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."
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?
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!
"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 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.
"You could theoretically face legal action just by criticizing a public figure."
Sounded like dictator dream.
"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
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).
As a conservative, I agree with most of your comment up until you tied in the PACs. PACs are organizations, not people. And just like companies, they wield an excessive amount of influence to the point that physical people are unable to be heard. Until we get the money out of politics, we are on the path to ruin.
I'll await the RINO accusations.
Just another day in Paradise
Harass? Yes
Threaten? No
If you can't handle a little harassment, get the hell off of social media.
Just another day in Paradise
Do you have an example of corporate censorship through demonetization is equivalent to government censorship?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
When corporations like Visa and Mastercard pretty much control who can exchange money on the Internet, yes, we should absolutely consider them equivalent if not more dangerous than Government.
Left-wing ideology actually dictates that in such a scenario, Governement Regulation should be used to force them to "quit it" in regards to demonetization over speech.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
That's your theory, but do you have actual examples of it happening so we can observe the results? Or is it purely hypothetical?
You said it was already the case, right?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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
Robert Spencer. Jihadwatch.
Gaslighting Idiot.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Robert Spencer was banned from the UK by the government... What does this have to do with corporate censorship?
He's still frequently on Fox News, right? He still has a Twitter account, his books are still on Amazon.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That's your theory, but do you have actual examples of it happening so we can observe the results? Or is it purely hypothetical?
You said it was already the case, right?
It is. And here's one example of it that you keep claiming cannot possibly exist. So you can shut up, now.
The link to their Twitter page about MasterCard forcing the deplatforming of Robert Spencer (NOT Richard Spencer, Robert is a totally different person, and not a racist or alt-right).
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Again, how is MasterCard acting like the government here?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Again, how is MasterCard acting like the government here?
By acting as a regulator, with a monopoly on the ability to allow interstate commerce or prohibit it for any entity, effectively shutting down any non-compliant actor.
The difference is that the government is forbidden from regulating the content of speech in its regulatory enforcement. So they are using companies and NGOs as proxies to do it for them. So, for instance aside from financial companies that are highly regulated, there are organizations such as the Atlantic Council, which is partnering with tech companies to police content on the Internet. The Atlantic Council is funded by the US government.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I feel like there is a fundamental difference between not assisting someone with their interstate commerce and with the government putting a stop to it. Also, in this case there is no evidence that the government had anything to do with Mastercard's decision - indeed MC needs little encouragement.
Also a more general point - being funded by the government does not make someone an instrument of the government. There are many counter examples. It doesn't even apply to non-government funding arrangements, e.g. Mozilla is not some kind of Google stooge just because it gets substantial funding from Google.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I feel like there is a fundamental difference between not assisting someone with their interstate commerce and with the government putting a stop to it.
There was no difference in the Patreon case, or Sargon's. And wouldn't be for lots of other businesses and individuals.
indeed MC needs little encouragement
I'm sure they received plenty of encouragement for this one. Government encouragement probably little to none. But that's kind of irrelevant.
Also a more general point - being funded by the government does not make someone an instrument of the government. There are many counter examples. It doesn't even apply to non-government funding arrangements, e.g. Mozilla is not some kind of Google stooge just because it gets substantial funding from Google.
I think you're being a bit disingenuous, here. I don't think you are truly naive enough to believe that those groups did not modify their behavior based on who is signing their checks. Government funding always comes with oversight, even if you assume that no government agent specified certain behaviors, it still creates the appearance of government control and endorsement. This is the only premise that is required to keep even a hint of religious doctrine and symbolism purged from government funded schools and government-owned public spaces.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
There was no difference in the Patreon case, or Sargon's.
Generally when the government decides to ban you, you can't just go to another payment provider. Sargon is on SubscribeStar now, for example. So I think there is a difference.
it still creates the appearance of government control and endorsement
Only among conspiracy theory aficionados. Or maybe it's different in the US, I don't know. But in Europe we have a long history of bodies funded by government but independent of it, and in cases where there is the slightest shred of evidence of interference it becomes a huge scandal.
I guess you could cite the Supreme Court as an example of where government appointments to a supposedly independent body are clearly highly political, but at the same time you would also have to acknowledge that it's not automatically so as in the case of someone like Mueller who many of the ruling class would dearly love to get rid of.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC