NY Prosecutor: Annoying Someone Is A Criminal Act, Especially If It's In Writing
from the because-'on-a-computer' dept
Some very interesting claims arose from oral arguments related to a case that has been kicked around the court system for a couple of years now. The case is People v. Golb, one that arose out of an extended disagreement between two college professors (Norman Golb of the University of Chicago and Lawrence Schiffman of NYU) over the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
One thing led to another… which then (inexplicably) led to Norman Golb's son, Raphael, creating more than 50 online aliases to create a ground swell of support for his father's views… which then (even more inexplicably) led to Raphael Golb impersonating Lawrence Schiffman (via email) in order to portray Schiffman as a plagiarist -- using Schiffman's own email address. It is this Golb the People have a problem with.
(Even more inexplicably, this somehow also led to a lawyer claiming to represent Schiffman sending legal threats to bloggers who had covered the case, asserting that their "criminal postings" needed to be taken down immediately. Clifford A Rieders Esq. could not have picked a worst trio of bloggers to send baseless legal threats to: Scott Greenfield of Simple Justice, Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy and Ken White of Popehat. Lessons were indubitably learned.)
In January of 2013, the court found that the younger Golb's First Amendment rights had not been violated during his prosecution for impersonating Schiffman in order to discredit him.
The pre-Washington Post version of Volokh Conspiracy covered the relevant parts of the decision.
Defendant’s convictions arise out of his use of emails to impersonate actual persons. Nothing in this prosecution, or in the court’s jury charge, violated defendant’s First Amendment or other constitutional rights… Among other things, defendant sent emails in which one of his father’s rivals purportedly admitted to acts of plagiarism…This decision is now being appealed, and the Volokh Conspiracy (Beltway Edition) is again on the scene, pointing out how the prosecutor is pushing for a very broad reading of relevant statutes -- something that will be of concern to anyone who might say something offensive via the internet.
Defendant was not prosecuted for the content of any of the emails, but only for giving the false impression that his victims were the actual authors of the emails. The First Amendment protects the right to criticize another person, but it does not permit anyone to give an intentionally false impression that the source of the message is that other person (see SMJ Group, Inc. v 417 Lafayette Restaurant LLC, 439 F Supp 2d 281 (SD NY 2006]).
I’ve blogged before about the danger of criminal harassment laws, when they are extended beyond offensive speech to one particular unwilling person — the traditional telephone harassment example — and apply instead to speech about a person. (See posts here and here, as well as this law review article, which starts by concrete examples of how such laws have been used.) And the prosecutor’s statement in this argument helps illustrate just how broadly prosecutors can read such laws.Eugene Volokh quotes part of the oral arguments presented April 2nd. Here's the lead-up and the relevant quote, both of which highlight the prosecutor's (Vincent Rivellese) ridiculous stance, as well as the judges' incredulity at what's being claimed.
CHIEF JUDGE LIPPMAN: Is this aggravated harassment or is this just annoying behavior?The delineation is obviously foggy if saying something is no crime, but writing it down is. Further on:
MR. RIVELLESE: Well, it's both, that's for sure. What's the - - -
CHIEF JUDGE LIPPMAN: Well, but is it technically a crime? Can it be in this kind of - - -
MR. RIVELLESE: Yes.
CHIEF JUDGE LIPPMAN: Isn't that a little bit overbroad?
MR. RIVELLESE: No.
CHIEF JUDGE LIPPMAN: No? Go ahead. Why not?
MR. RIVELLESE: This - - - this is the closest argument obviously in the case, but the aggravated harassment involves an intent to harass, annoy or alarm, and it's - - - it's got an intent that's required. It's also got the likelihood of harassing or alarming the recipients or the victims. It's also got - - -
JUDGE SMITH: If I - - - if I ask you a question that I expect to be an annoying question, and is likely to be an annoying question, am I committing a misdemeanor by asking the question?
MR. RIVELLESE: No, because there's no writing. The aggravated harassment - - -
JUDGE SMITH: Oh, but - - - oh, but if I submitted the question in writing, it would be a misdemeanor?
MR. RIVELLESE: Well, if - - - if you conveyed to somebody. So if you e-mailed somebody or you wrote a letter - - -
JUDGE SMITH: Really? Really?
JUDGE SMITH: If I e-mail someone an annoying question, I get a year?So it would appear. Objective but not subjective, but in this case, with the impersonation of another person, Rivellese seems to feel that it's actually more a subjective problem, especially when it's not even the victim who's being directly targeted. And the "intent to annoy and alarm" exception to the First Amendment should be enforced even if the speech is about a person rather than directed at a person.
MR. RIVELLESE: Well, it has to be likely to annoy, harass, or alarm - - -
CHIEF JUDGE LIPPMAN: So if Judge Smith put what he's asking you now in writing, this is a crime?
MR. RIVELLESE: I'm not annoyed. I'm not annoyed. So I'm fine.
CHIEF JUDGE LIPPMAN: Oh, okay, you're not annoyed. Okay. It might have been mis - - -
JUDGE SMITH: Give me - - - give me time.
MR. RIVELLESE: The proper discussion - - -
JUDGE ABDUS-SALAAM: Counsel, is it that subjective that the person who receives the question has to feel that it's annoying?
MR. RIVELLESE: Well, no, it is - - - it's reasonableness.
JUDGE ABDUS-SALAAM: It has to have an objective right.
JUDGE PIGOTT: But as a third - - - you're saying there can be a third-party aggravated harassment.This is what alarms Volokh. The narrow targeting of the First Amendment exceptions are being broadly read by prosecutors. This is the sort of expansion -- one that pushes behavior normally subject only to civil actions into criminal territory -- that invariably makes its way into newly-crafted laws targeting online behavior.
MR. RIVELLESE: Yes, if still - - - there's still an intended victim.
JUDGE PIGOTT: So if - - - well, that's I - - - you get - - - you get three college kids - - - you get some college kid who write - - - who e-mails the girlfriend of his roommate saying, you know, he really is a useless person. Is that aggravated harassment with respect to the victim, boyfriend/roommate?
MR. RIVELLESE: Yes, because it's got - - -
JUDGE PIGOTT: Really?
MR. RIVELLESE: It meets all the elements. It does not require that the person that you send the communication to is the same person that you intend to harass, annoy and alarm.
Here's what Volokh originally said about the decision that's now being appealed.
Intentionally trying to make others believe that someone did something (write an e-mail) that he did not inflicts specific harm on that other person, whether by harming his reputation or at least by making others think that he believes something that he doesn’t (which will often be civilly actionable under the false light tort). To be sure, that usually leads to civil liability, but nothing in the Court’s decision suggests that criminal liability in such cases is impermissible, especially when the law is limited to relatively clearly identifiable falsehoods, such as falsely claiming to be someone you are not.That's much more limited than what the prosecutor's arguing. His argument removes the limitations (falsehoods and false impersonation) and suggests that nearly any attempt to harass or annoy someone is a criminal offense. This is on top of his claim that there's a clear delineation between oral and written speech, with the latter being the more "criminal" of the two. It's this sort of broad reading that makes nearly every new cyberbullying/harassment law a handy new tool to criminalize a vast swath of online behavior.
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: annoying, first amendment, free speech, harassment, lawrence schiffman, normal golb, raphael golb
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It must have been that site Techdirt. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if that's the case...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, if that's the case...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, if that's the case...
Who defines "harassment"? What are the objective criteria for it?
And why give special protection to academia?
What if they're real (human) proxies?
"This is especially when it affects the opinions of others [...]"
How is that measured? Who measures it? What if it affects their opinions positively instead of negatively? And does it matter if it's true or false?
What about THIS POSTING, which will show up as from "Anonymous Coward" -- which is of course an alias shared by many people here -- and might be considered harassment by some idiot out there?
My point being, in case you haven't caught on by now, that your assertion is irrevocably flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, if that's the case...
See: http://raphaelgolbtrial.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/raphael-golb-amicus-brief.pdf
This being said, let's consider Golb's actual intent, which has been systematically obfuscated in media articles about the case (including, unfortunately, in Tim Cushing's otherwise excellent article). Indeed, Golb's intent was also obfuscated at the trial, since the prosecution concealed the pertinent evidence from the jury. Here is what we read in the most recent pleadings:
On August 4, 2008, Golb informed his brother that he had written “an article exposing [one complainant’s] plagiarism.” (SA-926). During the same period, he informed his mother of his concern that a “skewed pair of lecturers” would “egregiously misinform the public.” (SA-921). To counter this danger, he pointed out that his father, unlike the other lecturers, could give a lecture “at no cost to the museum.” (SA-921). The previous year, he had already explained to his brother that he believed his letters of complaint to UCLA faculty members would “embarrass” [another complainant] “by informing people of the truth (which many of them might not know).” (SA-990).
See p. 8 of the reply brief: http://raphaelgolbtrial.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/raphael-golb-reply-brief.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dammit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dammit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Restraining orders for everyone!
Remember, you do not have the right to not be offended. The sooner people re-learn this, the better off all of us will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Restraining orders for everyone!
^This. A thousand times this.
Impersonating a person in order to perpetrate a fraud is one thing, and should be treated as such, but trying to sneak anti-offense laws in through the back door should be stomped on, and hard.
Notice that I wrote, "to perpetrate a fraud."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the First Amendment?
So I guess if I tell my governor to shove this law up his ass, I've probably committed a misdemeanor. Seems like something I probably have a right to do under the First Amendment as political speech is protected speech.
Home of the Free indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the First Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]