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."
That whole case is fucked up. The law as it standards does in fact allow for freedom of speech as a defence, but his defence was exceptionally shitty and didn't really argue it. So now we have a situation where we have this bad ruling, desperate need of clarification, and Dankula with £100,000 that was donated to him looking for a judicial review.
It's important to understand that UK courts can only decide matters based on basis of the defence put forward. Unless the defence makes a decent legal argument that free speech is the overriding factor the court can't use that to nullify the prosecution. Dankula's lawyer turned an opportunity into a complete fucking disaster.
The UK could certainly do with some clear protections for freedom of speech and a revision to this law in particular, because it keeps getting abused. Unfortunately the way the UK works this is unlikely to happen - instead it will just bumble along being slowly revised by courts and the CPS issuing guidance.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
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.
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.
That sure as hell isn't recognizable as a description of America today.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
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.
You seriously don't understand what Sargon said was racist?
He told some white people stop acting like black people. He then went on to explain why the kind of bad behaviour they were exhibiting was the kind of thing that black people would do. Except he didn't say black people.
That's textbook dude. That's 1930s cartoon racism.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC