See the order, W.J.J. Hoge’s post, and Aaron Walker’s post. For more, including links to more posts, see this post by Jonathan Adler. Disclosure: I consulted with Aaron Walker’s lawyer on the case.
Archive | “Bullying” Bans
A Free Speech Victory in Maryland
The peace order barring blogger Aaron Walker (aka Aaron Worthing) from blogging about Brett Kimberlin has been modified pending a hearing in July. As Popehat notes, the circuit order included a benchslap at the lower court judge, C.J. Vaughey, for disregarding the Supreme Court’s seminal First Amendment decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio. For background, see […]
Snow Figures as “Fighting Words”
A fighting bookend for the personally abusive epitaphs case, and also an interesting issue in its own right — Svedberg v. Stamness (N.D. 1994) (emphasis added): This case arises from what is apparently a long-running feud between Anthony Stamness and Christian Svedberg, both minors…. Testimony indicated that Stamness and others referred to Svedberg as “Dumbo,” […]
Criminal Charges Against Aaron Walker Dropped
I’m pleased to say that the criminal charges against Aaron Walker, arising from his blogging about Brett Kimberlin, have been dropped by the prosecutors, as the Maryland criminal court records system (sorry, no direct link, but you can search) confirms. I’m continuing to consult with Walker and his lawyer on getting a reversal of the […]
Crime for Minor to Post or Send Messages That “Emotional[ly] Distress” Another Minor?
That’s what a Pennsylvania bill, unanimously passed last Fall by the state Senate and referred to the House — titled “cyberbullying by minors” — would provide: A minor [i.e., an under-18-year-old] commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if: (1) the minor knowingly transmits or disseminates any electronic communication, including a visual depiction of himself […]
Consulting on the Aaron Walker / Brett Kimberlin Case
I’m pleased to say that I’ll be consulting with Aaron Walker’s defense lawyer in the case I discussed last week, in which a Maryland judge issued a “peace order” — in other states, generally called a “restraining order” — that the judge seemed to interpret as limiting Aaron Walker’s blogging about Brett Kimberlin. (See, e.g., […]
One-to-One Speech vs. One-to-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and “Cyber-Stalking”
The unfortunate situation involving the apparent arrest of Aaron Walker for blogging about the convicted bomber Brett Kimberlin leads me to post an early draft of my forthcoming Northwestern University Law Review article, One-to-One Speech vs. One-to-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and “Cyber-Stalking”. It’s still a very early draft, with many footnotes still on the […]
Aaron Walker, Brett Kimberlin, and the Fog of Litigation [see UPDATE at the end]
I’ve been hearing a lot about the latest phase of this controversy, but it’s still hard for me to figure out what is going on. A Maryland court has issued a “peace order” — basically, what most states call a restraining order — against blogger Aaron Walker, ordering him not to “harass” or contact Brett […]
Injunctions Against Speech That “Ha[s] a Substantial Adverse Effect … on … [a Person’s] Privacy”
I’m writing an article that indirectly touches on this question, and I thought I’d ask our readers for their take on it. I’d particularly like to hear from people who are knowledgeable about privacy law, and who (unlike me) support information privacy speech restrictions, such as the disclosure-of-private-facts tort. Minnesota has an interesting statute that […]
Tennessee Legislature Listens to Public Criticism, Dramatically Limits Last Year’s Ban on Posting Images That Cause “Emotional Distress” “Without Legitimate Purpose”
A pleasant story of the law being fixed as a result of public criticism — much of it online — just as in Arizona last month: Last year, the Tennessee Legislature enacted a statute that essentially banned the online posting of images that cause “emotional distress” “without legitimate purpose.” As I blogged on June 6, […]
Orders Banning Speech That “Ha[s] a Substantial Adverse Effect … on the … Privacy of Another”
Minnesota law defines “harassment” to include, repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target. If someone complains about “harassment,” […]
Crime to Say Two or More “Emotional[ly] Distress[ing]” Things About Someone, Unless They Constitute “Constitutionally Protected Activity”
Check out this 2009 D.C. law that purports to ban “stalking” (D.C. Code §§ 22-3132, -3133), and that provides, among other things: “Emotional distress” means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling…. “To engage in a course of conduct” means directly or indirectly, […]
Nearly Half the New York Assembly Republicans: Require Deletion of Anonymous Comments Whenever Anyone Complains
Twenty-three of the forty-nine New York Assembly Republicans, plus one Independent and one Democrat, introduced this bill last Fall but just “unveiled” it yesterday: 1. Definitions. As used in this section, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings: (a) [“]Anonymous poster[“] is any individual who posts a message on a web site […]
Arizona Cyber-Harassment Bill Has Been Narrowed
The Arizona cyber-harassment bill, which I blogged about March 31, has now been narrowed in the Arizona Legislature. The original proposal — which had been passed in nearly identical forms by both houses of the Arizona Legislature — read, It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, […]
Senate Considering Outlawing Anonymous Online Speech That’s Supposedly “Intended to Harass” the Person Being Criticized
This is happening in § 1003 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011, which is apparently being debated tomorrow. Here’s the deal: 47 U.S.C. § 223(a) currently criminalizes (C) mak[ing] a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to […]