Legal Commentary

Here's a new cyberbullying case with truly atrocious facts.  It is called D.C. v. RR and was decided by a California Court of Appeal.  It involves a 15-year-old who received harassing comments on a website he maintained to promote his entertainment career.  The defendant filed a motion to strike, contending the action was a SLAPP suit.  The court affirmed the denial of the motion because the defendant did not demonstrate that his message was made in connection with a "public issue."  One part of the court's reasoning in this regard is troubling because the court rejects the argument that comments responding to a website promoting a celebrity's entertainment career are a matter of public interest, but any broad language in the case can probably be attributed to its admittedly egregious facts.  This facet of the opinion, and more, are worthy of further exploration in a subsequent post.  For now, however, I'd like to point out a fascinating, and somewhat chilling, feature of the case.  I find it especially chilling because I'm the mother of three young sons, one of whom is just entering puberty.  The defendant, R.R., explains his motive for posting a hateful comment as follows:

?. . . That afternoon, I was in a playful mood and I decided to add my own message to the Internet graffiti contest that was apparently going on. I posted a message which stated: ?Hey [D.C.], I want to rip out your fucking heart and feed it to you. I heard your song while driving my kid to school and from that moment on I?ve . . . wanted to kill you. If I ever see you I?m . . . going to pound your head in with an ice pick. Fuck you, you dick-riding penis lover. I hope you burn in hell.?

?. . . My motivations in sending this email had nothing to do with any perception of [D.C.?s] sexual orientation, and certainly did not reflect an intention to do him physical harm. As set forth above, I had no personal knowledge or belief about [D.C.?s] sexual orientation. No one ever told me he was gay, and I had no thoughts on the subject matter. My message is fanciful, hyperbolic, jocular, and taunting and was motivated by [D.C.?s] pompous, self aggrandizing, and narcissistic website ? not his sexual orientation. My only other motivation, a bit more pathological, was to win the one-upmanship contest that was tacitly taking place between the message posters. Everything about the message is fanciful. I assumed that any rational person would understand that I was just inarticulately and offensively saying, ?I am repulsed by your self promotional style.? I certainly did not think anyone would believe that they could eat their own heart after it was taken from their body. I assumed that a 10 year old child would understand that you would be dead if your heart was removed. I obviously didn?t have school age children and I had never listened to any of [D.C.?s] songs. Paradoxically, my message states that my motivation was a hatred of [D.C.?s] song, not his sexual orientation, i.e., my message itself . . . belies the allegation in the complaint.

?. . . The complaint alleges that my motivation was my perception that [D.C.?s] sexual orientation was gay. As set forth above, I had no opinion regarding [D.C.?s] sexual orientation. More importantly, I wouldn?t care less if he was gay. I have no animosity towards gays, and . . . even if I thought [D.C.] was gay, it couldn?t be a basis for any hatred or threat. . . . [O]ne of my favorite relatives is openly homosexual and I have been quite vociferous in defending this relative from fundamentalist views that characterize homosexuality as a disease. In fact, one [of] my good friends at school is a member of the Gay-Straight Alliance. I have made my views clear that I think this student?s involvement is ?cool.? Likewise, I have walked side by side with gay couples in the AIDS walk, supporting their position, and I have worked through a church at a soup kitchen for AIDS patients, many of whom are gay. . . . I am not homophobic and the basis of my conduct was childishness and some repulsion to [D.C.?s] grandiose style ? not his sexual orientation.

?. . . The next day after the offensive postings, at school, I heard students talking about the posts. The students expressed the view that the posts were a funny gag. No one took the posts seriously as a death threat or an accusation of homosexuality. The posts were treated as a goof. I did not participate in these conversations because I was ashamed of my participation. In retrospect, my conduct felt infantile, immature, and was beneath me. I felt ashamed that I would allow the desire for peer approval, ?peer pressure,? to induce me into acting like an idiot.