Skip to comments.Twitter stalking is protected free speech, judge rules
Posted on 12/16/2011 12:22:17 PM PST by Libloather
Twitter stalking is protected free speech, judge rules
By Andrew Couts | Digital Trends 2 hrs 28 mins ago
A San Francisco judge has declared cyberstalking on Twitter and blogs constitutionally-protected free speech, reports The New York Times. The ruling is a victory for the First Amendment. But like all things worth fighting for, it comes at a price.
Titus ruled that, because no one was forced to read Cassidys posts and tweets as opposed to a telephone call, letter or email specifically addressed to and directed at another person they are considered free speech, not harassment, just as personal bulletin boards of the colonial era fell under the protection of the First Amendment, which protects speech even when the subject or the manner of expression is uncomfortable and challenges conventional religious beliefs, political attitudes or standards of good taste.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Let’s hope this judge has a twitter account. Better yet, a daughter with one. heehee
If someone is bugging you on these sites just block them.
In other news, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” on a 14-foot banner will still get an 18-year-old suspended from high school.
As usual, the headline is much more sensationalistic than the actual facts. This was a dispute between a bogus “guru” and a disappointed disciple. Had the ruling gone the other way there would have been substantial 1A concerns.
How many noob trolls are going to mistake F.R. for a “blog” and try stalking to their hearts content?
Even some long time members here refer to F.R. as a blog. More accurately, it’s a privately owned forum and the owner can make any rules he wants to.
Trolls and stalkers are a problem only to the degree you are unwilling to get really nasty with them ~ and I mean doing background studies on them, finding their addresses out and their regular behavior, and then BEATING THEM at their own game ~ or something like that!
I think I’m siding with the judge here. If twitter or whatever website you are using doesn’t give you the ability to put people on an ignore list, or have moderators that will ban stalkers like this, then use another website. Good sites regulate this stuff themselves as a matter of course.
However, if the guy was really posting death threats and stuff that wouldn’t be protected speech outside of the internet, then he should still be prosecuted as if he said them in the real world.
Titus ruled that, because no one was forced to read Cassidy's posts and tweets -- as opposed to a "telephone call, letter or email specifically addressed to and directed at another person" -- they are considered free speech, not harassment, just as personal bulletin boards of the colonial era fell under the protection of the First Amendment, which "protects speech even when the subject or the manner of expression is uncomfortable and challenges conventional religious beliefs, political attitudes or standards of good taste."As long as it isn't advocating a pro-life opinion, he means.
Not to be too picky, but the First Amendment didn't exist in the "Colonial era".
It could not have protected anything.
try threatening the president on twitter and see how soon there is a knock on your door....free speech indeed......