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."
Help, help, I'm being oppressed! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm suing all of Slashdot for imposing years of emotional distress on me every April 1st. I'll settle for no less than $1 million and a public flogging of kdawson.
Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm suing you for the emotional duress of making me consider that /.'s April Fools jokes aren't funny. How dare you criticize my sense of humor??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm suing you for emotional distress caused by misquoting Monty Python [imdb.com] in your subject.
Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Listen, that is just plain idiotic. Noone is forcing you to visit Slashdot those days, and .. wait, did you say kdawson?
Hmm..
Do you have a page accepting donations for your cause, or something?
Brilliant (Score:2)
This is absolutely brilliant. While we are at it, let's bring up a private prosecution against old butch Oscar Wilde. That will learn those satirists.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap! You want a time machine? Just convince lawyers the can go back in time and sue people and I guarantee they'll invent one.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd answer your post, but my Lawyer-bot 5000 (tm) told me not to. In fact, I'm posting this reply against my lawyer's advice.
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome!
There's finally a use for all the left over Es from printing out copies of La disparition or it's English translation A Void.
LOL (Score:3)
Yay, a law that's about to be ruled as unconstitutional!
Re: (Score:3)
Yay, a law that's about to be ruled as unconstitutional!
Let's hope so. Although at this rate, it's going to be passed sooner or later (I give it 10 years). Yes, that's the direction we are heading. The simple thought that proposing this law is possible is worrying enough. That's where we are now - politicians proposing laws such as this without flinching... that's normal today. They don't think there's an issue. They don't think anyone important would think there's an issue. That's quite tragic.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not "proposing" this law. It was passed into law in 2005.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite right.
It's rather hard to prosecute someone under a law that hasn't been passed yet.
Ex post facto and all that good stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, reading the text of this law, it looks like it specifically removes "interactive computer services" from the definition of "telecommunications devices" covered by this law.
Which would almost certainly prevent twittering being counted as "harassing" under this law.
"First, we hang all the lawyers" comes to mind here...
Re: (Score:2)
They proposed it at one point, and the fact that they thought it was a good idea is terrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
We have an overabundance of guns and crazy people. This makes protesting to the point of revolution a very dangerous idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you want to protest anything to the point of revolution, you might want to consider getting the guys with guns on your side.
Re: (Score:2)
We have an overabundance of guns and crazy people. This makes protesting to the point of revolution a very dangerous idea.
Well, if you want to protest anything to the point of revolution, you might want to consider getting the guys with guns on your side.
The revolution eats its children. Please don't forget that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, whatever. But, complacency allows the government to eat the children, so what's the difference? How many of our children died in Iraq? Not as many as Iraqi children, but still, plenty. All for corporate profit. Unless of course, you actually BELIEVE that Saddam had WMD. Easily disproved, even back in 2002. Do a "Who's Who" of all of Saddam's nuclear and biologic experts in 2002. See how many of them were overseas, employed by private corporations, or engaged in academic pursuits. You'll find
Re: (Score:2)
Either that or we're a bunch of pansies that think words are good enough.
I'm of mixed opinion. Many times the elites get their way by breaking the law, and often they have corrupted the legal system that would be responsible for punishing them.
Examples include but are not limited to bribery, conflicts of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
The real deal is, Americans don't have balls. Well - some of our "ladies" have balls. We've raised a couple generations of little pussies, who want someone to hold their hands, and tell them what to do. Got any idea how few Americans can stand eyeball to eyeball with a cop, and calmly, clearly, tell the cop that he is out of line, and that he will be called out in court?
"I'm going to search your car." is answered with "YES SIR!" instead of "I don't give you permission to search my car." "You were speed
Re: (Score:3)
First, and foremost, everything we do is based upon a risk and value assessment. We may not consider it as such, and we may not even be consciously aware we are doing it, but the process happens in each and every one of us in every decision we make. Stand eyeball to eyeball with a cop...for what? If I am looking at a $50 speeding ticket vs. half a day
Re: (Score:3)
You can tell him that. You're wrong, and he knows you're wrong. When you go to court, HIS conduct will not be in question, only yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, numbers 1-3 are already implemented in some parts of the world. The numbers are somewhat different, but in Canada, for example, corporations are not allowed to contribute money to political campaigns, the amount of money that can be spent on a political campaign is limited (about $110,000 USD, but depends on the population of the riding), there's a cap on the personal donation limit to a political campaign (no individual can give more than about $1100 USD to a campaign per year), and all accountin
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid, unconstitutional laws have been written and passed since practically the start of the union. This case is nothing special. Hell, we still have "In God We Trust" on all of our coins and that started in 1864 and was made the official motto of the US in 1956 by law.
True, but "In God We Trust" is just a sign of the lack of evolution (pun intended) - and I don't see it changing any time soon. The people who don't believe in God are a tiny minority, and that minority is not growing. This law, however is a clear regression. Admittedly, this might be just false nostalgia, but I don't think in the 80s and 90s passing such a law would have been feasible. Not even bringing the idea up publicly. Since then, we (I'm not a U.S. citizen, but it can be felt globally) patriot act
Re: (Score:2)
Religiosity has been on a steady decline in the US for decades.
I take it you haven't been in the American South recently (the "Bible Belt"). Furthermore in the morass that is US politics today, that small group of shrieking Christian Fundamentalists control a disproportionate amount of power relative to their afflicted population.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
iow, "In God We Trust" is both an establishment of deist religion, and an establishment of monotheism, and makes atheists, non-deists, and polytheists, second class citizens - i.e., they are explicitly, and of necessity excluded from the "We" of "In God We Trust." That motto labels anyone who doesn't believe in the monotheist deist god effectively un-american.
Re: (Score:2)
You are really, really, really reaching to claim that a religion was established with that motto. If you want to twist logic in such a fashion, then I can too. It simple means that if there is a God, then we will trust him - but we don't trust any DAMNED body else.
And, BTW - there is nothing monotheistic about that phrase at all. The Romans, the Greeks, the Partheons, the Carthaginians, the Incas, ANY person from ANY time might have said those very words.
Nil desperandum auspice deo
Re: (Score:2)
You better ban the Star Spangled Banner while you're at it. The fourth verse goes like this:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Re: (Score:2)
You better ban the Star Spangled Banner while you're at it.
Man, I would really like to. That screeching pile of dissonance is friggin awful.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Really.
"In God We Trust" on money Establishes a religion?
No. But it does clearly "respect an establishment of religion," namely all branches of monotheism.
I'm sorry but if you can't be bothered to read the 1st amendment you can't expect anyone to give your opinion on the 1st amendment any weight.
Re: (Score:2)
No. But it does clearly "respect an establishment of religion," namely all branches of monotheism.
What a looney interpretation of the 1st Amendment, and of the english language.
The "respect" found in the 1st Amendment is not "showing respect for", it is "regarding" or "with respect to". The motto "In God We Trust" does not establish a religion, so it cannot be a law "respecting the establishment of religion".
I'm sorry but if you can't be bothered to read the 1st amendment
I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to understand the 1st Amendment, you can't expect anyone to give your opinion any weight.
Re: (Score:3)
The "respect" found in the 1st Amendment is not "showing respect for", it is "regarding" or "with respect to".
Of course it does. It is an official acknowledgement of a God. Furthermore, you argument has never been used as a defence in the various court cases on the issue. The rulings in favour of the motto have relied on the motto having been "watered down" by over use.
I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to understand the 1st Amendment, you can't expect anyone to give your opinion any weight.
It's ironic that the court rulings against my position actually indicate that your reading of the amendment is the lesser one here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't get to break one phrase out of the sentence, and set it up in it's own context. No laws in respect to religion, not "no respect for" religion. And, if you can't respect other people's religious ideas, how in HELL do you demand that they respect your petty little feelings on the matter?
Re: (Score:2)
No laws in respect to religion,
Hello, McFly! The motto is an endorsement of a religion. It doesn't get any more "in respect to" religion than endorsing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Which religion? WHICH ONE? Right back at you, McFly. Read the damned sentence as it was written, not one single phrase. No laws that respect any religion, no laws that create a state religion, no laws that will favor one religion over another.
What you are demanding, is that atheism be favored over any other theism. Now, is that clear enough for you, McFly? You're a hypocrite, because you demand that government respect YOUR beliefs, instead of anyone else's beliefs.
Re: (Score:3)
"Atheism is a belief" is a non sequitur.
Actually, it might work better to phrase it something like: Atheism isn't a belief; it's a non-belief. Something can't be both a belief and a non-belief at the same time.
We might also note a logical point that's probably too subtle for most religious people: Not believing in a god (typically on the grounds that there's no evidence supporting a claim that any god exists) isn't the same as believing that there is no god. Atheism is basically a position of a skeptic: If you claim there's a god, you sho
Re: (Score:2)
If deism is a religion, then so is atheism. They just believe in one fewer god.
Your (a) does not follow from your (b). That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby just because you have one fewer stamp book than the lowliest philatelist.
The concern is, if we don't consider our inalienable human rights to be derived from a deity, where do they come from?
From the simple fact of our existence which is essentially what deists mean when they say that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. The rights come part and parcel with being created, whatever the mechanism.
Nature (Score:3)
Per the Virginia Declaration of Rights, on which the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence are based:
By nature, inherent. Natural rights. And that was wr
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in that motto forces anyone to believe or not believe anything other than that the object they hold has some extrinsic
It was minted with tax money. That's forcing every single taxpayer to subsidize it. If collecting taxes on church revenue counts as prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then clearly spending taxes on an endorsement of a religion counts as supporting it.
the first continental congress was opened with a prayer by Reverend Jacob DuchÃf© Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia,
You mean 13 years before the constitution was written? Arguments like that are designed to obscure the truth rather than help people better understand an issue. Therefore it follows that you aren't interested in getting to the truth, only in pushing
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of religion.
My god hates money and considers it to be the height of blasphemy to print such a statement on our money.
Re: (Score:2)
Mat 22:20 KJV - And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?
Mat 22:21 KJV - They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I care what your puny god thinks?
When did I mention him?
Re: (Score:2)
I think they are referring to the mistaken belief that the government using the word "God" is a violation of the First Amendment.
This belief came about because some of the interpretations of the First Amendment used the phrase "separation of church and state" (taken out of context from a letter by Thomas Jefferson). The reality is that the prohibition is against showing legal favoritism to any religion in such a way that it causes a person of a particular religion to become disenfranchised or face similar
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, Sir. It often seems that there are only about three dozen people left in this country, who are literate enough to actually READ those sentences, and understand them. It's really not that difficult. I just can't understand whether all those other people are truly illiterate, or they just hope that we aren't literate enough to understand what we read.
Of course, the possibility exists that less than a thousand living people have actually read those documents. Everyone else just believes what som
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that the prohibition is against showing legal favoritism to any religion in such a way that it causes a person of a particular religion to become disenfranchised or face similar discrimination by to the government.
Perhaps you can explain how requiring a hindu to pay taxes for the minting of a monotheistic motto is not legal favortisim that discriminates against his polytheistic beliefs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps of interest is this web page which seems to claim that the defendant was previously convicted of scamming (the same?) Buddhist group.
http://tenpathetic.wordpress.com/category/william-cassidy/page/2/ [wordpress.com]
This suggests there may perhaps be a bit more to this case than the simple criticism of a "public" figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps of interest is this web page which seems to claim that the defendant was previously convicted of scamming (the same?) Buddhist group.
http://tenpathetic.wordpress.com/category/william-cassidy/page/2/ [wordpress.com]
This suggests there may perhaps be a bit more to this case than the simple criticism of a "public" figure.
Most interesting. You should be modded up. Still doesn't really speak to the idea of having emotional distress of a public figure grounds for criminal prosecution. Even assholes get legal protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter? The public official got his revenge on the twitter user. Even the best possible outcome of this situation will not save the twitter user from spending months, if not years defending this, and thousands of dollars of his own money.
Prosecutors, lawyers, judges, and politicians all too often get away with wielding the courts as a weapon. We need a way to hold them accountable for this. Any time a prosecutor tries to exceed his constitutional authority, he should be punished. Seriously pun
Re: (Score:2)
Toss the Public Official in jail for felony false whatever we can come up with. That way, they can't even vote ever again.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what was said? I followed all the links, but I didn't see what was said.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know... despite my best efforts, I was unable to find what statements the defendant made that violated this law. If it was to the effect of "Jane Doe lives at 123 4th Street, Apt 16, and is alone Tuesday nights, maybe I'll go teach her a lesson" then I'd say this is a perfectly reasonable use of an anti-stalking law that was expanded under the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. If it was more along the lines of "Man, that Jane Doe is such a bitch" then it will surely be thrown out, but that won'
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Public figures? (Score:2)
I don't understand why public figures are supposed to be protected against any kind of accusations. Their actions are not private, they affect large numbers of people. Interests of those people, and imbalance of power that makes it possible to inflict harm on the population, leave absolutely no reason, other than public interest itself, to protect a public figure from accusations or criticism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More details: (Score:5, Informative)
In February, William Lawrence Cassidy was indicted for interstate stalking, a felony charge. The indictment stated that Cassidy used Twitter to “engage in a course of contact that caused substantial emotional distress” to an unnamed person.
According to court documents, the person was Alyce Zeoli, the leader of a Buddhist organization known as Kunzang Palyul Choling. Cassidy was allegedly a member of KPC before having a falling out with Zeoli, who is known as Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo to KPC members. After the split, he began directing several thousand public Twitter messages toward Zeoli, some of which were threatening, according to prosecutors.
Twitter case [law360.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Dialogue and critical thinking are valuable gifts we share as sentient beings. Freedom of belief and freedom of expression are valuable rights we cherish in our democracy. Hatred and violent threats, however, are neither valuable nor right. In recent years, Jetsunma and KPC have been threatened repeatedly and made the target of hateful, homophobic and misogynistic epithets.These threats were reported to law enforcement and, following a full investigation conducted by FBI and U.S. Department of Justice, federal criminal charges were filed in the case of United States v. William Cassidy, 8:11-cr-00091 and he has been charged with cyberstalking.
http://www.tibetanbuddhistaltar.org/2011/06/united-states-v-william-cassidy-811-cr-00091/ [tibetanbuddhistaltar.org]
There is a fine, fine line... it's very difficult to get close to without distorting it. Even if this is the correct course of action in this case, the fact that that course has to be followed spells trouble for the future, where less serious offenses may be attacked in the same way.
I'm with the Buddhists in that hate and violent speech is neither valuable nor right; however, I feel that some protection for expres
Re: (Score:2)
My first reaction was "Tweeting criticism of a public figure is Freedom of Speech! End of Case."
However, if this guy did indeed send several thousand public messages to Zeoli, including many that were threatening, then I could see where a case could be built. Just because you have Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to harass and threaten.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to find out more about this (Score:3)
This seems to be a feud between some cult and someone who doesn't like the cult. For once, it's not Scientology. It's some offshoot of Buddhism.
One side of the argument can be seen here. [wordpress.com] An old article about William Cassidy [lasvegassun.com] may provide some background.
As far as I can tell from a superficial reading, both sites are nutcases.
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
cryin' out loud... (Score:2)
I know plenty will say that it's not germane to the case itself regarding defense of free speech, but... WTF did this guy say in his "tweet", and about whom?
Re: (Score:2)
Hear hear. I've read every link I've seen here, but I can't find what was actually tweeted. The specific text that was tweeted is very important and I haven't been able to find it yet. There are a few very narrow areas of unprotected speech: overt threats and intimidation (which isn't really speech, but an underlying behavior). About whom, however, is completely irrelevant. The 14th amendment provides for equal protection of the laws. Calling someone a "public figure" is just a distraction from the fu
The real question is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Public figure? (Score:2)
I read the EFF filing and the definition of a public figure in this case is a woman who has a verified twitter account with 17,221 followers and who posted videos on a service like Youtube which had 143,000 views. This public figure holds no political office and appears to be outspoken about her religious beliefs.
I noticed that the actual contents of the tweets aren't documented in the EFF filing. As tenuous as their assertion about this involving a public figure, I'd like to see the actual tweets before a
The important question is... (Score:2)
What did he say about her? I think there needs to be a retwitting campaign (plus postings to other social networking sites).
This assumes that she filed the complaint that started the proceedings and the prosecution isn't just doing it on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys remember the age of sanity, when people did go running and crying to the courts when their FUCKING FEELINGS were hurt?
So the age of sanity is now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
According to the brief, she is the founder of www.tara.org. Can't find anything that states what the tweet contained, but I assume it was something that criticized her role as a Buddhist leader...or something like that.
Re: (Score:3)
"You guys remember the age of sanity, "
I remember the pretense that there was such. It's the "Good Old Days" fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the days when kids knew about the "Good Old Days fallacy". Things have been going down hill since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory:
When I was going up things were better! You didn't have to work hard just to pay your bills! You could poop wherever you liked and people would clean it up! And whenever you screamed someone put boobs in your face and FOOD came out of them!
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2323#comic [smbc-comics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That was in your previous life as a dog. You're a human now. Better luck next time.
Re: (Score:2)
There was such. Remember when you were a kid and then a bit older? Well maybe you don't but I do. If someone insulted you, you insulted them back. If someone bullied you, you punched them in the face. If someone mocked someone you liked, you heckled them and didn't fear being thrown to the lawyers and court?
Yeah. So these days, if you insult someone you're likely to get drawn up on 'human rights' charges. If you hit a bully, you're going off to anger management courses, maybe being charged with assau
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care how many followers she's got, she's nuts. Classic schizophrenic "religious experience".
Re:is it slander? (Score:4, Informative)
Even if it's slander it can't be a crime, as slander is a civil matter not a criminal one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It should be noted that the first such law in the USA was passed as a State law in..California. Hardly a bastion of the GOP.
Remember, the Dems are the people who get really upset over people hurting other people's feelings. Most Republicans would say "F**k 'em if they can't take a joke", or words to that effect....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that Arnold ran on the Republican ticket, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that Arnold ran on the Republican ticket, right?
But he married a Kennedy, which says a lot more about his political beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. My fiancee has Republican leanings, and my own political leanings are so far left that even the Democrats appear to be a right-wing party. Just because we're deciding to spend our lives together doesn't mean we agree on every point... in fact, we disagree on several points. We agree on some points, but there's nothing that says we have to agree on all of them.
Part of the problem is that it's simply asinine to form a two-party system. At a minimum, there's two axes that need to be considered, mea
Re: (Score:2)
The amicus brief identifies her has the founder of some buddhist organization. They provide a link to her twitter account and point out that it's a verified account.
Check page 8 (page 13 of 24 by Acrobat's numbering).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Really. I mean MAN UP AND GROW A PAIR! Legislating hurt feelings is about the most asinine thing I've heard, well, today, anyway...