Prosecuted For Critical Twittering

lee1 writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation is trying to urge a federal court (PDF) to block what they claim is the unconstitutional use of the federal anti-stalking law to prosecute a man for posting criticism of a public figure to Twitter. The law was originally targeted against crossing state lines for the purpose of stalking, but was modified in 2005 to make the 'intentional infliction of emotional distress' by the use of 'any interactive computer service' a crime. The prosecution's theory in this case is that using Twitter to criticize a public figure can be a criminal act if the person's feelings are hurt."

Comments

Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

[elrous0]

I'm suing all of Slashdot for imposing years of emotional distress on me every April 1st. I'll settle for no less than $1 million and a public flogging of kdawson.

Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

[Toe, The]

I'm suing you for the emotional duress of making me consider that /.'s April Fools jokes aren't funny. How dare you criticize my sense of humor??

Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

[Crudely_Indecent]

I'm suing you for emotional distress caused by misquoting Monty Python in your subject.

Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

[cforciea]

Bloody peasant...

Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

[Terrasque]

Listen, that is just plain idiotic. Noone is forcing you to visit Slashdot those days, and .. wait, did you say kdawson?

Hmm..

Do you have a page accepting donations for your cause, or something?

LOL

[gcnaddict]

The prosecution's theory in this case is that using Twitter to criticize a public figure can be a criminal act if the person's feelings are hurt.

Yay, a law that's about to be ruled as unconstitutional!

Re:LOL

[molnarcs]

The prosecution's theory in this case is that using Twitter to criticize a public figure can be a criminal act if the person's feelings are hurt.

Yay, a law that's about to be ruled as unconstitutional!

Let's hope so. Although at this rate, it's going to be passed sooner or later (I give it 10 years). Yes, that's the direction we are heading. The simple thought that proposing this law is possible is worrying enough. That's where we are now - politicians proposing laws such as this without flinching... that's normal today. They don't think there's an issue. They don't think anyone important would think there's an issue. That's quite tragic.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

The prosecution's theory in this case is that using Twitter to criticize a public figure can be a criminal act if the person's feelings are hurt.

Why do I get the feeling that the above isn't how the prosecution describe it? Seriously, this reads like a ridiculous caricature of whatever their argument actually is, which is fine for the EFF in trying to persuade the court (who already knows the other side of the story) but absolutely stupid in an article supposedly helping us to discuss and/or form opinions. What is the point of this?

Re:LOL

[Raffaello]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

iow, "In God We Trust" is both an establishment of deist religion, and an establishment of monotheism, and makes atheists, non-deists, and polytheists, second class citizens - i.e., they are explicitly, and of necessity excluded from the "We" of "In God We Trust." That motto labels anyone who doesn't believe in the monotheist deist god effectively un-american.

Re:LOL

[starless]

Perhaps of interest is this web page which seems to claim that the defendant was previously convicted of scamming (the same?) Buddhist group.
http://tenpathetic.wordpress.com/category/william-cassidy/page/2/
This suggests there may perhaps be a bit more to this case than the simple criticism of a "public" figure.

Re:LOL

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The "respect" found in the 1st Amendment is not "showing respect for", it is "regarding" or "with respect to".

Of course it does. It is an official acknowledgement of a God. Furthermore, you argument has never been used as a defence in the various court cases on the issue. The rulings in favour of the motto have relied on the motto having been "watered down" by over use.

I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to understand the 1st Amendment, you can't expect anyone to give your opinion any weight.

It's ironic that the court rulings against my position actually indicate that your reading of the amendment is the lesser one here.

Re:LOL

[element-o.p.]

Perhaps we should change the motto to, "In God, Gods, and/or quite possibly, no God or Gods at all, depending upon your religion, or lack thereof, we trust.&quot?

Re:LOL

[element-o.p.]

You're exaggerating a bit, I think. Don't get me wrong -- you're on the right track, but I think you are extrapolating beyond what the evidence allows.

First, and foremost, everything we do is based upon a risk and value assessment. We may not consider it as such, and we may not even be consciously aware we are doing it, but the process happens in each and every one of us in every decision we make. Stand eyeball to eyeball with a cop...for what? If I am looking at a $50 speeding ticket vs. half a day in court, it's not worth it except possibly for pride. Even if you only make ten or twelve bucks an hour -- and I make well over that figure -- then spending 4-5 hours sitting in traffic court to fight the ticket is a waste of my time and money. Sure, the cop might be wrong, but even IF I can prove it, it's a Pyrrhic Victory. Furthermore, I think people *are* starting to stand up to abuses of authority. Have you seen what's happening at our airports? TSO's aren't LEO's, but they are still in a position of authority, and more and more people are starting to echo John Tyner's "Don't touch my junk!" rallying cry.

Second, perhaps most people have never written their elected officials (I have, FWIW), but I would argue that's more a reflection on how little effect most people expect it to have. Sure, you can vote for "the other guy", but what do you do when he's just the other side of the coin from the crook in office now? Look how well it worked with Barak Obama. Hope and change? Yeah, right. More like "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." My elected officials didn't give a rip about my opinion until Sharon Cissna started saying the same thing. Whatever. At least they're paying a little more attention to the issue now.

What you and others call "whining on the Internet" sounds an awful lot like building a base of support to me. Sure, I could go off half-cocked on my pet issue, but is one person going to draw a lot of media attention? How about if I can rally a hundred people to march outside the Federal Building downtown? NOW I might gather some attention. What if I can get a thousand people to rally with me? You see, you are exemplifying yet another problem with Americans: we have microwave, MTV attention spans. If I can't get satisfaction with 30 seconds, I'm not interested. You see people whining but not doing anything. I see a critical mass building. You are expecting people to flash into action, but have you ever seen what happens when you put a match in a cap full of gasoline? Sure, you get a big flame...for about ten seconds until it burns out. But if you take your time gathering tinder, then kindling, then some branches, then some logs, get it all in place and ONLY THEN strike the match, you get a bonfire. If you want to change the country, it will take a really huge freaking bonfire, not a cap full of gasoline. Patience, grasshopper.

Yeah, we're too comfortable in the U.S. We have a lot to lose, and the majority of the country still hasn't lost enough for it to be worth risking what they still have. But the more Washington squeezes Joe the Plumber, the less he has to lose. Sooner or later, the politicians will realize that Americans have had enough and try to make things right...or the nation will collectively grow a pair and kick the crooks out. I'm hoping for the former; the latter would not be pleasant.

Re:LOL

[jc42]

"Atheism is a belief" is a non sequitur.

Actually, it might work better to phrase it something like: Atheism isn't a belief; it's a non-belief. Something can't be both a belief and a non-belief at the same time.

We might also note a logical point that's probably too subtle for most religious people: Not believing in a god (typically on the grounds that there's no evidence supporting a claim that any god exists) isn't the same as believing that there is no god. Atheism is basically a position of a skeptic: If you claim there's a god, you should be prepared to present evidence. Otherwise, you shouldn't bother people who don't think it's been shown that there is a god.

I think the title of this thread sums up the topic pretty well.

Re:LOL

[russotto]

Got any idea how few Americans can stand eyeball to eyeball with a cop, and calmly, clearly, tell the cop that he is out of line, and that he will be called out in court?

You can tell him that. You're wrong, and he knows you're wrong. When you go to court, HIS conduct will not be in question, only yours.

"I'm going to search your car." is answered with "YES SIR!" instead of "I don't give you permission to search my car." "You were speeding." is met with whining and pleading instead of "You are mistaken, officer." And, when people go in front of a judge, it's outright groveling.

Try standing up for yourself that way sometime. It doesn't work. It might help your dignity, but they'll just punish you for not groveling. Or, even if you get your way, they punish you procedurally and make you feel like you're getting a favor when they finally drop the case. Been there and done that.

I think it was Robert Heinlein who observed that the man who humbles himself before the court gets away with a slap on the wrist, but the man who stands up for his rights will get the book thrown at him every time.

Haha

[afidel]

I swear the prosecution must not like the law because that's an obvious setup to have it struck down on first amendment grounds. It's like the perfect test case to get the law thrown out, especially with the current supreme court and their love of allowing anything under the auspices of political speech.

Hmm

[girlintraining]

Your favorite band sucks. Yo mamma so fat. You're stupid, retarded, a pathetic waste of oxygen! You're so--hangon a sec, gotta get the door...

Re:is it slander?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if it's slander it can't be a crime, as slander is a civil matter not a criminal one.

Re:Don't know who this "public person" is

[MetalliQaZ]

According to the brief, she is the founder of www.tara.org. Can't find anything that states what the tweet contained, but I assume it was something that criticized her role as a Buddhist leader...or something like that.

More details:

[arnott]

In February, William Lawrence Cassidy was indicted for interstate stalking, a felony charge. The indictment stated that Cassidy used Twitter to “engage in a course of contact that caused substantial emotional distress” to an unnamed person.

According to court documents, the person was Alyce Zeoli, the leader of a Buddhist organization known as Kunzang Palyul Choling. Cassidy was allegedly a member of KPC before having a falling out with Zeoli, who is known as Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo to KPC members. After the split, he began directing several thousand public Twitter messages toward Zeoli, some of which were threatening, according to prosecutors.

Twitter case

Re:More details:

[westlake]

>>After the split, he began directing several thousand public Twitter messages toward Zeoli, some of which were threatening, according to prosecutors. Several thousand abusive messages. In the American system, the roots of free speech lie in the desire for open and public political debate without fear of government interference. But there has always been the contrarian impulse to keep that debate civilized --- and not to carry it over into a man's private life. Malice is out of bounds. Harassment is out of bounds. "The intentional inflection of emotional distress" is not free speech. This case is not a slam-dunk for the EFF.

Dark Future

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight. You can be sued for criticism of a public figure, something clearly covered by the 1st Amendment.

I'm sure that if people like this "public figure" had their way it would be a criminal offense, punishable by x years in jail.

On the other hand, actual murderers are being released from overcrowded jails. This is going to start people thinking that instead of using words, they should use a gun. Might end up with a lesser sentence.

Just a thought.

Re:Dark Future

[sharkey]

You can sue anyone for just about anything, but that's not what this is about. This man is not being sued, he is facing criminal prosecution at the Federal level for saying something that made someone unhappy.

Trying to find out more about this

[Animats]

This seems to be a feud between some cult and someone who doesn't like the cult. For once, it's not Scientology. It's some offshoot of Buddhism.

One side of the argument can be seen here. An old article about William Cassidy may provide some background.

As far as I can tell from a superficial reading, both sites are nutcases.

In the words of a wise man...

[idontgno]

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
--Salman Rushdie

Re:First Amendment = chopped liver?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I can't believe this is happening I'm in total shock. How can there even be such an asinine law? 2005 .. Bush, GOP Congress .. oh, no wonder.

It should be noted that the first such law in the USA was passed as a State law in..California. Hardly a bastion of the GOP.

Remember, the Dems are the people who get really upset over people hurting other people's feelings. Most Republicans would say "F**k 'em if they can't take a joke", or words to that effect....

Re:Public figures?

[webheaded]

Because the people making the laws are the ones that don't want anyone to criticize them?

Re:Don't know who this "public person" is

[couchslug]

"You guys remember the age of sanity, "

I remember the pretense that there was such. It's the "Good Old Days" fallacy.

The real question is

[trinite0]

If the victim is a reincarnate master of Tibetan Buddhism, shouldn't she be impervious to emotional distress? (Yes, sometimes it pays to RTFA)

Nature

[Quila]

Per the Virginia Declaration of Rights, on which the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence are based:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

By nature, inherent. Natural rights. And that was written by a Christian, George Mason.

Re:Awww...

[Mister Transistor]

Really. I mean MAN UP AND GROW A PAIR! Legislating hurt feelings is about the most asinine thing I've heard, well, today, anyway...