Prosecuted For Critical Twittering 334
lee1 writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation is trying to urge a federal court (PDF) to block what they claim is the unconstitutional use of the federal anti-stalking law to prosecute a man for posting criticism of a public figure to Twitter. The law was originally targeted against crossing state lines for the purpose of stalking, but was modified in 2005 to make the 'intentional infliction of emotional distress' by the use of 'any interactive computer service' a crime. The prosecution's theory in this case is that using Twitter to criticize a public figure can be a criminal act if the person's feelings are hurt."
Re:LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
The prosecution's theory in this case is that using Twitter to criticize a public figure can be a criminal act if the person's feelings are hurt.
Why do I get the feeling that the above isn't how the prosecution describe it? Seriously, this reads like a ridiculous caricature of whatever their argument actually is, which is fine for the EFF in trying to persuade the court (who already knows the other side of the story) but absolutely stupid in an article supposedly helping us to discuss and/or form opinions. What is the point of this?
Dark Future (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me get this straight. You can be sued for criticism of a public figure, something clearly covered by the 1st Amendment.
I'm sure that if people like this "public figure" had their way it would be a criminal offense, punishable by x years in jail.
On the other hand, actual murderers are being released from overcrowded jails. This is going to start people thinking that instead of using words, they should use a gun. Might end up with a lesser sentence.
Just a thought.
In the words of a wise man... (Score:5, Insightful)
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
--Salman Rushdie