"Uncomfortable" message board talk is protected speech

[_Darth J]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/techn ... alker.html

December 15, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO — In a case with potentially far-reaching consequences for freedom of expression on the Internet, a federal judge on Thursday dismissed a criminal case against a man accused of stalking a religious leader on Twitter, saying that the Constitution protects “uncomfortable” speech on such bulletin-boardlike sites.

The government had accused the defendant, William Lawrence Cassidy, of harassing and causing “substantial emotional distress” to a Buddhist religious leader named Alyce Zeoli. He had posted thousands of messages about her, some predicting her violent death. He lived in California, she in Maryland.

In his 27-page order, Judge Roger W. Titus wrote that “while Mr. Cassidy’s speech may have inflicted substantial emotional distress, the government’s indictment here is directed squarely at protected speech: anonymous, uncomfortable Internet speech addressing religious matters.”

The United States attorney’s office in Maryland, which filed the case, had no comment on the order Thursday, and it was unclear whether it would exercise its right to appeal the decision. Shanlon Wu, a lawyer for Ms. Zeoli, said in an e-mail that his client was “appalled and frightened by the judge’s ruling.”

Mr. Cassidy’s attorneys with the Federal Public Defender’s office said they were working on his release from jail. Mr. Cassidy’s diatribes on Twitter, posted under an ever-changing list of pseudonyms, were along these lines: “Do the world a favor and go kill yourself. P.S. Have a nice day.”

In his order, Judge Titus drew an analogy to the colonial period, when the Bill of Rights was written. A blog, he said, is like a bulletin board that a person of that time might have planted in his front yard. “If one colonist wants to see what is on another’s bulletin board, he would need to walk over to his neighbor’s yard and look at what is posted, or hire someone else to do so,” he offered.

With Twitter, he went on, news from one colonist’s bulletin board could automatically show up on another’s. The postings can be “turned on or off by the owners of the bulletin boards,” he wrote. In other words, one can disregard what is posted on a bulletin board. “This is in sharp contrast to a telephone call, letter or e-mail specifically addressed to and directed at another person,” he concluded.

Hanni Fakhoury, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, based in San Francisco, which filed a brief in support of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case, said he was heartened by the distinction that the judge drew between speech on a public platform, versus through e-mail or telephone.

The order is among the first to address a recently expanded cyberstalking law and, as such, could have important repercussions. “This is an area where there has been very little case law,” said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It is likely to be quite influential.”

[_Darth J]

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... ch-grounds

"While Mr. Cassidy’s speech may have inflicted substantial emotional distress, the government’s indictment here is directed squarely at protected speech: anonymous, uncomfortable Internet speech addressing religious matters."

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

I guess Mr. P will have to keep relying on that rifle of his...

[_Fence Sitter]

I guess Mr. P will have to keep relying on that rifle of his...

I thought it was Will's gun in Dan's safe secured with Wade's lock and key.

[_Doctor Scratch]

This is fascinating--thanks for posting this, Darth J. in my opinion this represents an important victory for the principles of free speech, though there's no doubt that a ruling like this will anger the Mopologists, such as Scott Lloyd, who has already publicly condemned the "free[er] speech" policy of the "Comments" section at the SL Trib.

I was also struck by the judge's distinction between messageboard speech and criticism done via, say, emails or PMs. (Presumably PMs would count too, no?) What this means is that there is extensive evidence of email harrassment and/or "cyberstalking" archived over at SHIELDS. We've known for a while that the Mopologists like to go after people using email--sometimes making rather egregious threats--and with this new ruling, it would seem that the SHIELDS email exchanges are a potential gold mine for some angry anti-Mormon to use against the Mopologists.

[_harmony]

What this means is that there is extensive evidence of email harrassment and/or "cyberstalking" archived over at SHIELDS. We've known for a while that the Mopologists like to go after people using email--sometimes making rather egregious threats--and with this new ruling, it would seem that the SHIELDS email exchanges are a potential gold mine for some angry anti-Mormon to use against the Mopologists.

The ruling isn't retroactive, is it?

[_LDSToronto]

So American law protects my comments to Stemelbow?

SWEET! Take that, Jersey Girl! You can't moderate the constitution, God's own inspired document.

H.

[_sock puppet]

What a difference a year makes.

DCP wrote, what now seems like once upon a time--

Be warned. This is not one that I will let go of if it continues. I will go after the board, and I will go after each and every one of those who have publicly slandered me in this matter to the extent that the law allows. Enough is enough.