Slashdot Mirror
Judge Says Washington State Cyberstalking Law Violates Free Speech (engadget.com)
A federal judge has blocked Washington State's 2004 cyberstalking law after ruling that a key provision violated First Amendment protections for free speech due to vague terms. "Its prohibitions against speech meant to 'harass, intimidate, torment or embarrass' weren't clearly defined, according to the judge, and effectively criminalized a 'large range' of language guarded under the Constitution," reports Engadget. "You could theoretically face legal action just by criticizing a public figure." From the report: The ruling came after a retired Air Force Major, Richard Rynearson III, sued to have the law overturned. He claimed that Kitsap County threatened to prosecute him under the cyberstalking law for criticizing an activist involved with a memorial to Japanese victims of U.S. internment camps during World War II. While Rynearson would use "invective, ridicule, and harsh language," the judge said, his language was neither threatening nor obscene.
Officials had contended that the law held up because it targeted conduct, not the speech itself. They also maintained that Rynearson hadn't shown evidence of a serious threat -- just that the prosecutor's office would see how Rynearson behaved and take action if necessary. A county court had already tossed out the activist's restraining order against Rynearson over free speech. It's not clear whether Washington will appeal the decision. If the ruling stays, though, it could force legislators to significantly narrow the scope if it wants a cyberstalking law to remain in place. This might also set a precedent that could affect legislation elsewhere in the country. The Electronic Frontier Foundation praises the judge's decision, adding: "This is all valuable speech that is protected by the First Amendment, and no state law should be allowed to undermine these rights. We are pleased that the judge has agreed."
Officials had contended that the law held up because it targeted conduct, not the speech itself. They also maintained that Rynearson hadn't shown evidence of a serious threat -- just that the prosecutor's office would see how Rynearson behaved and take action if necessary. A county court had already tossed out the activist's restraining order against Rynearson over free speech. It's not clear whether Washington will appeal the decision. If the ruling stays, though, it could force legislators to significantly narrow the scope if it wants a cyberstalking law to remain in place. This might also set a precedent that could affect legislation elsewhere in the country. The Electronic Frontier Foundation praises the judge's decision, adding: "This is all valuable speech that is protected by the First Amendment, and no state law should be allowed to undermine these rights. We are pleased that the judge has agreed."
And the "activist" was "triggered"?
Awww, poor widdle baby.
You have no right to freedom from being offended.
Grow up and get over yourself.
It's not stalking because I know words. #IAmVerySmart
They want a law like in the UK where they can harass people guilty of wrongthink; just look at what's happened to Count Dankula and many others. Long live the Bill of Rights.
Does anyone else mainly come to /. now out of morbid curiosity to see whether or not the trolls have vandalized the comments?
TFA is failing to show us the speach which the officer used which officials asserted was in violation.
> retired Air Force Major, Richard Rynearson III, sued to have the law overturned. He claimed that Kitsap County threatened to prosecute him under the cyberstalking law for criticizing an activist involved with a memorial to Japanese victims of U.S. internment camps during World War II.
Execute both the ret. major and the judge for capital treason committed against the USA. They are working for Putin and/or China, because there is nothing else those two communist powers desire more than drive a wedge between USA and Japan, so the two capitalist nations can be defeated one-by-one and then the Pacific region can occupied by reds unopposed and genocide of millions can be conducted the usual communist style.
The USA is currently on the path to national suicide as every physical and virtual nook of her is full of russian spies, operatives, sleeper cells and "pink" fellow travellers, all keen to destroy America's foreign relations and eventually America itself. People should wake up before it's too late. We urgently need new anti-communist saints and crusaders like Reagan, Thatcher and Teller!
We just need to imprison and castrate beta nu males.
Any man who calls themselves a feminist or who fights for social justice should not be allowed to reproduce, and probably just killed for good measure.
the judge said, his language was neither threatening nor obscene.
Threats I understand, but why would obscenities be a valid ground? What is and is not obscene is subjective, which is one of the reasons we need freedom of speech in the first place.
You must think Barack Obama was the biggest fool of all time, no doubt.
Without any details about the actual alleged conduct, we cannot form a view here.
The speech, in isolation, might be 'harsh', but if the overall conduct was one of continuous targeting of a person, then that would seem to be a form of stalking to me, as it would show a form of obsession on the part of the person posting the messages.
But we've just got a one-sided overview here.
How is interacting with ones and zeros on a screen someone else a hundred miles away voluntarily posted stalking them in any meaningful sense? I guess directly sending threats back at them is bad but I don't think I'd use the word 'stalk' for that. Sounds like an oxymoron everybody just accepts to make something sound worse than it usually is like giant ant or honest lawyer.
1. What you or I would use the word for doesn't matter a lot. They write a law which uses the word, so then that's what the word means, for legal purposes, within the jurisdiction. Kind of like how grenades and IED's are included in "weapons of mass destruction" under federal law, even though they're not. It doesn't make sense but isn't worth getting upset over 99.99999% of the time.
2. It's pretty bad. Lots of people (MANY disfunctional people who form unhealthy bonds) harass and stalk like crazy from hundreds of miles away. Sometimes with spyware, but also crap like calling someone's boss or place of work repeatedly for decades whenever you find out where they work. Calling relatives. Calling friends. Emailing. Harassing on social media. Contacting friends about people through social media. While the in-person is more immediately terrifying, the remote is still not ok and can be terrifying depending on the behavior. This stuff causes more harm than almost anything you see discussed on the nightly news or in the press.
...like 60s sci fi robots caught in a contradiction.
I mean, free speech was all well and good when it was the man trying to keep us down, trying to stifle our potty mouths.
But now that we're the ma ... er ... the gender-less sentient vertebrate in charge, we'd really like that power to shut people up when we don't like them. But it's OK, because we're doing it.
This is why I love my country. We can speak opinions that are offensive to others. We can hurt the feelings of people who don't agree with our opinions. On the flip side, we tolerate other people who hurt our feelings and who don't agree without our opinions. We can criticize our government. We may not always be able to hold our government accountable, but we can talk about what we don't like. We worship God the way that we want to worship God. We can choose not to worship God.
We are free!
I didn't realize that were so many Russians in this world. They must be reproducing like crazy, to be able to put a Russian spy behind every single law abiding US citizen
Or maybe you should get back on your meds ?
Hey dude, I just want to say I've spilt so much cum over your daughter's nudes. The crazy things she'll do on snapchat holy shit!
The video with the dog will be in my fap collection forever.
Just when I start to think that everyone is insane out there, this happens. Kudos to the judge.
"It is my RIGHT as an AMERICAN CITIZEN to harass and threaten people online!!" is a really weird hill to die on but ok
Air Force Major, Richard Rynearson III sounds like a right fucking cunt.
The court in this case I bound by precedent of the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS ruled that the state can regulate and prohibit obscenity.
One could argue that SCOTUS should reverse that ruling, but a local county court can't.
How come this shit isn't being deleted?
"You could theoretically face legal action just by criticizing a public figure."
Sounded like dictator dream.
Progressives are the ones that weaponized the IRS to target individual citizens based on their political views before the 2012 election. Go ahead and spin all you want that it didn't happen, but Obama and the IRS (in court even) both agreed what was done was illegal, yet no one has been charged.
So progressives are 100% behind censoring non-offensive, non-harassing, political speech and are against punishing those who do engage in censorship in the government.
I expect you will tell me how the IRS did nothing wrong, confirming you too are in full support of censorship.
No, just no. You have a very narrow sample of techies. Get out of an extremely technically heavy workplace and you'll realize that most progressives support censoring wrongthink. Don't ask if censorship is good, ask more specific questions. Word it "do you think the right wing should be allowed to use advertising to spread their message of hate" or "Do you think corporations should be prevented from political advertising" or "should PAC's be outlawed". Those are all forms of censorship that the progressives find absolutely fabulous -- censoring people for who they are or what they have to say.
"I want the government to spy every single conversation on the internet to be sure no one is being harassed" is a weird hill to die on but ok
just that the prosecutor's office would see how Rynearson behaved and take action if necessary
This reminds me of Patreon's excuses for their selective enforcement of policies and subjective policing of creators. They called it "Manifest Observable Behavior." (really) So, the MOB rules.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"It is my RIGHT as an AMERICAN CITIZEN to harass and threaten people online!!" is a really weird hill to die on but ok
The problem, of course, being the definition of "harass".
When we get to ban "harass", suddenly the stuff people we don't like does magically becomes "harass".
Legal matters around speech are often not clear cut.
Personally I am being sued in Massachusetts for statements that I made related to a fellow student back in 2011. The lawsuit was filed originally in 2014 and we are just wrapping up the second round of discovery (the Plaintiff is asking to extended discovery again).
The amended complaint can be found at:
https://www.scribd.com/documen...
The best that I can tell, my participation in the activities for the suit are that I referred to the Plaintiff as an "ass", "fool", "loon", and an "embarrassment" on a forum primarily dedicated to the students for the school we attended. Most of the Plaintiff's claims were dropped by the court a year or two ago, but I am still facing claims of defamation, violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, and intentional inflection of emotional distress.
It does not appear that the plaintiff actually has support for these claims, but that has not prevented this from costing me thousands of dollars in travel expenses (I live in a different state) and a tremendous amount of time.
I can understand the notion that people may want to control the narrative about themselves, but the courts likely have no useful role in all but extreme cases (figuring out where that line is and applying it properly may pose a significant challenge).
Harass? Yes
Threaten? No
If you can't handle a little harassment, get the hell off of social media.
Just another day in Paradise
That's what you're saying, that corporate censorship is good. And, when the corporations effectively own the government, there's no meaningful difference between governmental censorship and corporate censorship. And, it's not "demonetization" that's the issue, it's that they're deliberately inuring you to more deliberate and silencing censorship. Frist it's demonetized, and you cheer, then it's delisted, and you cheer, and then it's deleted, and you'll wonder why your slightly less than acceptable worldview isn't allowed to be heard.
Do they mean belial *as in Belial and Beset*? Is not that already a Criminal offense in the Putrid States of Murica? How does "on a computer" make any difference?
Nothing new there, ask anyone who has visited that shithole country!
Your lack of empathy is very telling what a shitbag you are. I bet your Mom wishes she could have afforded that abortion!
The Bill of Rights is not a bad hill to die on. If I support freedom of speech, I have to accept that people will say obnoxious and hateful things. If I don't support freedom of speech, I have less standing to object if someone tries to shut me up. Therefore, I think that Nazi propaganda should be legal, if not moral.
Whether something should be done and whether it should be legal are two separate related concepts.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's more than just that twerp. It's a typical SJW tactic. They create sockpuppets and spew all sorts of hatred under the guise of people and groups that they don't like, then point to that to falsely justify their faux outrage. It's a sign of insecurity and their means to seek attention.
In reality, it's almost always the most outspoken of the SJWs and/or supporters of dishonest journalism (such as anti-Gamergaters) who have later been arrested and imprisoned for things like sexual harassment and rape. They were trying to assuage their own guilt by leading a false crusade against the sane and rational majority.
GTA V nailed it with the "Impotent Rage" character.