficial to women. Child custody rights, rights to alimony, maternity vs paternity leave (there are others, but these come immediately to mind): These are rarely, if ever, brought to the fore by those who claim to be feminists.

I understand that human nature is inherently selfish, but the name gives it away. Feminism. Arguing against the double standards that stand in women's way while remaining silent about the double standards that are to women's benefit is not a fight for equitable treatment. It's just a fight for women. That's okay, but don't try to turn the movement into something that it's not.

You're projecting a lot here. Mainly because it's impossible to make a blanket feminist argument on topics such as child custody rights because those are something that should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Again, I'm sorry that you perceive feminists as not standing up for double standards that may affect men instead of women, but I know that for many of us, that is not the case. Many acknowledge that sexism against females HURTS MEN TOO. I totally buy into your assertiveness agreement above - men have unfair double standards placed upon them too. But you shouldn't fight WOMEN on those topics - ultimately, that's born out of sexism, and as I've harped already in this topic, I am more than willing to work with male allies to make gender relations better for everyone. I'm sorry, but you seem to hell-bent on representing feminists as out for themselves - while it may be true for the vocal minority, it's not true for the majority of us that work actively for equitable treatment for all.

Why does it come to feminism, kid broke laws, (sexual harrasment, public slander, passing pornographic material to minors under 18. I could be wrong on the last one) he got arrested and he's being charged as a juvenile in court. God people can make anything more than it needs to be. I remember a time when we would just beat this kid and linch him for this. which would happen if he wasn't arrested I'd bet.

 

[zeldagirl]

You're slightly mis-stating my point. A woman achieves her own status via her sexuality through good judgement and restraint. In other words, predominantly through her own actions. A man achieves status via his sexuality entirely via the choice of others. Namely, women. Thus the power to grant and achieve status through sexuality for both genders lies in the hands of women. Male virgins of a certain age receive just as much ridicule, if not more, than "sluts". Because after all, what sort of man reaches (insert age here) without getting at least one woman to agree to sleep with him?

I apologize for misunderstanding. Now that I do, I have to say - I still disagree. You are given women far too much credit, and placing an agency on them over which they have no control. Your argument that women, in choosing their sexual partner, does not feel empowered in "raising" his social status, so to speak. His social status, based on his sexual partners, is entirely determined by men - MEN deem whether or not his partner is an acceptable one to sleep with. Men rate the women they sleep with as being acceptable or not. Really, that power does not lie with the woman's sexuality. A woman whom a man wants to sleep with has *temporary* power over that individual, but not in a way that gives her real agency - after all, if him sleeping with her will give him social status by making him look cool, he has the most to lose, but he's also the only one to really gain anything. And that's not real empowerment for women - only some women will have that opportunity, but again, that isn't her power.

In a sense, your argument almost works, if the man achieves his status through others - but the 'others' aren't women. They are other men.


(Also, I maintain you misjudge women's power over their own sexual choices - there is not as much control as you would claim there is.)

Your notion of men being hoisted upon the shoulders of society for multiple sexual conquests is a bit dated. Similar to the way that drunks used to be perceived as humorous, but are now considered sad, "man whores" are no longer looked upon as venerable, but as humorous charicatures. Please see Barney from "How I Met Your Mother". The portrayal of the "ladies man" as a buffoon is a regular occurrence now, and stands in starks contrast to the relatively aloof sophistication of Samantha from "Sex in the City".

I truthfully would really love to understand why this is dated - all those examples you mentioned are things I see glorified on a day to day basis. I seriously interact with people like this every. Single. Day.

As for Barney, he's a mixture of buffoon and extremely likeable character. But someone like, say, Charlie Sheen and the entire premise of Two-and-a-half men DOES follow the formula of someone who boozes and sleeps around. And it (was) the most popular show on TV, and not because people thought it was a satire...

I've never seen a feminist argument against double standards that are inarguably beneficial to women. Child custody rights, rights to alimony, maternity vs paternity leave (there are others, but these come immediately to mind): These are rarely, if ever, brought to the fore by those who claim to be feminists.

I understand that human nature is inherently selfish, but the name gives it away. Feminism. Arguing against the double standards that stand in women's way while remaining silent about the double standards that are to women's benefit is not a fight for equitable treatment. It's just a fight for women. That's okay, but don't try to turn the movement into something that it's not.

You're projecting a lot here. Mainly because it's impossible to make a blanket feminist argument on topics such as child custody rights because those are something that should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Again, I'm sorry that you perceive feminists as not standing up for double standards that may affect men instead of women, but I know that for many of us, that is not the case. Many acknowledge that sexism against females HURTS MEN TOO. I totally buy into your assertiveness agreement above - men have unfair double standards placed upon them too. But you shouldn't fight WOMEN on those topics - ultimately, that's born out of sexism, and as I've harped already in this topic, I am more than willing to work with male allies to make gender relations better for everyone. I'm sorry, but you seem to hell-bent on representing feminists as out for themselves - while it may be true for the vocal minority, it's not true for the majority of us that work actively for equitable treatment for all.

Why does it come to feminism, kid broke laws, (sexual harrasment, public slander, passing pornographic material to minors under 18. I could be wrong on the last one) he got arrested and he's being charged as a juvenile in court. God people can make anything more than it needs to be. I remember a time when we would just beat this kid and linch him for this. which would happen if he wasn't arrested I'd bet.

Honestly, I don't quite remember how we got on this topic, but I believe I mentioned something about the use of the word slut to demean and oppress women, and then it devolved into this.


I agree with you. This kid sexually harassed those young girls, and he's being dealt with. That's okay in my book. I hope he learns to not treat other people this way in the future.

 

[Uncreation]

Wait... He is going to prison for that? ... Man, i'm begining to think the human race is getting too stupid to live (or deserve to live). Oh well. I guess we should just learn no to say anything at all, anywhere for fear of something like this happening. (And i though this was the age of communication, silly me.)

PS: good thing i don't really use facebook.

 

[Nurb]

His crime is being a stupid teenage boy not realizing he's in a pop-feminized society that considers hurting girls' feelings a criminal offense and any comment on female sexuality as rape.

That sounds like some paranoid BS to me.

You've obviously never been to a mandatory university "You're all dumb cavemen that need to be taught how not to rape women" presentation that accusess male students of unknowingly perpetuating a "rape culture" without them even realizing it

http://thefire.org/article/12301.html

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

He derserved, not because he posted a "Hot or Not" list about his fellow students, its that fact that he was stupid enough to POST it on facebook.

 

[PhiMed]

I think we're missing the bigger problem here. If you revisit the article, you can see that he also printed off several hundred copies of this list, and handed them out to other students. That is, he was not arrested for an offensive post on facebook, he was arrested for posting on facebook AND spreading this list throughout the campus.

With the numerous rules most high schools have regarding sexual content and anti-bullying, I can understand why he was expelled.

But the main argument here seems to be that he doesn't deserve going to juvenile court. I disagree.

Just because he's going to court doesn't mean they're going to lock him up for weeks or months, nor does it mean that he's going to get a mark on some form that will haunt him to his grave.

If a teen breaks a window, he goes to Juvy. If a teen has an ounce of marijuana on him, he goes to Juvy. If these crimes justify Juvenile Court, I think this case does too.

This guy printed and slandered 50 individuals. Slander is a crime in this country. Usually, high school insults are ignored and dismissed, since I think everyone is guilty of gossip. But considering the number of people involved, and the solid evidence of the facebook post and the hundreds of forms, they pursued legal action.

Most likely he'll just wind up with a small fine, and 20 or 30 hours of community service, which seems appropriate to me.

Where do you live? They send kids to juvenile detention for breaking a window? Wow.

Slander is not a crime in the United States. Slander is a civil offense, which means you cannot be sent to jail for slander. If slander's the best thing you've got, then all they can do is sue him. If you're saying he should be sued and he should lose, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But he can't go to jail for slander, even if it's proven.

But that's beside the point. He was charged with "disorderly conduct", not slander. Disorderly conduct is legalese for "He didn't really violate any laws, but we want to charge him with a crime anyway." This is misappropriation of funds by the District Attorney, I'd almost guarantee we'll find out later that the DA's doing this because of a personal vendetta (hmmm... wonder if one of his relatives was on that list... I'm betting yes), and it just stinks of harassment.

And the reason the cops like to charge disorderly conduct is because they know that they get to cuff you up and give you a free ride in the back of a cruiser with relatively little long-term damage done because most criminal courts will cut you loose with time served on a "nollo" plea the first time your arraigned. As the cops like to tell disorderly conduct arrestees, "You're gonna beat the rap, but you ain't gonna avoid the ride."

Fair enough, but in the circumstances you describe, they are removing someone who is causing "disorder" in order to restore "order" (what constitutes order, of course, being entirely up to the subjective judgement of the officer). It's a law that allows them to remove someone from a public venue if they think they are in danger of causing harm to themselves or someone else without waiting for them to actually break a law.
But in this case, he's already been removed from the situation by expulsion from the school. They arrest him now, 3 months later? Why?

 

[Danny Ocean]

In before all Americans plead the firs- oh, wait.

No, you're getting confused. Being arrested means nothing. Hell, I was warned by the police for firing my BB gun out of the window once. It doesn't matter. Getting the police to tell your kids off is just a very effective parental tool for teaching them that their actions have consequences.

If he goes to jail, I'll change my mind. That'd be way too much.

 

[MasterChief892039]

His crime is being a stupid teenage boy not realizing he's in a pop-feminized society that considers hurting girls' feelings a criminal offense and any comment on female sexuality as rape.

That sounds like some paranoid BS to me.

You've obviously never been to a mandatory university "You're all dumb cavemen that need to be taught how not to rape women" presentation that accusess male students they're unknowingly perpetuating a "rape culture"

http://thefire.org/article/12301.html

You are aware that university is where a lot of people get raped right? People get raped and 99.9% of the time it's men doing it, so why not talk to them about the issue? Or are you one of those people who thinks women are responsible for their own rape and therefore only preventative "don't get yourself raped you silly bint" techniques should be taught?

If we can give lectures to women telling them to always go out in pairs, watch their drinks and not go out on the street at night, then we can give lectures to men educating them on consent laws and negative attitudes towards women and sexuality. Just because you know how to behave yourself doesn't necessarily mean the guy next to you does. Saying "hey, don't rape girls" may hurt your pride, but if I ran a university I'd rather hurt a couple feelings and hopefully prevent a rape than pretend everyone has their shit together and then find out some woman got assaulted.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Being critical of women is not anti-woman or woman hating. Though some comments are nasty yes.

Eh, I did not say that it was. Only that I personally felt uncomfortable at times. Lecture is unneeded.

 

[JDKJ]

I think we're missing the bigger problem here. If you revisit the article, you can see that he also printed off several hundred copies of this list, and handed them out to other students. That is, he was not arrested for an offensive post on facebook, he was arrested for posting on facebook AND spreading this list throughout the campus.

With the numerous rules most high schools have regarding sexual content and anti-bullying, I can understand why he was expelled.

But the main argument here seems to be that he doesn't deserve going to juvenile court. I disagree.

Just because he's going to court doesn't mean they're going to lock him up for weeks or months, nor does it mean that he's going to get a mark on some form that will haunt him to his grave.

If a teen breaks a window, he goes to Juvy. If a teen has an ounce of marijuana on him, he goes to Juvy. If these crimes justify Juvenile Court, I think this case does too.

This guy printed and slandered 50 individuals. Slander is a crime in this country. Usually, high school insults are ignored and dismissed, since I think everyone is guilty of gossip. But considering the number of people involved, and the solid evidence of the facebook post and the hundreds of forms, they pursued legal action.

Most likely he'll just wind up with a small fine, and 20 or 30 hours of community service, which seems appropriate to me.

Where do you live? They send kids to juvenile detention for breaking a window? Wow.

Slander is not a crime in the United States. Slander is a civil offense, which means you cannot be sent to jail for slander. If slander's the best thing you've got, then all they can do is sue him. If you're saying he should be sued and he should lose, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But he can't go to jail for slander, even if it's proven.

But that's beside the point. He was charged with "disorderly conduct", not slander. Disorderly conduct is legalese for "He didn't really violate any laws, but we want to charge him with a crime anyway." This is misappropriation of funds by the District Attorney, I'd almost guarantee we'll find out later that the DA's doing this because of a personal vendetta (hmmm... wonder if one of his relatives was on that list... I'm betting yes), and it just stinks of harassment.

And the reason the cops like to charge disorderly conduct is because they know that they get to cuff you up and give you a free ride in the back of a cruiser with relatively little long-term damage done because most criminal courts will cut you loose with time served on a "nollo" plea the first time your arraigned. As the cops like to tell disorderly conduct arrestees, "You're gonna beat the rap, but you ain't gonna avoid the ride."

Fair enough, but in the circumstances you describe, they are removing someone who is causing "disorder" in order to restore "order" (what constitutes order, of course, being entirely up to the subjective judgement of the officer). It's a law that allows them to remove someone from a public venue if they think they are in danger of causing harm to themselves or someone else without waiting for them to actually break a law.
But in this case, he's already been removed from the situation by expulsion from the school. They arrest him now, 3 months later? Why?

I can't assume to answer that question. But I can tell you that's not what the statute actually provides by its terms. Disorderly conduct is, by the statute, knowingly alarming or disturbing another and causing a breach of the public peace. While I assume that immediate arrest of an offender would tend to more immediately restore public peace, there isn't any argument to be made that arrest removed in time from the offense serves no public good. One of the purposes of any penal section is to punish. But, again, I can't say with any certainty what was the reason for the delayed arrest.

 

[chuckman1]

This is the stupidest thing in the world. Arresting someone for things they posted? What a great use of money and time. Since when is talking trash about people a serious offense? I am amazed that they actually arrested him, I should be in jail as well then.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

Beyond disgusting, yes. Deserving of severe punishment, yes, but criminal? As far as I'm aware, being a gigantic asshole does not count as sexual abuse, then again, I don't know how any of these girls were affected.

In other news, 4chan contributors get away with worse every day. I don't support it, but if we're going to chase this kid, it wouldn't be hard to find people posting on 4chan as many do not hide their IPs.

Just trollsayin'