A while ago I wrote an entry about Megan Meier, a 13 year old girl who was driven to commit suicide by means of a fake MySpace user account.
Megan, Image from CNN
A few minutes ago I read this article which indicates that no one involved in this tragedy will be prosecuted whatsoever.
St. Charles County, Missouri, Prosecuting Attorney Jack Banas said an 18-year-old woman posed as “Josh” on MySpace to find out what Megan was saying about a neighbor’s daughter.
The message said Megan was “mean” to her friends, Banas said.
“There is no way that anybody could know that talking to someone or saying that you’re mean to your friends on the Internet would create a substantial risk,” Banas said. “It certainly created a potential risk and, unfortunately for the Meiers, that potential became reality. But under the law we just couldn’t show that.”
But Banas said that conclusion doesn’t mean no one is to blame. “Regardless of what we can charge or what we can’t charge, there is no question the adults should have said something to stop this,” he said.
Asked whether he is satisfied with laws pertaining to the case, Banas said, “The bottom line is there are some — I think — loopholes that I think need to be cleaned up.”
Obviously this whole incident clearly demonstrates that the laws in this area are in serious need of a massive overhaul. It’s hard for me to fathom how a group of people can psychologically abuse a little girl to the point where she kills herself and somehow get off without even a slap on the wrist.
I sincerely hope that this isn’t entirely over, and that additional efforts will be taken to bring about either prosecution of those involved or changes in the laws that apply (or rather should apply) to a case like this.
did you see the interview with her parents about how they went to talk to the 40 year old woman who posed as the guy who told her the world would be better off without her, that the woman basically told them to get over it?
how fucked up is that? “Yeah, I made your daughter kill herself, get over it.”
i hope that at least some harassment charges can be laid against her, not like she deserves anything less.
That seems to me to be severely minimizing what they did. It wasn’t just “talking” to someone, it was screwing with them mentally and emotionally — someone younger and with less power — and suggesting that “the world would be better off without you” to someone who you’ve just finished screwing with mentally and emotionally. The reality, to me, seems like something that could create a substantial risk. I was 13 once, and I remember how it was.
This is a travesty.
As I a prosecutor in New York, I can tell you that some of the toughest cases you will come across are the ones where a person has clearly done wrong, a severe harm results, but there is no law that affords protection from such behavior. People verbally abuse other people — adults sometimes verbally abuse children — and yet there is no prohibition from doing so. As a general rule, the list of criminal behavior is a narrow one. With some behavior — murder, rape, physical assault — there is no debate. But there is a deep grey area when it comes to bullying, mocking, taunting and the like. Being an idiot or worse is, alone, not a crime. Society, through its legislators, will have to decide whether to criminalize such behavior balancing that with the First Amendment right to free speech. But until such time, don’t blame the prosecutors for being unable to find a crime that fits the behavior. Stating that a person should be charged with “harassment” is one thing. Actually proving that the behavior fits the elements of that crime is another. Though it’s not Minnesota, I can definitively state this behavior would not be covered by the laws of New York prohibiting Harassment. That requires that a person, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm, subject another person to physical contact, or threaten to do the same. That’s not the case here. How can you fault the prosecutors for not charging a crime that doesn’t fit?
This is what we get from all those for-show bully classes. THey all say what to do to try and stop bullying, but very rarely do they ever call anyone on their behaviour and say “this is bullying; this is WRONG.”
[quote comment=”34784″]did you see the interview with her parents about how they went to talk to the 40 year old woman who posed as the guy who told her the world would be better off without her, that the woman basically told them to get over it?
how fucked up is that? “Yeah, I made your daughter kill herself, get over it.”
i hope that at least some harassment charges can be laid against her, not like she deserves anything less.[/quote]
This is a very sad commentary on how our society is evolving. To tell grieving parents to get over the senseless loss of their child? Shame on that woman! Absolutely dispicable and heartless! What if it were her child?
[quote comment=”34788″] But there is a deep grey area when it comes to bullying, mocking, taunting and the like. Being an idiot or worse is, alone, not a crime. Society, through its legislators, will have to decide whether to criminalize such behavior balancing that with the First Amendment right to free speech.
[/quote]
I actually spent a bit of time reading up on the legal aspects of all of this after reading your comment. It seems really clear that a case needs to hit the Supreme Court in this area. It seems many schools are taking it upon themseives to discipline students because they perceive many sites on the internet, in particular sites like MySpace and Facebook, as potential threats against their students (once again, look what happened to Megan).
I read a relatively recent report titled Student Online Expression: What Do the Internet and MySpace Mean for Students’ First Amendment Rights? written by an attorney at the First Amendment Center. To quote a few paragraphs from the conclusion:
Isn’t it a fucked up thing when the laws are working to protect the negligent?
When I first read this story it reminded me of the many stories I have seen on A&E about Cheerleaders’ mothers, and the death and serious harm that has been inflicted upon some daughters’ competition. What gets me reeling is that time and time again we see ADULTS who are apparently supposed to know better than to get mixed up in the overemotional battles of 13 yr. olds fighting for their children in way too intense of a manner. It seems like the mentality all of these women share is one that utilizes the no holds bar approach when it comes to defending their children…the only problem with that is the complete lack of accountability when something like this happens. Its as if they have a total sense of justification in their actions. There is no remorse from these people…they take matters into their own hands and get away with it while their children have to live the rest of their lives under the burden of stigma…all because mommy wanted to teach someone a lesson. The bitch should be put in jail, and I hope that everywhere she goes she is forced to live the shame she deserves.
I am sorry to say but I have lost alot of respect for humanity these days. It sickens me so much to know that this is a constant problem with many children and even many adults. We are supposed to be educated enough to know our actions will affect others, so please will someone explain to me the ignorance and pain we continue to cause one another? It is hard to be positive in a world so damned with people so blind. I am absolutely disgusted and my heart breaks for this young girl. How does one justify this action? We are supposed to protect our children, not throw them to the world alone.
see matt, things would be so much better if you ruled the world…
all in favor of matt good as the new ruler of the world say I;
I!
What a beautiful girl….
[quote comment=”34798″]see matt, things would be so much better if you ruled the world…
all in favor of matt good as the new ruler of the world say I;
I![/quote]
nay
To be absolutely honest, as despicable as it is what these people put that poor girl through, I do not believe that any law should ever prevent people from speaking their mind, whether that thing be offensive and cruel or otherwise ; it is not the governments place to prevent people from being rude and offensive to other people. We have all at one point or another dealt with some form of bullying in our lives, some of us may have even been the ones doing the bullying, but thats just life, deal with it.
“That’s just life, deal with it” ?????
sotiredithurts, are you kidding me? That’s the whole point of having RIGHTS in a society. You have the right to swing your arms, so long as you don’t hit anyone while doing so. Then, you are infringing on their rights. That’s the way that rights works. You can speak your mind but when it hurts someone, you need to shut your mouth. That’s like saying its not the governments job to stop people from killing each other. Deal with it, right?
That’s just life: sometimes, you can’t say everything that’s on your mind. Deal with it.
Do you have children? I hope that you never have to watch them be bullied and I hope that when they do, you even dare tell them to “get over it” when they are 13 years old. I hope that the look on your daughter’s face when you say that is enough to break your heart. Nobody deserves to be talked to badly. If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all… its one of those golden rules that makes society work.
[quote comment=”34800″]it is not the governments place to prevent people from being rude and offensive to other people. [/quote]
It’s the government’s place to prevent people from hurting other people, though, is it not? Do you feel organizations like the KKK should be able to go around encouraging people to beat up people of colour, since that’s “just talking”? Saying something offensive and purposely trying to tear down another human being are by no means the same thing.
[quote comment=”34801″]”That’s just life, deal with it” ?????
sotiredithurts, are you kidding me? That’s the whole point of having RIGHTS in a society. You have the right to swing your arms, so long as you don’t hit anyone while doing so. Then, you are infringing on their rights. That’s the way that rights works. You can speak your mind but when it hurts someone, you need to shut your mouth. That’s like saying its not the governments job to stop people from killing each other. Deal with it, right?
That’s just life: sometimes, you can’t say everything that’s on your mind. Deal with it.
Do you have children? I hope that you never have to watch them be bullied and I hope that when they do, you even dare tell them to “get over it” when they are 13 years old. I hope that the look on your daughter’s face when you say that is enough to break your heart. Nobody deserves to be talked to badly. If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all… its one of those golden rules that makes society work.[/quote]
Umm no, it is the governments job to prevent people from killing each other, in fact that is one of the governments primary purposes, however, no one has the right not to be offended. I cannot arrest Jim because John is offended by what he said. Im sorry but if you believe that then perhaps you would be more suited to living in a country with a political system akin to that of the former Soviet Union.
Do not misunderstand me, I do not think anyone should condone the way this girl was treated; there are such things as morals and decency. My concern is that establishing a law against such things may lead to precedents which would impede upon peoples freedom of speech. If this girl had not committed suicide should this woman still be put in prison? Would we even be discussing it if she hadn’t?
Nobody deserves to be talked to badly but thats life and there is little you can do about it, people are mean and sometimes they will be mean to you. I do not have children but i was picked on throughout my entire time in public school and I am well aware what it does to a person. Its not that I think people in that situation ought to just deal with it, but its not the place of a democratic government to go around censoring what people say.
[quote comment=”34801″]If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all… its one of those golden rules that makes society work.[/quote]
I totally agree. So why do we need the government to pass laws enforcing that?
And how could it be written so as not to be so over-broad that most kids or adults wouldn’t at sometime violate it? I don’t want my grandfather in jail for telling kids to get the hell off his lawn while shaking a stick at them.
[quote comment=”34800″] To be absolutely honest, as despicable as it is what these people put that poor girl through, I do not believe that any law should ever prevent people from speaking their mind, whether that thing be offensive and cruel or otherwise ; it is not the governments place to prevent people from being rude and offensive to other people. [/quote]
…I’m willing to bet you don’t have any children. I don’t think there’s anyone out there who could have read these articles that Duane has brought to our attention, and then turn around and say “Tough it out!”
[quote comment=”34801″] That’s the whole point of having RIGHTS in a society. You have the right to swing your arms, so long as you don’t hit anyone while doing so. [/quote]
I know I couldn’t have said that better myself, but you have to wonder sometimes. It seems some people are okay with the fact that although quite preventable, bad things still happen to people. When the day comes that something so tragic plagues the lives of these individuals, I’m sure their opinions will change. Point being, it shouldn’t take tragedy to wake some people up.
[quote comment=”34803″] Umm no, it is the governments job to prevent people from killing each other, in fact that is one of the governments primary purposes [/quote]
It’s arguable that by encouraging this young, confused, depressed girl to take her own life, the people involved DID kill her. So if someone told a family member of yours to end their life, and they did so, would you be okay when the government merely makes the statement, “That all seems fine with us!”
If it’s their primary purpose, enforce it.
I’m also going to make the assumption you’re Canadian, sotiredithurts, because anyone who elected George W. into office for two full terms wouldn’t EVER claim that it’s “the government’s primary purposes to prevent people from killing each other”.
Neil Young says it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4kTnP5VJ1k
[quote comment=”34806″]
It’s arguable that by encouraging this young, confused, depressed girl to take her own life, the people involved DID kill her. So if someone told a family member of yours to end their life, and they did so, would you be okay when the government merely makes the statement, “That all seems fine with us!”
If it’s their primary purpose, enforce it.
I’m also going to make the assumption you’re Canadian, sotiredithurts, because anyone who elected George W. into office for two full terms wouldn’t EVER claim that it’s “the government’s primary purposes to prevent people from killing each other”.[/quote]
You are correct I am not American and neither am I in favor of the war in Iraq, nor have I ever been. That being said, that is not what I meant by that statement; it is the governments job to defend the sovereignty of its domain and to maintain the rule of law within that state.
I would agree with you that this girls death is at least partly on these peoples hands, but that is besides the point. I am not saying it is okay for people to be rude and offensive, neither am I saying I condone the actions of these people in any way. What I am saying is that nobody has a right to tell you what you can and cannot say. You can set up a string of laws which enable to government to go about regulating the language of every individual, and maybe thats fine for some people, I personally don’t think its a good idea. First the government will be telling me I can’t be rude to someone next it will be telling me not to make certain political statements because some group finds it offensive. To put it bluntly Its not that I don’t think there is a problem, I just don’t like your solution.
Seriously though why am having to defend freedom of speech? It obviously has some downsides such as allowing certain individuals to be offensive and cruel, but that is the price we pay for such a freedom isn’t it?
Yeah, I read something a few days ago about it, and unfortunately Duane, as it looks now, no one will be prosecuted for this crime. I just think it’s sad that a supposed grown up with a child of her own could do that to someone else’s, and have no qualms about it whatsoever (she has issues several statements that she feels she did nothing wrong). We can only hope that other parents and their children will learn from this experience.
[quote comment=”34798″]see matt, things would be so much better if you ruled the world…
all in favor of matt good as the new ruler of the world say I;
I![/quote]
I’m not sure if I would want Matt to rule the world. Not that I have anything against him. From the one time that I met him he was a very nice person, and I’m sure that if given the task of ruling the world, he would take things quite seriously. I just don’t think that any one person should rule the world. There is a lot of world out there, and to put the entire global population under a single person’s control could have quite the repercussions. I mean even if Matt was the greatest ruler ever, and was liked by everyone, what would happen when he passed. We could end up with a Stalin, or an Usama. All in all, this could end up with a really bad ending some time down the road.
[quote comment=”34812″]Seriously though why am having to defend freedom of speech? It obviously has some downsides such as allowing certain individuals to be offensive and cruel, but that is the price we pay for such a freedom isn’t it?[/quote]
Because it is a recent event on emotional topic that people can empathize or sympathize with. The immediate reaction is to stop the cause, no matter the larger repercussions. I think it is similar to when a cop gets killed and the drums come-out in support of the death penalty. Horrible situations, but not the best solutions.
Do people really favor the government regulating speech and conduct over society? Really?
It is my understanding that the case will be left open though, in order to allow…well…new legislation that may close loopholes.
I stand behind what I said in the previous thread. The woman should be charged with stalking and be treated as a predator. She posed as a teenage male to lure a young girl over the internet and had discussions, by her own admittance, that had a sexual tone to them.
She is a sexual predator and should be forced to, for the rest of her life, alert the neighbours when she moves into a new neighbourhood.
That would be justice.
[quote comment=”34822″][quote comment=”34812″]Seriously though why am having to defend freedom of speech? It obviously has some downsides such as allowing certain individuals to be offensive and cruel, but that is the price we pay for such a freedom isn’t it?[/quote]
Because it is a recent event on emotional topic that people can empathize or sympathize with. The immediate reaction is to stop the cause, no matter the larger repercussions. I think it is similar to when a cop gets killed and the drums come-out in support of the death penalty. Horrible situations, but not the best solutions.
Do people really favor the government regulating speech and conduct over society? Really?[/quote]
No kidding. I really can’t stand it when peoples solutions to everything consist of bringing in the government to set up laws and regulations, without ever thinking of the sorts of social and economic consequences it may have.
[quote comment=”34823″]It is my understanding that the case will be left open though, in order to allow…well…new legislation that may close loopholes.[/quote]
I don’t think that any new legislation would apply to this case though, as the legislation will not be retroactive. It will help in the future, but for this case, only the laws at the time that the crime was committed will be applicable. Really, what happened to this girl is tragic, but if there is nothing that the DA can do, then there is nothing that he/she can do. I wish there was, but hopefully this will close those loopholes, and push the politicians to create new legislature that covers this kind of injustice.
It’s incredibly sad that things like this are still going on. I know that in Lethbridge, Alberta the principal of one high school tried very hard in the past year to “punish” a few students for prank calling a suicidal child. Even one of the students who was sort of peer pressured into making the call (and had no idea who the student was, or that he was suicidal) was almost expelled himself (he is one of the top IB students at the school and would have lost all that potential, and all his scholarships). I think this shows that there are a few people out there in “power” who are truly trying to show that if you bully, even under supposedly innocent circumstances, something will be done about it. Maybe not enough is being done yet, but it does help to know that something (even if it is starting out small) is being done about bullying. (The one kid who initiated the prank calling was expelled from his high school).
Even back in about 2001 or 2002 when I lived in Winnipeg, Manitoba, the administration of my high school very adamantly went after some students who were caught bullying another student online. At the time I wondered why a student should be punished by the school for something that happened completely out of school hours, but, I think as we can see now, maybe school punishment is our only hope. At least it is bringing some awareness to the issue. Now, for the parents…???
We must remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, beliefs, and points, and their ideas should be considered at least somewhat valid, whether another believes them or not. There is a reason why people stand behind their beliefs, whether they seem moral or not. It doesn’t always mean they are intrinsically right, but there is some reason why that person believes what he/she does. What I am trying to point out here is how easy it is to bully someone without even knowing you are doing so. If you disagree with someone, do you have the right to tell the other person that they are wrong? Or should you just not agree. Should the other person really have to justify their beliefs, or should they just be entitled to them? If we tell someone they are wrong for believing what they do, is that bullying? We constantly infringe on other people’s freedom of speech, without even knowing we are doing so. I know I am totally off topic now, but it kind of bothered me how while we are all talking about bullying, a few writers ironically seemed to bully other writers… or at least “forced” them to justify their comments.
I think this is almost like when Ferndave said he/she didn’t want his/her grandfather going to jail for telling some kids to get off his grass. Where can the line be drawn? Bullying is MUCH too broad of a subject to be placed under a law. It literally comes down to the decency of each human being. And when it comes to being a decent human being, some people just don’t get it.
Bullying sucks, but it is part of life. That doesn’t mean we should just suck it up, but we do need to individually learn how to deal with it, since at some point everyone is going to have to deal with it in some way or another. We can’t change others, but we can change ourselves, or we can alter how we let situations affect us. Children have the wrong idea about what bullying is, and that is what needs to change. Once the issue becomes more open, and children are more open to talking about it, the situation will become much more controlled, not because there will be less bullying, but because people will know how to handle themselves when they are bullied.
I just read an article on the incident. How sad is it when parents not only encourage that type of behaviour, but they actively get involved in the bullying! And now, nothing will happen. It’s sickening.
Here in Nova Scotia, a couple of months ago there were two parents who encouraged their daugher (who I think was around 10 years old) to beat up another girl. They were actually there during the fight spurring their daughter on to turn the other girl (who had been lying on the ground covering her head and trying to protect herself) around and kick her in the face!!! And the youth criminal justice act protected these parents because identifying them would have identified their kid!
These people should have their children taken away from them becuase all they are doing is creating future monsters like themselves.
It’s horrifying to think that these things happen frequently. The fact that there is a posibility, even a posibility, that they will not be prosecuted is absurd. The only comfort I take in this is that , deep down, they know that they are directly responsible for the tragic suicide of a 13 year old girl.
Once again, humanity proves it’s self-serving idiocy.
Um, how ’bout a civil suit? You know, burden of evidence would be on the defendant to show their actions were not malicious, rather than the other way ’round? Looser evidentiary rules? When the whole goofy OJ trial was over and he was aquitted in a criminal trial, he was found liable in a civil suit. I’m guessing it would be pretty easy to show the taunters as liable in this case.
[quote comment=”34830″][quote comment=”34823″]It is my understanding that the case will be left open though, in order to allow…well…new legislation that may close loopholes.[/quote]
I don’t think that any new legislation would apply to this case though, as the legislation will not be retroactive. It will help in the future, but for this case, only the laws at the time that the crime was committed will be applicable. Really, what happened to this girl is tragic, but if there is nothing that the DA can do, then there is nothing that he/she can do. I wish there was, but hopefully this will close those loopholes, and push the politicians to create new legislature that covers this kind of injustice.[/quote]
Hmm. Admittedly my own knowledge of the legal system is nonfunctioning at best, but I could have sworn that I read after the first thread Duane posted that the case was being left open indefinitely in case someone was able to mount a proper case. Perhaps I misunderstood and it was to only imply that it would give people more time to search through any and all available applicable legislation. Which, in retrospect, would make more sense.
I can’t believe the women would tell the parents to get over thier loss especially with the part, “yah I made her kill herself, get over it”, I’m sorry but that woman does not deserve to live. That is so sick I almost gaged when I read that, seriously. SICK SICK people in this world, UGHH.. Makes me so angry.
I think that there is a HUGE difference in Free Speach and what this woman did. To prey on a child or anyone for that matter, no matter your issues with them-just or not, is a violation on a scale that is beyond measure. It breasks my heart that this person, and I call her a person because she is not worthy to carry the name of woman, will never see the justice that needs to kick her in the teeth. The tragedy is this..a life, so young and full of potential will never get to share what should have been beautiful moments in ther life, as well as the hard ones, with her family and loved ones..because someone wanted to teach their own brand of punishment.
When the law fails to protect the people, inevitably the people take matters into their own hands. Already vigilante justice has risen up to fill these loopholes. A simple google search brings up various sites publicly exposing the names of the people involved (though many newspapers originally declined to publish them), including home/mailing addresses, telephone numbers (home and cell), and the name and address of the business they own (a porn business, go figure) so the public can boycott it.
They’re going to wish laws existed to prosecute them. They used the internet to harass a young girl, and now the internet is being used to visit vengeance on them sevenfold. Already their neighbourhood has been picketed, their home vandalized (and, unfortunately, the homes of next-door neighbours caught in the crossfire), and death threats pouring in from all over. Their daughter has been pulled out of school, and another lady involved in the hoax is in hospital getting psychiatric treatment.
From another news site:
[quote]”We live by the rule of law here, not by the rule of man,” Banas said, calling for the vigilante-like response to end. “We’re not allowed to take the law into our own hands.”[/quote]
But what do you do when the law is impotent?
Here is this for kicks.. in Wisconsin they have different laws it seems as far as *online* activity is concerned. So read it.. its fasinating..Where were these laws in Missouri
http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2007/12/04/Blog.Arrest/?cvqh=itn_teacher
I agree that the civil court system might be the way to go with this one. Suing the pants off the perps would at least severely inconvenience them, and while money isn’t going to bring the little girl back, it might take some pressure off the family and give them one less worry while they mourn.
Duane – It’s horrible what happened but I’m not sure how I’d overhaul the law, though, or even if I would. It seems that any law you could put on the books to make this criminal would be ripe for abuse.
There’s definitely not an easy solution. Many countries have laws that protect people against the spread of hate, and override their right to freedom of speech. Should protection for this type of situation be a law? I’m honestly not sure. But what I am sure about is that I can’t come up with any scenario where calling a 13 year old girl a slut, or a whore, or fat, contributes anything positive to society or to that girl’s life.
Once again, the human race has an opportunity to prove it’s underlying decency.
And once again, we pass.
I think most of us aren’t even surprised – possibly the saddest part of all this.
We’re sorry Megan, even if they aren’t.
I can’t even look at the picture… I feel sick.
I can’t even look at her picture without crying.
What makes me mad is that woman’s statement of “get over it”. Be assured if it was HER baby that had killed herself she would be singing a very very different tune.
I hope a civil suit is filed and some sort of compensation is ordered (not that any could ever be enough) and that woman gets what she deserves. I hope it haunts her for the rest of her life, although, unfortunately, it doesn’t sound like it is.
As someone who was the victim of severe bullying (some of it got physical) almost all through elementary/high school, I know the pain it can cause all to well. More than once I thought about taking the option that Megan unfortunately did. I’m glad I didn’t, and I’m so very sorry she felt she had no other option.
I think we all can agree that the words that Lori Drew has spoken since the passing of Megan, not to mention the attitude, have made it very clear that she has little to no remorse about the issue.
Remorseful people do not tell grieving parents to “get over it”. Remorseful people do not file lawsuits against grieving parents for destroying a foosball table in reaction to the deception that proved to be horrifically tragic. Remorseful people do not tell people that they don’t feel “as guilty” because the deceased had a troubled past.
If the Drew family had any sort of remorse for this issue, the vigilantes would be acting much differently. We, as humans, can understand that sometimes the law fails us. We can even accept it sometimes and work to move on. But there needs to be reciprocal emotion. There needs to be some form of atonement for the events that transpired. The utter lack of it leaves us, as humans, to demand a pound of flesh for the girl who would have grown up.
I am torn as to vigilantism, but if it proves one thing, let it be to show those who would hurt another in the future that our society will not stand for it, even if the courts have no way to aid us.
Well it seems as if it has come down to *taking care of your own backyard*..
Cant say I feel sorry for her..not one little bit.
http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/national/2007/12/03/Internet.Suicide/?cvqh=itn_myspace
[quote comment=”34895″]Here is this for kicks.. in Wisconsin they have different laws it seems as far as *online* activity is concerned. So read it.. its fasinating..Where were these laws in Missouri
http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2007/12/04/Blog.Arrest/?cvqh=itn_teacher%5B/quote%5D
Protected by the First Amendment. You may hear about an arrest in that case, but that’s all you’ll hear. The police chief’s analogy to saying the word, “bomb”, in an airport is ridiculous. First of all, merely saying the word, “bomb”, in an otherwise innocuous sentence may get you questioned by police and kicked off the plane, but ti’s not going to get you arrested.
Of course, all of this is different if there’s a legitimate threat of violence, but the statements in the Wisconsin case are much to vague to prosecute it as such.