Stalking, computer forensics, and First Amendment, this case has it all per Darren Chaker, http://www.darren-chaker.com/ . The government ran afoul of the First Amendment when it indicted a man under a federal anti-stalking law for allegedly harassing a prominent religious figure through blog postings and messages on Twitter, a Maryland federal judge has ruled. United States v.Cassidy, No. 11-091, 2011 WL 6260872 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2011).
U.S. District Judge Roger W. Titus of the District of Maryland declined to find the statute unconstitutional on its face. Instead, he said it was unconstitutional as applied in this case because the defendant, William Cassidy, was engaged in protected speech regarding the qualifications and character of a public figure.
The alleged victim, who goes by the names Alyce Zeoli or Catherine Burroughs, is a Buddhist leader who was the subject of a 2000 book, “The Buddha from Brooklyn,” the judge's opinion said.
According to the opinion, Cassidy met Burroughs in 2007, but the friendship soured and Cassidy began posting entries on a blog and sending messages to his Twitter followers that allegedly caused Burroughs emotional distress.
A year ago, a grand jury indicted Cassidy for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)A. As amended in 2006, the statute makes it a crime to use an interactive computer service, or “any facility of interstate or foreign commerce,” to harass, threaten or cause emotional distress to another person.
Cassidy moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that Section 2261A(2)A was an impermissible restriction on protected speech and was unconstitutionally vague. He also argued that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the facts of his case.
Judge Titus agreed with the latter assertion, explaining that the offensive blog postings and tweets concerned Burroughs' character and qualifications as a prominent Buddhist leader. That is exactly the type of speech the First Amendment seeks to protect, he said.
He emphasized that Burroughs could have avoided seeing the messages by choosing not to read the blog and by blocking Cassidy's tweets.
“This 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 wrote.
The judge declined to address Cassidy's broader constitutional arguments.
