Judge Dismisses Twitter Stalking Case

itwbennett writes "Saying that Twitter and blogs are today's equivalent of a bulletin board that one is free to disregard (as compared to e-mails or phone calls directed to a victim), Maryland Judge Roger Titus on Thursday dismissed a criminal case against a person who was charged with stalking a religious leader on Twitter."

Comments

Woah

[ZiggieTheGreat]

A judge who understood technology enough to make the right decision.

Now, how do we get more judges like this?

Re:Woah

[sandytaru]

Given those choices, it's a heck of a lot easier to just run for office ourselves.

Re:Woah

[ackthpt]

Given those choices, it's a heck of a lot easier to just run for office ourselves.

Are we qualified? This is like the old engineering question, just because we can, should we?

At what point will we become the enemy?

Will we recognise it or will we go about judging everyone like some rampant modern day J. Edgar Hoover?

Re:Woah

[Sockatume]

And where not possible, we should elect officials who are willing and able to obtain the knowledge of experts in fields where their knowledge is insufficient.

Re:Woah

[ackthpt]

A judge who understood technology enough to make the right decision.

Now, how do we get more judges like this?

Being a good judge means being able to see through the truth behind the veil, no matter if it's corporate BS or technology.

Re:Woah

[Baloroth]

A judge who understood technology enough to make the right decision.

Now, how do we get more judges like this?

Being a good judge means being able to see through the truth behind the veil, no matter if it's corporate BS or technology.

Unfortunately, people who are able to do that are extremely rare in all walks of life. Not surprisingly, they are also rare among judges.

There is no one whose to blame. Well, no one specifically. High schools and colleges, employers, parents. Pretty much everything has contributed something to turning out people who can't see past bullshit. Or rather, haven't contributed to turning out people who can see through it, which is what is really needed. As one of my high school teachers said: "the purpose of high school is to train students bullshit detectors." But when schools (often incited by parents) try to feed bullshit themselves (in the form of "raising self-esteem", most often), that doesn't happen. And we end up with judges who suck at their jobs. Along with politicians who also suck, elected by voters who... well, who suck at picking out good candidates.

Re:Woah

[hedwards]

The bigger concern is that despite women being just as likely to be engaged in domestic violence as men, we needed a woman specific law to deal with the problem.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013743521_domesticviolence26.html

Quotes

[UBfusion]

Could we please have a more precise summary by putting the quotes in their proper place, because I cannot decipher between what was said by the submitter and what was said by the Judge?

Re:Quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

The quotes in TFS are quite clear. The entire summary is quoted, because all of it was said by the submitter, paraphrasing the basic ruling of the judge. If you'd like to see the actual quotes by the judge, RTFA.

The person being "stalked"

[koan]

"Alyce"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo

This isn't to say that William Lawrence didn't go over the line by predicting her "violent death".

good call

[shadowrat]

After all the purpose of twitter is pretty much endorsed stalking.

More like IRC

[ifrag]

To me, Twitter seems more like a giant IRC channel except that it requires explicit /unignore ("follow" in twitter terms) for anyone you care to actually see. Twitter posts are probably on average around a reasonable line on IRC, where bulletin boards actually allow for long in depth posts (something Twitter does not do).

At least the Judge had enough understanding to draw a somewhat reasonable parallel though.

Right to not be offended?

[cheekyjohnson]

But what about my right to not be offended? Can't we just arrest anyone who says something that I dislike? Otherwise, they'll hurt my self-esteem!

Re:Right to not be offended?

[pavon]

The thing is they didn't charged him with making death threats, or anything legitimate. They charged him with a stupid virtual stalking law, and the judge rightly declared that his first amendment rights trumped that law.

Re:Right to not be offended?

[Jason Levine]

In which case, this wasn't so much a victory for free speech as it was a failing of the prosecution to go after the right charges.

Re:Wait a second ...

[Golddess]

As I understood yesterday's article, it wasn't just "the person put up a blog" (which is what this one sounds like), but rather "the person put up a blog and sent emails / phone calls / what have you to shove everything the blogger talked about in the face of the other person".