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."

Comments

Re:Intimidation is the Point

[Ol Olsoc]

The UK could certainly do with some clear protections for freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is and will always be a problem. Some folks find that disagreement is harassing them. Some folks find that negative response to something they say or write is infringing on their free speech.

I've seen some pretty wild accusations over time, from people getting people kicked from AOL because of simple disagreement - just report them as spam - to whining about their free speech rights being trampled after making a threat against a public official.

To my thinking, we have a choice. We either grow a bit thicker skins, or prepare for the internet of no commentary.

Re: GNAA GAY FELCHING BUTTFUCKING NIGGERS

[Anonymous Coward]

How come this shit isn't being deleted?

Re:Harassment and Stalking suck

[Curunir_wolf]

There is no question that the behavior you describe is what the Washington legislature was trying to address. But, as is typical of politicians, they tried to grab too much power for themselves. This is evidenced by the fact that Clarence Moriwaki was able to actually obtain a restraining order, and, worse, that investigators recommended that Rynearson be charged with cyberstalking! Because of a political disagreement. On Facebook.

That's not a solution to the cyberstalking problem. It's a source of greater problems (censoring the speech of your political opponents). Because that's how the law was used in this case. If Rynearson had not initiated his lawsuit, the government would have continued to silence him. In fact, they are still threatening him in this case, the prosecutor's office saying they would wait to see how Rynearson behaved in the future (they're monitoring him).

Pretty blatant overreach.