Twitter stalking is protected free speech, judge rules



Posts: 1804

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:45 am

Post Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:03 am

Twitter stalking is protected free speech, judge rules

By Andrew Couts | Digital Trends – December 16, 2011 ... 03296.html

Twitter stalking is protected free speech, judge rules

A San Francisco judge has declared cyberstalking on Twitter and blogs constitutionally-protected free speech, reports The New York Times. The ruling is a victory for the First Amendment. But like all things worth fighting for, it comes at a price.

Here’s what happened: A Buddhist religious leader in Maryland named Alyce Zeoli became friends with a man named William Lawrence Cassidy. At some point, the two had a falling out. Cassidy took the mature route, and began posting thousands of messages on blogs and Twitter, often using pseudonyms, that aggressively disparaged Zeoli. Some of them even called for her death.

Understandably distraught, Zeoli then worked with the FBI to have Cassidy arrested, which he was, based on interstate stalking laws. Cassidy, the government argued, had caused Zeoli “substantial emotional distress.”

This, however, was not enough to convince Judge Roger W. Titus, who declared that Cassidy’s actions, while distasteful, were not enough to set a precedent that could cause serious harm to the entire foundations of speech on the Internet.

“[W]hile 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,” wrote Judge Titus, in his official order.

Titus ruled that, because no one was forced to read Cassidy’s posts and tweets — as opposed to a “telephone call, letter or email specifically addressed to and directed at another person” — they are considered free speech, not harassment, just as personal bulletin boards of the colonial era fell under the protection of the First Amendment, which “protects speech even when the subject or the manner of expression is uncomfortable and challenges conventional religious beliefs, political attitudes or standards of good taste.”

One of Zeoli’s lawyers, Shanlon Wu, told the Times that Zeoli was “appalled and frightened by the judge’s ruling.” It is not yet clear whether there will be an appeal to the ruling.


Posts: 2069

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:52 am

Post Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:15 am

Re: Twitter stalking is protected free speech, judge rules

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I have had to deal with this supposed "First Amendment Right to Terrorize" in two stalking situations over the span of 25 years. At some point maybe an appeal will be filed with regard to this and the Supreme Court will rule. My fear is they will uphold the right.

This doesn't indicate whether this had anything to do with the ruling but often courts will rule that "public figures" have less right to protest over "public criticism" which I suppose includes defamation, intimidation, harassment and threats. There is some legitimacy to the argument but there should be limits on what "criticisms" are allowed. Particularly with regard to inciting violence against someone.

Return to The Advocates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software Change colors.