FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Case of the Alleged Twitter Stalker

by JULIE HILDEN

On December 15, U.S. District Judge Roger W. Titus, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, dismissed an indictment against William Lawrence Cassidy.  The indictment had been issued pursuant to a federal stalking statute that is an amended version of part of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

In this column, I’ll comment on Judge Titus’s opinion.

The Basis for the Indictment Against Cassidy

The indictment against Cassidy was based upon a long series of tweets and blog entries that he allegedly posted, regarding Buddhist religious leader Alyce Zeoli.  (Judge Titus’s opinion, on pages 2–4, explains exactly how Twitter and blogs work.  For purposes of this column, I’ll assume readers know this information; those who don’t may want to consult the judge’s opinion, via the link above.)

The criminal statute at issue—which applies where, as here, the victim and the alleged harasser live in different states—requires (1) that the tweets and blog postings described in the indictment must have caused Zeoli “substantial emotional distress”; and (2) that Cassidy must have possessed the intent to “harass and cause substantial emotional distress” when he made the postings.

It seems likely, given the nature of the tweets and blog postings at issue—which are collected in Appendix A of the court’s opinion—that Zeoli did indeed, as she says she did, suffer substantial emotional distress as a result of these postings, some of which seem quite threatening.

It also seems likely, based on the postings’ hostile content, that Cassidy—assuming that he was indeed the one responsible for the postings—wanted to harass Zeoli and to cause her substantial emotional distress, as the statute also requires.

Having read the postings, I think it’s likely that a jury would find for the prosecution on each of these questions, and thus find that these requirements of the federal statute at issue were fulfilled.

Accordingly, the only real question here was, arguably, whether the First
Amendment should bar this prosecution from going forward.  The judge’s answer was yes.

The Context and the Facts

To see why the facts here seem to fit the statute’s requirements, some context is necessary.

Long before the tweets were sent or the blog entries posted, Cassidy and Zeoli spent time together in person.  During that time, according to an FBI agent’s affidavit, Cassidy (then known as William Sanderson) allegedly lied to Zeoli by falsely claiming to hold a certain status within Buddhism, that of “tulku.” Cassidy also, according the FBI agent’s affidavit, offered out of the blue to kill Zeoli’s ex-husband; she declined.

The two parted ways in 2008, but Zeoli later learned of a number of Twitter postings on various different accounts that she believed targeted her, often under the initials “A.Z.”  With a series of subpoenas, Zeoli traced the postings to Cassidy.  She then did the same with a blog she had suspected was Cassidy’s, and in fact, proved to be his.

Zeoli says that as a result of the tweets and blog entries that Cassidy allegedly directed at her, she fears for her safety and that of fellow members of her Buddhist group, KPC.  Indeed, she alleges that she has not left her house for a year-and-a-half now, except to see her psychiatrist.

Notably, too, Judge Titus characterized one set of postings that Cassidy made as “Threats.”  Listed on page 22 and 23 of the court’s opinion, these 18 postings are indeed threatening towards Zeoli and/or KPC, and could easily have inspired fear in Zeoli.  However, each of these statements is vague and/or unclear—which is what made this case a difficult one from a First Amendment standpoint.

The First Amendment Issue, and How the Court Resolved It

In his opinion, Judge Titus noted that Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the First Amendment provides protection for anonymous speech.  Moreover, he concluded that the speech at issue in the Cassidy/Zeoli case did not fit within already-recognized First Amendment exceptions, such as the exception for what are called “true threats.”

On that point, however, I think reasonable minds can differ.  Some might see as the postings as, indeed, true threats, when they insinuate that violence against Zeoli may somehow occur, someday soon.  I’ll be interested to see how the appeals court comes down on the “true threats” issue, if the government appeals this ruling, as I think it likely will.

Having rejected the contention that the postings were “true threats,” Judge Titus went on to note that the government had targeted the postings based on their content.  It’s acceptable, of course, to punish a true threat for its content; its content is the very thing that makes it dangerous.  However, in most other contexts, content-based restrictions on speech are highly disfavored, and that was the case here.

Thus, Judge Titus noted that the high bar for content-based restrictions on speech had to be cleared if the federal statute at issue were to survive judicial review.  Only a compelling state interest could sustain the statute’s application to Cassidy, the judge reasoned—especially since, as he pointed out, Cassidy was not sending the tweets and blog posts to Zeoli, nor was he compelling her to read them.  Instead, it seems she discovered them on her own.

Judge Titus saw a sharp distinction between tweets and blog posts, on one hand, and harassing telephone calls or emails, on the other.  In particular, he analogized tweets and blog posts to old-time bulletin boards, which he pointed out could even have been used by early American colonists.  The common element is this:  You look at a bulletin board, or follow a Twitter user, or read a blog only if you want to.  If you don’t like what you see, you can stop reading.  To use a tort law analogy, you don’t have to “come to the nuisance.”

Judge Titus also suggests in his opinion—as did the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which filed an amicus brief in the case—that Zeoli’s status as a religious leader and teacher who frequently writes and teaches, means that she ought to be accorded less protection from unwelcome speech than an ordinary person.  (By comparison, a public figure—even a limited-purpose public figure—receives less protection from defamation litigation than a private person would.)

In the end, Judge Titus held that the statute at issue was invalid as applied to Zeoli, without reaching the question whether it is also facially invalid—that is, whether it is invalid generally, because the lion’s share of its applications are unconstitutional.

That question, for now, has been left to another day.

Judge Titus’s Opinion Should Have Taken Search Engines More Fully Into Account

Finally, although Judge Titus’s bulletin board analogy was interesting and insightful, I believe it was not quite fair to alleged harassment victims such as Zeoli.  That’s because it didn’t take into account search engines, and the common practice of periodically searching on one’s own name, or that of one’s organization (for Zeoli, that was KPC).

One can argue, as Judge Titus did, that a given blog or Twitter account is like a lone bulletin board, which you can choose whether to visit.  But if you have a practice, as many people do, of searching on your name every so often, then you may inevitably encounter negative postings that you’d rather not have read, and that may even be harassing toward you.

If so, then—given how universal the use of search engines is now—you might argue that you didn’t “come to the nuisance,” as you might when visiting a blog the nature of which you knew and were prepared for.  Instead, via ordinary search engine use, the nuisance, in a sense, came to you.

In sum, Internet technology, which has already affected so many legal questions, may also affect our definitions of what counts as online harassment, and what counts as First Amendment-protected speech online.  Judge Titus’s decision is thus likely to be just one in a string of decisions that strive to resolve this tricky issue.

JULIE HILDEN practiced First Amendment law at the D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1996-99. She is the author of a memoir, The Bad Daughter and a novel Three. She can be reached through her website.

This column originally appeared in Justia‘s Verdict.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

June 27, 2017
Jim Kavanagh
California Scheming: Democrats Betray Single-Payer Again
Jonathan Cook
Hersh’s New Syria Revelations Buried From View
Edward Hunt
Excessive and Avoidable Harm in Yemen
Howard Lisnoff
The Death of Democracy Both Here and Abroad and All Those Colorful Sneakers
Gary Leupp
Immanuel Kant on Electoral Interference
Kenneth Surin
Theresa May and the Tories are in Freefall
Slavoj Zizek
Get the Left
Robert Fisk
Saudi Arabia Wants to Reduce Qatar to a Vassal State
Ralph Nader
Driverless Cars: Hype, Hubris and Distractions
Rima Najjar
Palestinians Are Seeking Justice in Jerusalem – Not an Abusive Life-Long Mate
Norman Solomon
Is ‘Russiagate’ Collapsing as a Political Strategy?
Binoy Kampmark
In the Twitter Building: Tech Incubators and Altering Perceptions
Dean Baker
Uber’s Repudiation is the Moment for the U.S. to Finally Start Regulating the So-called Sharing Economy
Rob Seimetz
What I Saw From The Law
George Wuerthner
The Causes of Forest Fires: Climate vs. Logging
June 26, 2017
William Hawes – Jason Holland
Lies That Capitalists Tell Us
Chairman Brandon Sazue
Out of the Shadow of Custer: Zinke Proves He’s No “Champion” of Indian Country With his Grizzly Lies
Patrick Cockburn
Grenfell Tower: the Tragic Price of the Rolled-Back Stat
Joseph Mangano
Tritium: Toxic Tip of the Nuclear Iceberg
Ray McGovern
Hersh’s Big Scoop: Bad Intel Behind Trump’s Syria Attack
Roy Eidelson
Heart of Darkness: Observations on a Torture Notebook
Geoff Beckman
Why Democrats Lose: the Case of Jon Ossoff
Matthew Stevenson
Travels Around Trump’s America
David Macaray
Law Enforcement’s Dirty Little Secret
Colin Todhunter
Future Shock: Imagining India
Yoav Litvin
Animals at the Roger Waters Concert
Binoy Kampmark
Pride in San Francisco
Stansfield Smith
North Koreans in South Korea Face Imprisonment for Wanting to Return Home
Hamid Yazdan Panah
Remembering Native American Civil Rights Pioneer, Lehman Brightman
James Porteous
Seventeen-Year-Old Nabra Hassanen Was Murdered
Weekend Edition
June 23, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Democrats in the Dead Zone
Gary Leupp
Trump, Qatar and the Danger of Total Confusion
Andrew Levine
The “Democracies” We Deserve
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
The FBI’s “Operation Backfire” and the Case of Briana Waters
Rob Urie
Cannibal Corpse
Joseph G. Ramsey
Savage Calculations: On the Exoneration of Philando Castile’s Killer
John Wight
Trump’s Attack on Cuba
Dave Lindorff
We Need a Mass Movement to Demand Radical Progressive Change
Brian Cloughley
Moving Closer to Doom
David Rosen
The Sex Offender: the 21st Century Witch
John Feffer
All Signs Point to Trump’s Coming War With Iran
Jennifer L. Lieberman
What’s Really New About the Gig Economy?
Pete Dolack
Analyzing the Failures of Syriza
Vijay Prashad
The Russian Nexus
Mike Whitney
Putin Tries to Avoid a Wider War With the US
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail