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…

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]).

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.

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?
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?

The delineation is obviously foggy if saying something is no crime, but writing it down is. Further on:

JUDGE SMITH: If I e-mail someone an annoying question, I get a year?
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.

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.

JUDGE PIGOTT: But as a third - - - you're saying there can be a third-party aggravated harassment.
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.

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.

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.

Filed Under: annoying, first amendment, free speech, harassment, lawrence schiffman, normal golb, raphael golb

College Violates Student's Rights, Follows It Up By Deleting Critical Comments From Its Facebook Page

from the showing-a-definite-preference-for-wrongs-over-rights dept

Another college has deployed censorious tactics, and as usual, FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has the story.

On October 23, 2013, Asnuntuck Community College (ACC) student Nicholas Saucier had a videotaped conversation about recent gun legislation with Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy, who was visiting campus as part of an ongoing conference. At the end of the conversation, during which he called Malloy a “snake” as Malloy left in his vehicle, Saucier was confronted by the college’s president and a campus security officer, who escorted him off campus. The college charged Saucier with harassment and making threats, among other violations of its conduct policies.

The video of this encounter is still live (no doubt much to ACC's chagrin) and it shows Saucier discussing the impact of the governor's gun control policies on his ammunition business. Governor Malloy doesn't look too interested in fielding complaints from a constituent, which probably explains Saucier's tossed off, low-level insult as his "representative" exited the scene.


Not only did Saucier get run off campus by the school president and his security team, he was also suspended and banned from the school's property until college administration could "discuss" his supposed "harassment" with him. But rather than entertain any ideas of due process, ACC instead tried to pressure the student into "pleading guilty" to all "charges" and submitting to a mandatory professional evaluation before he could apply for readmission.

Saucier instead pushed for a formal hearing, rather than plead guilty to obviously false charges. The school allowed this but would not allow him to enter his taped conversation as evidence on his behalf. It also prohibited any recordings of the hearing itself, ensuring it could (attempt) to spin the outcome in any direction it chose to. As can be expected, the school found Saucier guilty of all charges. It did lift the suspension but put him on probation.

FIRE stepped in and sent a letter to the college demanding that it explain its violations of Saucier's due process and free speech rights. This letter went unanswered. This didn't stop the school from making another unfounded claim when contacted by another site covering the story.

The Blaze reports:

"A spokesperson from Asnuntuck Community College told TheBlaze that they are seeking a correction from FIRE, saying their statement on the situation is “categorically false,” and that Saucier was suspended for his harassing behavior and not the subject matter. They declined to go into any more specifics, citing Saucier’s privacy."

FIRE has not received any requests from ACC for corrections or any other correspondence at this time (although maybe such a request is on the way). We have not asserted that Saucier was suspended for the subject matter of his questioning—only that his speech was protected by the First Amendment and was neither harassing nor threatening, despite what ACC has alleged.

All the while, the ACC has been busy burying dissenting opinions from students and others. FIRE reports that the admins of the school's Facebook page had been removing critical comments before finally deciding to take the entire page offline.

After we covered the case here on The Torch, though, concerned citizens took to ACC’s Facebook page to demand answers and action from ACC administrators. And they did get a reaction—just not the one they’d hoped for.

ACC deleted every critical or questioning post from its Facebook page.

Unfortunately for the school, these deletions are well documented. Even if these hadn't been captured, the fact that the page was removed would indicate that the school is still completely uninterested in dealing with the results of its censorious efforts.

Here's a few of the screengrabs FIRE obtained before ACC memory-holed its Facebook page.

Before:




After:




Now it's completely gone, save for a sanitized version preserved by Google's cache. It's truly sad that a school would feel strongly enough about supposed "harassment" and "threats" to violate a student's rights, but not strongly enough to step up and defend its actions to critics. This certainly explains its decision to block Saucier from presenting his recording in his defense as well as its banning of any recordings of its closed hearing. The school's policies cannot survive even the simplest challenge.

Filed Under: dannel malloy, free speech, harassment, nicholas saucier
Companies: acc, asnuntuck community college

Lancaster Cops Still Unclear On Public's Right To Record; Harass Same Citizen Who Recorded Them Last Week

from the there's-a-culture-problem-here dept

Apparently, the statement from a Lancaster, PA police spokesman that citizens are allowed to film on-duty police officers hasn't made its way to the entire staff yet. Carlos Miller at PINAC reports that Paul Dejesus, the same man who had an officer walk away from taking an accident report because he was being filmed, was again approached by a police officer who demanded he stop filming because recording his voice "violated" Pennsylvania's wiretapping laws.

Less than a week after a Pennsylvania man posted a video showing a Lancaster cop refusing to take an accident report because the man insisted on his nephew recording the interaction, a story that was picked up by a national technology site as well as the local newspaper, another Lancaster police officer threatened to arrest the man on wiretapping charges, indicating a clear pattern of abuse of authority when it comes to the Constitutionally protected act of recording cops in public.

Fortunately, Paul Dejesus knew his rights and was not afraid to assert them, even after the cop gave up on the wiretapping threat and began threatening him with disorderly conduct, which is the usual catch-all charge for contempt of cop.

But Dejesus slapped that threat down by pointing out he was recording from his own yard.

But if he was recording from a public sidewalk, he still wouldn't have been guilty of disorderly conduct in that state.

The officer tries a little ad hoc prior restraint by shining his flashlight at Dejesus' camera, a tactic that's deployed frequently by cops wishing to stay unrecorded.


These actions directly contradict the statement given by police spokeman Sgt. William Hickey.

"It is not illegal to film police in the course of their duties, as long as you are not interfering with them doing their job..."

City officers are instructed during ongoing in-service sessions that citizens are allowed to film them doing their jobs, Hickey says.

Case law has established that right, and officers should not inform a citizen otherwise, Hickey says.

"It's reasonable to expect, at any given time, anybody could be filmed," Hickey says. "There are traffic cameras, cameras at ATMs, even most of our patrol vehicles are equipped with dash cams.

"You are under surveillance no matter where you go."

Hickey's not lying about the surveillance. Lancaster is somewhat infamous for the number of surveillance cameras it has installed, which surpasses the number installed by many larger cities like San Francisco and Boston. Not only that, but the system is manned by volunteers including, at one point, someone who had been convicted of stalking, harassment and impersonating a public official.

The fact that everyone in Lancaster is "under surveillance" (from the mouth of the PD PR himself) means that the police, who "benefit" from this camera system, are the last people who should be granting themselves an "expectation of privacy" in order to wave off pesky citizens and their recording devices.

These cops backed off when the usual stuff didn't work, but there's obviously still a disconnect between the PD spokesman's calming statements and the actual attitude of the rank-and-file.

Filed Under: harassment, lancaster, police, recording police, surveillance, wiretapping

Military Harasses Journalists At Bradley Manning Trial

from the freedom-of-the-press dept

The US government hasn't been happy at all that there is any press coverage of the Bradley Manning trial, and seems to bend over backwards to make their lives more difficult. However, it appears that they took things to an entirely new and ridiculous level this week in actively spying on and harassing journalists covering the trial.

@carwinb, @kgosztola, @nathanLfuller, and @wikileakstruck have tweeted about armed guards standing directly behind them as they type into laptops in the designated press area, being "screamed at" for having "windows" open on their computers that show Twitter in a browser tab, and having to undergo extensive, repeated, invasive physical searches.

Even the NY Times has noted how extreme it was:

Two military police officers in camouflage fatigues and armed with holstered handguns paced behind each row there, looking over the journalists’ shoulders, which had not happened during the trial. No explanation was given.

Reading through the various tweets, the MPs were specifically trying to stop journalists from using Twitter. Kevin Gosztola was directly told not to use Twitter and was later admonished for having "a window" open on his computer. No joke. The reporters also noted that they had to go through an incredibly detailed TSA-style search before they could enter the courtroom -- and that this had not happened previously in their coverage of the trial. Multiple journalists noted how "creepy" it was and how intimidating it is to have military police with guns looking over your shoulder and watching everything you do. Freedom of the press? Not at all.

In response to all of this attention, the judge apparently claims that she ordered the "extra security" because of "repeated rule violations" of rules that no one was told about. But, reading through the details, it sounds a hell of a lot more like intimidation of the press than than about any attempt to stop "rules violations."

Filed Under: bradley manning, harassment, journalism, kevin gosztola

When Does Speech Go From Legal To Lethal?

from the regulation-of-cyberharassment dept

Recently, Judge Roger Titus of Maryland declared unconstitutional a federal law that made it a crime to use the internet "with the intent to harass [or] cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another state." In the wake of that decision, legislatures and courts across the country will need to rethink existing statutes on cyberharassment.

In the Maryland case, William Cassidy had been charged with cyberstalking Alyce Zeoli, a former colleague and a Buddhist religious leader, based on his tweets, such as, "Do the world a favor and go kill yourself. P.S. Have a nice day." Zeoli asserted that the tweets made her so fear for her safety that she had not left her house for a year and a half, except to see her psychiatrist. But the judge dismissed the case. His reasoning will animate discussions in legislatures about how to amend state and federal laws.

Judge Titus indicated that "threats of harm" are punishable, but not communications "intending" emotional distress. He also considered it relevant that the medium used (a tweet) was communicated to the public at large rather than just the victim. The target of the harassment could just choose not to follow the tweets. "This," said the judge, "is in sharp contrast to a telephone call, letter or e-mail specifically addressed to and directed at another person, and that difference ... is fundamental to the First Amendment analysis in this case." Judge Titus also seemed to think that it was unreasonable for Zeoli to have such a dramatic reaction; he said that Cassidy's tweets were not a "true threat."

Words are powerful. They can move listeners or readers to action, sometimes even to harm themselves or someone else. But generally, our society doesn't punish the speaker or writer. Think about Ozzy Osbourne. Thirty years ago, he recorded the song Suicide Solution. The song states that "Suicide is the only way out," and contains the barely-recognizable lyrics, sung at a faster speed, "Get the gun and try it; Shoot, shoot, shoot."

When a 19 year old shot himself in the head with a .22 caliber handgun after spending five hours listening to Ozzy's music, his grieving parents sued Ozzy and the record distributor. The California Appellate Court rejected their claims (pdf), noting that speech does not lose its First Amendment protection merely because it "may evoke a mood of depression." The court said the lyrics failed to "order or command anyone to concrete action at any specific time."

But courts have held differently when the speech is directly addressed to a particular person. In a case currently on appeal in Minnesota, William Melchert-Dinkel was charged with pressuring two people over the internet to commit suicide. He posed as a young female nurse who pretended to enter into a suicide pact with his victims. The judge in the Minnesota case pointed out that Melchert-Dinkel's "encouragement and advice imminently incited the suicide of Nadia Kajouji and was likely to have that effect." The judge in the case labeled the instant messages as "lethal advocacy" and held that Melchert-Dinkel's words were "analogous to the category of unprotected speech known as 'fighting words' and 'imminent incitement of lawlessness.'" The judge distinguished messages sent to the public at the large, saying that Melchert-Dinkel had the right to take his pro-suicide message to the public--over the internet, on television, and so forth--but did not have the right to address that message to a single, vulnerable individual. Melchert-Dinkel's attorney is appealing the case, based on the First Amendment.

But how direct does a threat have to be? What if Melchert-Dinkel had just sent Nadia an mp3 file with Ozzy’s Suicide Solution? Courts are already weighing whether people's "likes" on a social network can be used as evidence against them. In a Wisconsin case, a judge admitted into evidence a litigant's MySpace reference to a short story in which a judge was harmed. In contrast, a Mississippi court refused to use a dad's MySpace post of Ronald McDonald being shot in the face to prove that the mom should get custody of the kids.

The "intent" standard is also problematic. As Judge Titus suggested, the standard is too broad, covering speech that is constitutionally protected. But the "intent" standard is also, in some cases, too narrow. It might allow someone to evade legitimate prosecution by claiming they didn't intend harm, they just intended to be funny.

That strategy worked for 40-year-old Elizabeth Thrasher, whose victim was her ex-husband’s new girlfriend’s daughter. Thrasher posted photos, the phone number, and the email address of the 17-year-old girl in the "Casual Encounters" section of Craigslist, in which people expressed their interest in casual sex. As a result of the "Casual Encounters" posting, the 17-year-old girl was swamped with sexually explicit cell phone calls, emails, and text messages that included nude pictures and solicitations for sex. One man even came to the Sonic Restaurant where she worked after failing to reach her on her phone, leading her to eventually quit her job out of fear. She testified that the publication of the information made her feel like she "was set up to get killed and raped by somebody." Thrasher’s attorney argued that photos of the girl and her work location were already available on the girl's MySpace profile. He said the postings were "tantamount to a practical joke"--and Thrasher was acquitted.

The issue of targeting a victim versus the public at large is also a question to be considered. Judge Titus suggests that, to be criminally actionable, tweets and posts need to be sent directly to the victim. But because of the nature of digital communications, Judge Titus' distinction between public tweets and direct communications with the victim may not hold up in future cases. Much of the cyberharassment of women does not involve a direct threat from one person to another. In a Connecticut case, a man posted a YouTube rap video of himself waving a gun while threatening to shoot his baby's mom and "put her face on the dirt until she can't breathe no more." Even though the man was in North Carolina at the time and the woman resided in Connecticut, the court issued a restraining order against him.

Under Judge Titus' standard, such a video might not have been a cause for concern because the woman could just have turned it off. This issue of targeting a private person versus the public at large will be key in cases where the person posts information (such as a Google map to a woman's house with a claim she wants men to act out rape fantasies) and the poster himself does not intend to do violence.

As courts and legislators deal with cyberharassment, they'll be determining what the limits are to punishing people for tweets and posts that threaten violence or cause emotional harm. They'll also have to determine whether the rule that the communication must be sent directly to the victim makes any sense in the age of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, where public posts--especially those that urge someone else to harm the victim--might be even more deadly than private ones.

Lori Andrews is the author of the upcoming I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy

Filed Under: free speech, harassment, stalking, william melchert-dinkel

Court Orders Blog Taken Completely Offline For 'Harassing' Posts

from the does-that-meet-first-amendment-scrutiny dept

While we had one court say that harassing speech on Twitter was protected by the First Amendment, another court felt quite differently about harassing speech on a blog. As both Eric Goldman and Kash Hill have discussed, a court ordered Andrew John Arlotta to delete his entire harassing blog about his ex-girlfriend, and also basically to not do anything that he intends to upset her. Goldman highlights a few of the problems of this, in rather understated tones:

The court rejected a constitutional challenge to the HRO, basically treating harassing speech as a class of content categorically excluded from First Amendment protection. I'm not sure about this approach. It seems like this was more appropriately treated as a situation where speech is also conduct, and the HRO (harassment restraining order) regulated his conduct. I believe treating harassing speech as outside the First Amendment invites more mischief than playing with the speech/conduct divide.

I think Goldman underplays the problems here. I think we all agree that what Arlotta did was ridiculous, creepy and vindictive. But that doesn't mean it's not protected under the First Amendment. As Goldman notes, there were ways to stop Arlotta's conduct without taking away his First Amendment rights and carving out an exception to the First Amendment for being a jerk. I think this ruling is really questionable.

Goldman also highlights the consequences of such a bizarre and comprehensive ruling against Arlotta:

This ruling leaves open a key question. Even under the prior HRO, could Arlotta have blogged about his dealings with Johnson if he did not try to bring it to the attention of others? After all, if his statements are true and not based on restricted information, Arlotta should be able to tell his story. Then again, a blog will show up in the search results, so a blog could be a passive-aggressive way of getting back to Johnson, and just as (if not more) effective as affirmatively reaching out to call attention to the blog. So try a different hypothetical: could Arlotta write and publish a book telling his story? I think the answer should be yes, so long as he lacked malicious intent (recall the initial HRO restricted him from intending to hurt Johnson's privacy).

Of course, I'm not sure a judge would see it that way. That's part of the problem with this ruling. Clearly, the court was troubled by what Arlotta did, and found a way to stop him. So if he were to do as Goldman describes above, I wouldn't be surprised to see them merely assume that it was more of the same, and continue to block his speech. And that brings up one of the clear problems of the ruling. Could you really be barred completely from publicly speaking about an ex because you once harassed her?

Filed Under: blogs, harassment, speech

US Chamber Of Commerce: Communicating With Woman Whose Sad Story We Manipulated Is Harassment

from the um-no dept

You may recall that last week we had a post about a new propaganda campaign from the lobbying giant, the US Chamber of Commerce (who thrives off the fact that people falsely assume they're the US Department of Commerce, rather than a private lobbying group). The video, in support of the terrible and dangerous PROTECT IP Act continues the favorite talking points of the dishonest supporters of that bill, which is to conflate the problem of fake (and potentially dangerous) drugs with copyright infringement. The two things are totally and completely different, but by tugging on your heart strings about someone who died from ingesting fake drugs, the US Chamber of Commerce (and other lobbyists and politicians) hopes to ram through the PROTECT IP Act, despite its myriad problems. In this case, the campaign involved a heart-string-pulling video from a woman talking about a friend of hers who had died after taking some counterfeit drugs that had lead in them.

Of course, the folks in the Techdirt community quickly pointed out numerous other problems with the propaganda campaign, including the fact that the "example" in the video took place in Canada, meaning that a US law wouldn't have meant anything at all. Separately, and more importantly, it was pointed out that the Operation in Our Sites effort by ICE, which was the basis for PROTECT IP, has yet to target a single online drug site. They just use the scare factor of fake drugs to go after websites based on questionable reasons and evidence.

One of our regular commenters, Prometheefeu, suggested that the woman in the video might not know that she was being manipulated this way by the US Chamber of Commerce and suggested that the community here team up to draft a letter to explain why her friend's tragic story is being exploited by the US Chamber of Commerce to support a law that's really focused on an entirely different issue. Prometheefeu mentioned that he had found the woman's address and phone number, but he did not give that information out. He just suggested that we write her a letter. He even explicitly told people not to harass (or, as he said, "prank/lulz") the woman, noting (correctly) that this would make you a "counterproductive idiot."

All of this is perfectly reasonable. Unless, of course, you're the US Chamber of Commerce.

They called us and left a voicemail specifically calling out that comment, and saying that our commenter was calling for people to "harass" the woman in their video and asking us to delete the comment. Now, it seems that we're all in agreement that harassing this woman would be idiotic. But, apparently the US Chamber of Commerce feels that writing a reasoned letter to someone to explain why the Chamber of Commerce is manipulating your story counts as "harassment."

Now that strikes me as something of a double standard. After all, the Chamber of Commerce itself runs campaigns asking people to send "20,000 letters in 20 days" in order to flood Congress in support of certain bills. But, someone wants to draft a single letter to someone who appears in a ridiculously misleading US Chamber of Commerce video... and it's harassment?

Filed Under: counterfeit drugs, harassment, lobbying, protect ip, rational discussion
Companies: us chamber of commerce

Philly Police Harass, Threaten To Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun; Then Charge Him With Disorderly Conduct For Recording Them

from the lovely dept

As police are insisting that having the public record them is a dangerous situation that shouldn't be allowed, we get a striking example of just how important that right is at times. Julian Sanchez points us to a story of a guy in Philadelphia, who had a license to carry a firearm in a city where it's legal to openly carry a firearm -- but who ran into a police officer who apparently did not understand his city's own laws:

On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: "Yo, Junior, what are you doing?"

Fiorino wheeled and saw Sgt. Michael Dougherty aiming a handgun at him.

What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing - openly carrying a gun on the city's streets - was against the law.

"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip.

"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino said. "It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."

You can hear all of this via the YouTube clip, embedded here: It gets worse and worse. Dougherty threatens to shoot Fiorino for trying to show him his license:

Fiorino offered to show Dougherty his driver's and firearms licenses. The cop told him to get on his knees.

"Excuse me?" Fiorino said.

"Get down on your knees. Just obey what I'm saying," Dougherty said.

"Sir," Fiorino replied, "I'm more than happy to stand here -"

"If you make a move, I'm going to f------ shoot you," Dougherty snapped. "I'm telling you right now, you make a move, and you're going down!"

"Is this necessary?" Fiorino said.

Other cops show up and they continue to curse at him and scream at him, while he calmly responds to their claims. They discover that he has a recording device in his pocket, and they go even more ballistic, telling him he broke the law with that as well. Eventually, they finally realize that he wasn't breaking the law with the gun and let him go... But once he posted the audio on YouTube, suddenly the District Attorney took renewed interest in the case, and charged him with "reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct," claiming that he refused to cooperate with police. If you listen to the tapes, it's hard to see how anyone could make that claim with a straight face. It seems pretty clear, from the beginning, that it's the police who were recklessly endangering someone and who were disorderly in how they dealt with Fiorino.

No matter what your opinion is on guns or open carry rules, it's hard to see how this guy deserves the treatment he received from police who clearly did not understand the law in their own city -- and it's even more ridiculous to see him facing a (trumped up) charge, after he uploaded the audio. It seems like a pretty clear case of vindictive prosecution, even as part of the issue is that the very thing that pissed off law enforcement is precisely what proves this guy was perfectly reasonable throughout the encounter.

Filed Under: disorderly conduct, guns, harassment, open carry, philadelphia, police, recording

Is Falsely Being Accused Of File Sharing With An Automated Pre-Settlement Letter A Form Of Harassment?

from the we-may-find-out dept

With law operations like ACS:Law in the UK and US Copyright Group in the US sending out thousands upon thousands of "pre-settlement" (i.e., "pay us or we'll sue you") letters for those it accuses of copyright infringement, based on extremely flimsy evidence, it's inevitable that plenty of innocent people will get swept up in the legal threats. At least one law firm in the UK is looking for those who were falsely accused to file a harassment charge on their behalf. This seems like a stretch. Even if it does seem like harassment, my guess is that no court would likely find that such legal threats were harassment, as the lawyers bringing the suits would make the case that it was just an "honest mistake." Of course, if you tried to use that in response to a threat letter for sharing a file online, I doubt these law firms would simply let you walk away...

Filed Under: copyright, harassment

Guy Charged With Harassment For Sending Email Complaint To Senator Jim Bunning

from the careful-who-you-get-angry-with dept

We've talked multiple times about the problems with various online "harassment" laws, many of which are written so broadly as to outlaw using email to try to "annoy" someone. Basically, they try to outlaw being a jerk, which doesn't seem to make sense if you believe in the First Amendment.

With the recent situation involving AT&T threatening to take legal action against a customer for sending a complaint email to AT&T's CEO, it seems like lots of people are overreacting to email complaints. The latest is Senator Jim Bunning, from Kentucky. Bunning got a lot of attention back in February when he decided to become a one-man filibuster against extending unemployment benefits (much to the annoyance of politicians from both major parties). DavidClerk alerts us to the news that Bruce Shore, an unemployed man in Philadelphia, got so upset at Bunning that he sent some angry emails to Bunning and his staff. Fair enough. These are the basics of representative democracy.

The emails were definitely angry, but it's a stretch to claim they are real harassment. Yes, the final line could cut it close, but is hardly a direct threat.

Hello,

I am at a LOSS of words for SENATOR BUNTING blocking unemployment benefits for me and my children. If I do NOT get my check next week I WILL HAVE NO FOOD AND WILL BE ON THE STREET.

What kind of people are you? 10 Billion goes to the war every couple days and to Wall street weekly. I want my benefits or there will be people starving and dying.

What is wrong with you people. NOW is NOT the time to play politics with childrens lives.

ARE you'all insane. NO checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT??

IF THIS POLITICAL GRANDSTANDING DOES NOT END TODAY - WE WILL COME TO YOUR OFFICES AND MAKE OUR POINT. YOU ARE PLAYING A LIFE AND DEATH GAME HERE.

DO YOU GET IT.

Brad Shore
Louisville, KY 40202

Now there are lots of ways Bunning and his staff could respond to such emails. But the way he did respond was to get the Capitol Police and the FBI involved leading to the guy being indicted for online harassment, specifically that he "did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication." You can see the indictment here: Part of the issue appears to be that he also claimed to be in Kentucky when he was really in Philadelphia. Hence the "without disclosing his identity." But, no matter how you look at it, to charge him with harassment seems like a huge stretch and could present a clear chilling effect on people expressing their concerns to elected officials. Even if you think it made sense for the FBI to check things out to make sure there was no real threat implied by the email, to then go ahead and indict him seems like it's going way too far, and is hard to square with our concept of the First Amendment. Shore has since plead not guilty, but will face a trial starting in July. However, it seems like it never should have gotten this far. Expressing your displeasure with an elected official should not lead to felony charges against you.

Filed Under: email, harassment, jim bunning