Judge Says Bombarding Someone On Twitter With Offensive & Threatening Messages Is Free Speech
from the tough-cases dept
Earlier this year we wrote about a tough case, involving a guy who apparently spent nearly all of his waking hours bombarding a Buddhist leader he had a falling out with, with nasty, offensive and threatening messages on Twitter. He was charged with criminal stalking. This raised an awful lot of questions about the First Amendment, and a judge has now ruled that the tweets were, in fact, protected free speech. I tend to think the ruling here is correct, though I can see how this troubles people. As the judge noted, however:Even though the Internet is the newest medium for anonymous, uncomfortable expression touching on political or religious matters, online speech is equally protected under the First Amendment as there is "no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied" to online speech.... Indeed "whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, basic principles of freedom of speech and press, like the First Amendment's command, do not vary when a new and different medium for communication appears."Funny. I would think that this same reasoning would apply against domain seizures and SOPA, but it never seems to come up. That said, if the guy represents a real threat, I would think there are other laws that should cover that, outside of this broad "anti-stalking" law that was used. The fact that he caused "emotional distress" to the person his tweets were directed at is unfortunate and sad... but not illegal.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, offensive, stalking, twitter
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
On that note, wouldn't it be harassment, not stalking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
18 whatever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It may not be pleasant, but.I prescribe this quote
The American President, Andrew Shepherd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ars Technia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ars Technia
That's not what this other judge ruled. He ruled that one man's blog was not protected by the First Amendment and that it must be deleted entirely.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/14/0439226/judge-orders-man-to-delete-revenge-blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ars Technia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paraphrased from a quote I believe by Harlin Ellison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Dean on "cyberbullying"
Cyberbullying on Twitter, Part One
http://verdict.justia.com/2011/12/16/cyberbullying-on-twitter-part-one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of speech is there to allow people to speak up against the establishment. To enable public debate an discussion. The law shouldn't allow that right and privilege to be abused in this way.
If he'd been standing outside the guys house shouting abuse I'm pretty sure he'd have been charged with some sort of beach of the peace offence. In a sense the prosecution team have failed because it seems they've gone for the most harmful charges they could make a case for and clearly those charges didn't apply in this context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zeoli is not the only Titus victim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]