In the Globe and Mail today, news that Ghyslain "Star Wars Kid" Raza and parents have settled their lawsuit against school bullies who released the infamous video onto the interwebs. As Ghyslain Raza recalled, whenever he walked by his high school's common areas, other students would jump on tables and chant, "Star Wars Kid! Star Wars Kid!" There would be a commotion as they shouted and poked at him, trying to get a reaction. "It was simply unbearable," he said. I feel for the Star Wars Kid, but if anything I'd think he'd enjoy his fame. It just seems wrong for the Star Wars Kid to earn thousands of dollars at the expense of some classmates who were simply expressing their First Amendment right to free speech. Anyway, here's an excerpt:
Under questioning, Mr. Laflamme and Mr. Rheault conceded their role in spreading a video that Mr. Raza, then 15, had made of himself and left on a shelf in the school TV studio. Mr. Laflamme said he discovered the tape in April of 2003, when he took school equipment to film a varsity football game. He showed the tape to Mr. Rheault, who made a copy of it.
"I thought it'd be an interesting prank . . . I wanted Ghyslain to know what I knew of him, what I had seen," Mr. Laflamme said. "All I did was take the cassette, digitize it on the studio computer to pull a joke on Ghyslain. After that, I had nothing to do with it," Mr. Rheault said he later told the school principal after the controversy erupted.
He said that when a school counsellor confronted him about Mr. Raza's misfortunes, he replied, "It's no fun what happened here, but that's the problem with the Internet. Things travel fast."
Technorati
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Digg
Hey Tom,
I don't think there's a first amendment free speech guarantee in Canada. But I could be wrong.
Woops, I skimmed the article. Didn't realize he lives in Canada.
Canada sucks anyway. Damn Gestapo tactics.
Tom:
This is not unlike a lawsuit of slander. Definition of slander: "the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation" - which is pretty much what these kids did to this kid. They did not utter false charges - but they did defame and damage this kid's reputation - all in the name of a fun little prank. However, the scope of the prank went wildly out of their control. They did not think through what happens when you put something on the internet. Hence - the slander grew greater then the sum of its initial parts. The intent was to destroy the kid's reputation in their school. However, it went worldwide.
You can't actually put a money value on mental anguish you inflict on someone - but that is the only way that you can actually attempt to quantify the damage done so that the people who did it - and others who might attempt something like this in the future - don't do it or attempt something like this ever again! His name is unusual enough that it would get recognized pretty readily. So when he goes to college - or applies for a job, or -whatever - someone is going to see his name and say "Dude - were YOU the Star Wars Kid from the internet?" Think about that. His societal anonymity has been destroyed - and he did not ask for that.
Moreover - he's a 15 year old geeky, nerdy kid. Adolescence is rough enough, rougher for a pudgy, geeky, nerdy kid, and likely 1000 times rougher now for his being known worldwide as the object of mockery. See what I mean? Expecting an insecure adolescent geeky boy to revel in his fame is unrealistic.
Sensitivity and empathy are in order. The kid didn't ask for this.
--*Rob
Rob,
I certainly feel for the kid, I just don't think he should earn thousands of dollars for a high school prank.
All of us at one time or another was made fun of or had a joke played on us. Sometimes we laughed along, and sometimes we pretended to laugh along but inside we cried. It's part of growing up.
I agree that the Internet changes things. The Internet is an online publishing world where libel is now possible to anyone in the world, where before it was only possible in print magazines, newspapers, etc.
Let's look at your definition of slander:
"the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation"
False charges? Nope.
defame? Nope. If anything, it made him famous. If William Hung or even that geeky kid this year of American Idol are any indication, then the Star Wars Kid probably got a few girlfriends as a result of his fame.
Misrepresentations? A grey area, but I'm leaning towards "nope". A misrepresentation to me means representing a person in a light that is untruthful. Was the video untruthful? Yes, the original video was truthful. Video doesn't lie. It depicted the kid performing a light-saber battle with himself.
If I recall, his classmaters uploaded the original video to the Internet and then others edited the video to add special effects.
Should the classmates that uploaded the video be held accountable to what others did later on to the original video? I don't think so. That's a slippery slope if I ever saw one - blaming others for what others have done after the fact.
If I somehow get my hands on exclusive video footage of Paris Hilton or some other celeb having sex with someone and put it online, is that libel or slander? No, it isn't.
The U.S. courts have ruled time and again that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees a right to privacy. Not sure about Canada. How do you think paparazzi make a living? The act of publishing private videos online may be dispicable, but it's not illegal.
We have already seen famous videos of celebs online without the celebrities permission. You don't hear about celebs suing based on libel or slander. They may sue for the theft of the property (VCR tape, DVD home video), but they don't sue based on slander or libel.
Also, if you read the quotes from the Star Wars Kid, he never had a problem with the videos in the beginning. Seems to me he saw dollar signs.
But regardless of whether he was or wasn't emotionally hurt isn't the issue. This wasn't libel or slander. Further, I feel for the parents that have to shell out thousands of dollars for something they had no control over. Yes, they are responsible for their children, but I doubt most parents could have prevented their kids from doing this, no matter how good their parenting skills.
Most teenagers would have seen this as a harmless prank and not have thought about possibly going to court for a video prank. This isn't like a teenager going to a party, getting drunk, driving home and hitting somebody. The teenager took a conscious risk and knew they were breaking the law. In that case, the parents should be held financially liable.
Why should the courts decide what's funny and what's not? I'd imagine most comedians that poke fun at President Bush or former President Clinton would be out of a job if they couldn't crack tasteless jokes. If we can no longer make jokes in this world, whether they are funny or even cruel, then this world becomes less free.
> I certainly feel for the kid, I just don't think he should
> earn thousands of dollars for a high school prank.
Think back to being in high school. Think about the nerdiest, geekiest kid who was in your class. How that kid was initially mocked. How much mental anguish that kid had in adolescence alone.
How magnify that by 1000. Picture that kid being mocked everywhere he went. Now picture him in college - people recognize his name, ask him about himself. Now picture him applying for a job. "Hey weren't you that kid....."
> All of us at one time or another was made fun of or had a
> joke played on us. Sometimes we laughed along, and sometimes
> we pretended to laugh along but inside we cried. It's part of
> growing up.
I agree - but we were not mocked on an international scale. We did not have to look over our shoulders when we went on vacation, went to college, applied for a job. Went to the DMV....
> Let's look at your definition of slander:
> "the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which
> defame and damage another's reputation"
>
> False charges? Nope.
Agreed and I pointed that out in my comment.
> defame? Nope. If anything, it made him famous. If William
> Hung or even that geeky kid this year of American Idol are
> any indication, then the Star Wars Kid probably got a few
> girlfriends as a result of his fame.
You are comapring Apples to Oranges. William Hung was an adult first of all. Second, he signed a waiver agreeing to have his image broadcast worldwide. He agreed to that - whether he got mocked or praised - he agreed to it in a legal manner. This kid did not. He was not made aware his image would be used on the internet - nor would he obviously have wanted it to be. This was done without his consent, and as such - he WAS defamed.
> Misrepresentations? A grey area, but I'm leaning towards
> "nope". A misrepresentation to me means representing a person
> in a light that is untruthful. Was the video untruthful? Yes,
> the original video was truthful. Video doesn't lie. It
> depicted the kid performing a light-saber battle with himself.
It misrepresents him because you don't know anything else about this kid. All you see when you watch - even the original video - is the stereotype of "geeky, nerdy, pudgy kid". You don't know if he is nice. You don't know if he is sensitive, or who he really is. In that way - yes - it DOES in fact misrepresent him.
> If I recall, his classmaters uploaded the original video to
> the Internet and then others edited the video to add special effects.
>
> Should the classmates that uploaded the video be held
> accountable to what others did later on to the original
> video? I don't think so. That's a slippery slope if I ever
> saw one - blaming others for what others have done after the fact.
But the point is not what others did - the point is - the classmates should be held accountable for the simple act of uploading the video for the world to see. The world could see the original video. That's what I saw. It wasn't until much later I learned of others adding special effects.
> If I somehow get my hands on exclusive video footage of Paris
> Hilton or some other celeb having sex with someone and put it
> online, is that libel or slander? No, it isn't.
No - because they are already a celebrity and the courts view celebrity as different. They are willingly in the public eye, and they are usually adults. This kid did not offer his consent, nor would he have. If he had - maybe he would have been able to "run with it" and make money from t shirts or whatever. But he obviously didn't want that, or else the lawsuit would never have been filed. Think about that.
> The U.S. courts have ruled time and again that there is
> nothing in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees a right to
> privacy. Not sure about Canada. How do you think paparazzi
> make a living? The act of publishing private videos online
> may be dispicable, but it's not illegal.
Again - this is not about that. See above comments about celebrity.
> We have already seen famous videos of celebs online without
> the celebrities permission. You don't hear about celebs suing
> based on libel or slander. They may sue for the theft of the
> property (VCR tape, DVD home video), but they don't sue based
> on slander or libel.
Ditto my above comments on celebrity.
> Also, if you read the quotes from the Star Wars Kid, he never
> had a problem with the videos in the beginning. Seems to me
> he saw dollar signs.
I'll have to research that again - but I don't honestly think that. I'd love to see some quotes if you have easy access. If not I'll go and look myself.
> But regardless of whether he was or wasn't emotionally hurt
> isn't the issue. This wasn't libel or slander. Further, I
> feel for the parents that have to shell out thousands of
> dollars for something they had no control over. Yes, they are
> responsible for their children, but I doubt most parents
> could have prevented their kids from doing this, no matter
> how good their parenting skills.
Disagree - parents need to be responsible for their kids' actions. They need to teach them it is NOT OK to bully, tease or do anything hurtful to other people. Maybe that's idealistic - hey I admit to being an idealistic guy. But no matter what - these kids who uploaded it should not have - they did not have his permission, and their intent was at the very least malicious in terms of causing him some kind of mental pain.
> Most teenagers would have seen this as a harmless prank and
> not have thought about possibly going to court for a video
> prank. This isn't like a teenager going to a party, getting
> drunk, driving home and hitting somebody. The teenager took a
> conscious risk and knew they were breaking the law. In that
> case, the parents should be held financially liable.
Bad comparison again.
>
> Why should the courts decide what's funny and what's not? I'd
> imagine most comedians that poke fun at President Bush or
> former President Clinton would be out of a job if they
> couldn't crack tasteless jokes. If we can no longer make
> jokes in this world, whether they are funny or even cruel,
> then this world becomes less free.
This is not a matter of what's funny and what's not. It's not about your first amendment right to say something funny or upload something you subjectively think is funny. It's about uploading something with the intent to hurt someone - which is EXACTLY what they did. That spiraled out of control and now they have to pay the price.
--*Rob
You need to take a look at this:
http://www.personal-injury-info.net/definition-of-tort.htm
This was a case where this tort was met.
Even discounting any of the other stuff I said about emotions and all - there are two legal issues. One is that you and you alone own your image. If you do NOT give someone permission to use it - you can sue for damages. Clearly - he did not give them permission to use it.
The second is that of Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. Which is EXACTLY what the kids who posted it set out to do.
In Canada, it's obvious they have a similar law structure - hence the ruling.
The thing is - how do you quantify these two things? The only way is through financial compensation. We can't ridicule the offenders - can we? The eye for an eye thing doesn't fly in our society. So we offer compensation in terms of dollars. I agree - there are so many cases of frivolous lawsuits. I do not think this was one of them. My opinion - you can disagree - which it seems you will. You're likely for tort reform too. But I think this was justive done right.
--*Rob
I don't pretend to know all the legalities of this case, however, I can make some intelligent assumptions as to what seems legal vs. illegal. You may be correct in your assessment.
>>One is that you and you alone own your image. If you do NOT give someone permission to use it - you can sue for damages.
I'm not sure this is true. If you own your image, then celebrities could sue any time someone displayed their picture on TV, on a web site, in a newspaper, etc.
I believe the law states others cannot profit from your image. But I could be wrong on that.
>>because they are already a celebrity and the courts view celebrity as different. They are willingly in the public eye, and they are usually adults
I think you are correct on the whole celebrities vs. private citizen thing.
I am just very wary of the legal precedent this has set. Does this mean that now any kid that gets picked on can sue for monetary damages? I hate school bullies just as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't stifle free speech by imposing monetary fines on speech.
In my school, I recall an incident where somebody took a photo of someone, added racist comments, made copies and posted several of them all over the school. The kid was devastated. The ones that did it were caught and given suspension. It was handled by the school - the kid didn't sue. I think this should have been handled similarly.
Even hate speech (racist, anti-gay) is protected in the U.S.
>>They need to teach them it is NOT OK to bully, tease or do anything hurtful to other people.
Agreed. But even the best parents and the best upbringing won't prevent teenagers from doing something like this. I don't think any of the teenagers involved expected this to explode the way it did.
>>The second is that of Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
I doubt most of the kids intented to inflict $300,000+ (damages awarded) of emotional distress on the kid. That leaves "negligent infliction".
Let us assume Canadia law says you can be awarded monetary damages for negligently inflicting emotional distress, I don't think $300,000+ is a fair sum to pay for a school prank.
Assuming the legal benchmark has been met for a monetary fine, I believe that $5,000 per family involved seems much more fair to me.
>>It's about uploading something with the intent to hurt someone - which is EXACTLY what they did. That spiraled out of control and now they have to pay the price.
There is some truth to that statement. I guess I'm just very pro-1st Amendment. The only legal standing I see is for libel (something in print) or slander (something said). I'm not convinced it meets the U.S.'s legal definition of libel or slander, but I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know? Plus Canadian's laws might be more liberal in their definition.
Seriously, do I have to modify my home owner's insurance and add "stupid teenager pranks coverage" to my policy for when my newborn grows up? I hope the parents involved in this don't have to pay out-of-pocket and their home owner's insurance covers this. They could be the greatest parents in the world and now they are suffering financially for something out of their control.
>>Maybe that's idealistic - hey I admit to being an idealistic guy.
Nothing wrong with being idealistic. I intend to be fully legally responsible for my kid until the legal age of 18, but I'd be fooling myself if I think I can stop my teenager from pulling a prank or two in their lifetime. All it takes is one stupid immature moment for my future teenager to say something hurtful or publish a hurtful video and then I have to shell out thousands of dollars? I'm perfectly willing to be responsible for my kid drunk driving, stealing, or other criminal acts. I just have a hard time accepting personal responsibility for something my child said or some prank video they made.
It just doesn't seem fair to me as a parent. I guess having a teenager is like playing Russian Roulette every day. You hope they'll do the right thing every time, but when they don't, you better hope the bullet they are firing is a blank. Like I said, I just hope insurance is covering this lawsuit, at which point I wouldn't feel so bad for the Star Wars Kid getting money or the parents having to pay a slightly higher insurance premium.
Seems like there were no winners in this situation.
My word you americans and canadians are ridiculous.
Law suits left right and centre. Stop bragging about being the land of free speach because that is wrong.
The kid made a video of him swinging a pole around pretending to be a jedi - he looked ridiculous, and he filmed it, willingly.
If anything he should pay damages for time wasting and being stupid enough to leave the video in the recorder. What did he expect other kids to do?
"hey look at this, its that kid from our school making an idiot of himself. Better delete it to save any mental anguish. "
No of course not. They would find it hilarious and show everyone they could. It was funny. If he didnt want people to see it why record it? Why would he ever want to watch that himself?
Worse things happen to people and they get nothing. Not even a penny.
I for on am glad I live in the UK we dont egt lawsuits filed against us for finding something funny.
G'day and pardon..am I one of the few, who realize how friggin' evil this is? What's this talk about freedom of speech and expression and such crap?
Call it a high-school prank if you wish, but every half-assed retard can tell you that you only publish something like that to completely humiliate someone.
It's obvious that the guy is a bit pudgy, inathletic and that he just enjoyed himself by imitating something that impressed him and so, it might look a bit silly.
Let's have one of your roommates tape your singing, nipple-rubbing and hip-swinging ass under the shower with a comb as a mic and spread it across the world.
That kid is laughed at in every country where people have internet access! Can you imagine how that feels? Christ, kids are getting bullied for having glasses, let alone something like this.
It's sickening how people always describe behavior of teenagers as 'they didn't know' or 'they're only young' and crap like that.
They DO know and already at the age of 10 they're not HALF as young or childish as people think. Half the time, they also know that people will react like that to whatever they do.
The guys who spread the tape are animals and should be treated that way.
I don't care what he kid gets, as long as its taken from the bullying boys and their families. Stop discussing and get real!!
to claire, you were obviously bullied. please get a life its a prank and nothing more.
I don't see how bullying can be called free speech? I expect somebody made money by bullying him. Bullying online is becoming more common.
I agree with some of what you say James. I'm in the UK too, but web sites to bully children are becoming more common. I don't see how being a bully is the same as free speech, as the video was posted to be cruel.
Still, the Numa Numa video boy has lapped up the fame and even started his own band to make a new video, but then I suppose he posted the video himself instead of other children. Children have a criminal responsibility at a certain age, so they should answer to bullying somebody.
It was cruel what happened to him. Nobody wants anyone to be bullied. But is a free speech issue. The video wasn't harassing or threatening. It was a parody - a joke. in fact, it was taking the video that the kid made himself and adding special effects for the sake of parody.
Sure, it was s cruel joke (for the kid), but the U.S. courts have ruled many times that parody is protected by the 1st Amendment. For instance, it's why Weird Al Yankowich (Eat It) can parody Michael Jackson's Beat It song without fear of a lawsuit for stealing MJ's music.
If the kid was being harassed verbally in school where free speech is "limited", then the school can provide punishment. Anyone that bullies someone on school grounds should be punished.
My problem is that the video was posted to a PUBLIC website off school grounds. The kid shouldn't get hundreds of thousands of dollara simply for a cruel joke.
Imagine you are the parents of the kids that made the video.
You could argue the parents should have "controlled" or "raised" their kid better not to make fun of other people. But do they really need to punished thousands of dollars, lose their retirement earnings all over a stupid prank?
c'mon!
You can be a perfect parent, but teenagers will be teenagers. They're not mature adults yet, so they do stupid things. Should the parents lose their entire life savings over this?
It shouldn't even be in the court, however since it was, at most, the kids who made the video should have been forced by the court to apologize to the Star Wars Kid for causing him embarassment. That should be it. No money.
I know all about your constitution that people in the USA are always going on about, that was based on the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights 100s of years before in my country. It's all very well saying you can do something, but using your logic about if it is morally right to hurt another is another. I don't want to be rude or anything, as I think Americans are great and friendly people, but I don't really get the idea your freedoms are based on a set of lists, rather than having it in your blood that freedom is a natural right that millions of people fought for over hundreds of years, as is what happened in my country. Maybe suing the kids is going too far. Do the children in the school not have rules against harassing other children? I think at least their teachers should have taken them aside and at least given them lessons about bullying and harassing other children.
We all do silly things when we are young, such as when I wore foundation five times too dark for my skin or was bad at dancing at the school disco, but to have it posted on the internet around the world for people to laugh at could harm a young person psychologically for life. If the video was of him, I'm sure he must have legal rights for others to not make money or use any material of him for their own gains. Still he is French isn't he so I could be more cruel and see the funny side of it. It's a shame some of that great French cuisine didn't reach the shores of Canada instead of fattening fast food. Aww I take that back, it was horrible.
I for one think everyone got what they deserved and don't see what the big deal is.
Kid made a fool of himself and now everyone is laughing at it. Well at least he's not living in a 3rd world country starving to death (obviously not) or living on the streets cause his house got bombed. Worse shit happens to other people, but many are not even allowed to complain, let alone sue for a bunch of money.
The kids who uploaded the video on the other hand should've been the ones paying. Even if they are still kids, how about making them pay a monthly fee after they get a job or something like that. But i guess kids in the US and Canada are so spoiled that their parents do not only have to pay to raise them but also cover their kids stupidity.