Every night I go to bed and pray that Mark Emmert doesn't find my MySpace page.

It would be tragic if he ever found all the expletive-ridden posts I've made about his inability to keep tuition prices down and that he hasn't done a single thing about changing our mascot to something other than the aptly named "weasel dog."

Emmert probably wouldn't be too happy if he saw my page background (made with photoshopped pictures of him). But no longer will I have to continue my nightly prayers, because it turns out that the First Amendment protects me.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Emmert.

This comes after the recent court ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals, in which it was determined that a student's free speech rights were violated after she was sentenced to nine months of probation following the discovery of postings on her MySpace page criticizing the principal of Greencastle Middle School in Indiana.

Apparently, the posts were in response to the school's policy on body piercings, which sounds pretty childish to have in the first place. There are kids selling drugs, failing classes and engaging in sexual relationships with teachers, and Greencastle is worried about whether or not their students have tongue studs or bolts through their noses?

C'mon Greencastle, you're better than that.

What is scary is the fact that this girl faced punishment in the first place. These posts weren't making threats of any kind, but were just opinionated pieces of writing that happened to be vulgar and contained a lot of swear words. In other words, they resembled the rough draft of this piece. This girl was nearly put on probation because she spoke her mind.

Since when did the Internet need censorship? More importantly, since when did it become necessary to censor someone's honest, although somewhat informal, opinion about a school policy?

Ironically, it was the fact that her post was somewhat "political" that saved her from picking up cans on the roadside. In other words, as long as you don't directly attack the person on MySpace, you're in the clear. For instance, I can't directly call Mark Emmert a douche-bag on my MySpace page, but I could say his policy on the consumption of alcohol on campus is very much like a douche-bag.

See the difference?

The thing that bugs me is that I was always under the impression that the Internet was going to be our last haven for free speech, wherein the satanic forces known as the FCC wouldn't have the opportunity to regulate us. We would be free to roam around cyberspace, discussing our own views and bashing the hell out of someone at the same time. Finally, it'd be a place where those of us who have nothing better to do but whine could poison the minds of the innocent with our biased points of view.

But alas, this is no longer acceptable, as the Internet community has begun to recognize this textual form of assault, or what I like to call "critiquing," as cyberbullying. Soccer moms around the world couldn't live with the fact that their kids were going to be losers whether they were in the real world or in World of Warcraft, and therefore took it upon themselves to do their best in shielding them from all the evils of the world.

It would be one thing if there happened to be some form of threat involved in the bullying. That shouldn't be tolerated, as there is always the possibility that someone will make good on their word. However, if people are just spouting anger and frustration, I believe they have every right to. It may be mean, and feelings might be hurt in the process, but that is what it means to have freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, it seems as if we are slowly going toward the same trend that occurs with every form of media. Soon, we will have to watch what words we type on any web page, in fear that one wrong word will land us in a heap of trouble. I just hope that day doesn't come anytime soon, because I really love my photo-shopped picture of Emmert in a bikini.

Reach columnist Eric Uthus at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.