A buddy in trouble

[kiki]

A friend (in Maine) goes to trial shortly charged with violating bail conditions (no contact) and a protection from harassment order by making posts to a web site he has. I grant that what he said wasn't very nice, name calling basically-no threats, but my reading of the 1st amendment and how the supreme court has interpreted it over the years indicates name calling is protected speech.

Then too, there is the issue of it being on his web site! She had to actively seek out this "contact" and "harassment". He didn't e-mail it to her, or call her on the phone. It's almost like her dialing his phone# and getting his answering machine with this message on it.

Your help is appreciated. Thoughts, ideas, opinions or similar cases for his attorney to research.

Kiki

 

[Jack Mevorach, Esq.]

Sounds like your friend needs to learn how to obey the law.

 

[kiki]

Thank you Jack for your response. Given your profile, to be expected I guess. Lucky he lives in Maine and not New York too. I'll let you know how it comes out,

kiki

 

[Jack Mevorach, Esq.]

A prosecutor's mission is to pursue justice - not convictions. There are times I decline to prosecute.

My full-time position is my private practice. The prosecutor position is part-time.

As citizens, our responsibility is to obey the law; except, when we think the law is wrong (slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc.), we should peacefully and non-violently endeavor to change it.

I wish your friend well, my fellow citizen.

 

[kiki]

Hi Jack,

Could you assess my original post from the perspective of "a pursuit of justice", or as a defense attorney? Might your attitude be different if you were representing my friend in court? If the 1st amendment issue is set aside for the moment, then the "contact" and "harassment" elements become paramount. Given the way the web works, isn't there a legitimate argument to be made for her having, through her own actions, sought out both of her own volition? Neither was thrust on her she could just as easily have not gone to his site.

Should you need additional information please ask.

Once again, I thank you very much, "my fellow citizen" (I like what this conveys, by the way).

kiki

 

[TimC]

Kiki, if you follow your logic, wouldn't posting bills on every telephone pole on Main Street be the same thing? I mean, she would have to intentionally navigate down Main Street to see the offensive material...no?

The violation here is not that the "victim" saw the offensive material, it is the fact that other people saw the offensive material and might be inclined to think differently of her as a result.

Finding that material is probably easier than you might think. Virtually everyone on the internet has probably done a web search on their very own name, just to see what would pop up. If she had done this, there is a chance that she would discover the offensive material. For example, from Internet Explorer's recent versions, all you have to do is type ? "Joe Blow" and a web search will be conducted that searches for every instance of "Joe Blow".

She was not necessarilly searching out his site specifically, based solely on the information that you have provided so far.

 

[kiki]

Hi Jim,

I wouldn't normaly include the post I'm responding to, but feel it necessary here, sorry if I was unclear in my other posts.

--Kiki, if you follow your logic, wouldn't posting bills on every telephone pole on Main Street be the same thing? I mean, she would have to intentionally navigate down Main Street to see the offensive material...no?--

Similar but not the same. Her reading what was posted there was no accident in the sense that she just stumbled across it. She knew the URL and intentionally typed in, or used her 'bookmark' to go to the site. By doing so she chose to be harassed, and in my opinion contacted him.

--The violation here is not that the "victim" saw the offensive material, it is the fact that other people saw the offensive material and might be inclined to think differently of her as a result.--

My friend is charged with "harassment", a violation of a protection from abuse order, and with violation of a bail condition which forbid "contact, direct or indirect", so the issue is that she saw the material not anyone else. Whether the material was offensive or not is beside the point at the moment. If the material were offensive that may subject him to civil action for libel if untrue, but there is no criminal libel law in Maine.

--Finding that material is probably easier than you might think. Virtually everyone on the internet has probably done a web search on their very own name, just to see what would pop up. If she had done this, there is a chance that she would discover the offensive material. For example, from Internet Explorer's recent versions, all you have to do is type ? "Joe Blow" and a web search will be conducted that searches for every instance of "Joe Blow".

She was not necessarily searching out his site specifically, based solely on the information that you have provided so far.--

She's had the URL for this site for well over a year, so yes she was looking at this specific site freely and of her own volition knowing she would not like what she found there.

Kiki