Terrible Vermont Harassment Law Being Challenged After Cops Use It To Punish A Black Lives Matter Supporter Over Her Facebook Posts
from the we-need-better-laws-because-we-can't-count-on-justified-applications dept
In June 2020, in Brattleboro, Vermont, something extremely ordinary happened. Two residents of the community interacted on Facebook. It was not a friendly interaction, which made it perhaps even more ordinary.
Here's the ordinariness in all of its mundane detail, as recounted in Brattleboro resident Isabel Vinson's lawsuit [PDF] seeking to have one of the state's laws found unconstitutional.
In June 2020, Christian Antoniello, a Brattleboro resident and the owner of a local business called the Harmony Underground, criticized the Black Lives Matter movement on his personal Facebook page, stating, “How about all lives matter. Not black lives, not white lives. Get over yourself no one’s life is more important than the next. Put your race card away and grow up.”
On June 6, Ms. Vinson posted on her own Facebook page and tagged the Harmony Underground’s business page. Ms. Vinson’s post stated: “Disgusting. The owner of the Harmony Underground here in Brattleboro thinks this is okay and no matter how many people try and tell him it’s wrong he doesn’t seem to care.” In the comments on her post, Ms. Vinson recommended that everyone “leave a review on his page so [Antoniello] can never forget to be honest,” and also tagged a Facebook group called “Exposing Every Racist.”
In response to Ms. Vinson’s Facebook post, a conversation thread ensued among several people, including Ms. Vinson, about her post, Mr. Antoniello, and other complaints about the business.
That's when things stopped being normal, and started becoming increasingly more bizarre.
Several weeks later, Antoniello and his wife reported to the Brattleboro Police Department that they were being harassed on Facebook and that Ms. Vinson’s Facebook activity caused them to fear for their safety.
This is kind of a normal reaction. Kind of. Not everyone subjected to online pitchforks will choose to make it a police matter, but this couple did.
If you're wondering where the criminal activity is, the Brattleboro police department has an answer for you.
On July 7, the Brattleboro Police Department cited Ms. Vinson under § 1027 based on her Facebook activity.
Here's what the state law (Section 1027) says:
A person who, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or annoy makes contact by means of a telephonic or other electronic communication with another and makes any request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, or indecent; threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any person; or disturbs, or attempts to disturb, by repeated telephone calls or other electronic communications, whether or not conversation ensues, the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communication or communications are received shall be fined not more than $250.00 or be imprisoned not more than three months, or both.
It's an amazingly broad law that criminalizes all sorts of speech since it can be stretched to fit nearly any speech a complainant doesn't care for. "Harass" is a pretty non-specific term. "Annoy" is even more vague.
That's the law being challenged by Vinson and the ACLU. It's a vague, unconstitutional law. And it's a law the PD obviously didn't sincerely believe applied to Vinson's Facebook post because it ditched everything about this highly questionable case the moment questions started being asked.
Two weeks later -- following an ACLU public records request for all documents related to Vinson's charge and prosecution -- the Brattleboro PD approached Vinson and offered to drop the charges in exchange for her entering a diversion program that could be completed in lieu of criminal charges. Vinson refused to enter the diversion program and said she was seeking legal representation. Here's what happened next:
Two days later, the Brattleboro police informed Ms. Vinson that she would not be charged.
All's well that ends abruptly in the face of the slightest resistance. But the law is still on the books. If the Brattleboro cops may decide not to take a second swing at Isabel Vinson with this law, law enforcement officers in the state are still free to misuse the law to punish people for saying things other people didn't like. And, needless to say, the vague law presents a perfect crime of opportunity for cops if a state resident says something cops don't like. That's why the state is being sued and the Vermont federal court being asked to declare the law unconstitutional. As it stands, the law presents an existential threat to free speech in the state. And Isabel Vinson's experience in Brattleboro shows what can happen when the threat goes from theoretical to fully-realized.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, black lives matter, brattleboro, christian antoniello, debate, free speech, harassment, isabel vinson, social media, vermont
Companies: aclu, harmony underground
