What is the difference between free speech and harassment - case study

[francero]

Hi. Example: A husband buys the domain name in his ex wife’s name daisymiller.com for instance, creates an ironic website with a picture of his ex wife saying “Hi. I am Daisy. I am 40 years old. blah, blah, blah…” He writes 20 pages and at the very last end he writes “written by Daisy’s husband” None of the material is slanderous but it does reveal very personal details about her life like when she committed adultery, and it portrays her as irrational because she was. Then he sends an email to 350 of her and his friends inviting her to view the site.

Per fist amendment this should be legal as free speech because he clarified at the end that Daisy was not the author.

However, a Washington state judge found that this was harassment and issued a protection order.

Why? When I read the first amendment and when I read the harassment statutes they seem to be contradicting each other. Is it possible that something can be protected by the 1st amendment yet constitute harassment? I find that extremely confusing. Also, If the husband wanted to appeal the protection order would he stand a chance to convince the (same) judge that it was not harassment and that the protection order was therefore invalid?

Thank you for your thoughts

 

[xylene]

Per the first amendment... Really?

Ummm, you need to pull the cotton out of your ears and read some more I guess.

The first amendment does not permit criminal conduct or bar lawsuits.

 

[quincy]

Although not a case that involved "harassment," Elonis v. United States can be instructive. Anthony Douglas Elonis claimed to be exercising his First Amendment rights when he created a Facebook page with content that his wife and others found threatening. His wife sought a protection order, he was fired from his job, and the FBI arrested him.

Here are two links, the first one to the Opinion issued by the US Supreme Court and the second one to SCOTUSblog, where you can click on links to read the coverage up to the judgment issued on July 6, 2015:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-983_7l48.pdf

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis--v-united-states/

I am sure you have heard that you cannot yell "Fire" in a movie theater? You also cannot threaten others, or reveal confidential medical or financial information, or make false claims about businesses or their (or your) products or services, or defame individuals ... the list goes on. The First Amendment does not, and never has, allowed for unlimited free expression.

Are you the husband? If so, and if you are looking to appeal the protection order, you should speak with an attorney in your area and ask for his advice and direction (and it would be smart for you to remove what is published online, if you have not already been ordered by the court to do this).

 

[justalayman]

I think the guy he is lucky he wasn't charged criminally or sued by the wife. Attempting to stand on the first amendment for this shows a blatant ignorance of what the 1st really means and that attempting to wrap themselves in the 1st while acting so immature is absurd.

 

[francero]

I still don't understand that if accurate information was made public by the husband and it was not slanderous how that could be harassment, but when a person wears a sandwich board saying "obama is a liar" is legal under the first amendment. Can anyone please chime in on that?

I mean, don't newspapers all the time print content like "Brad Pitt is a cheater" or other embarrassing, personal information about people? How come they can do that but that husband could not say true and non-slanderous things without being hit with a harassment protection order?

Thank you

 

[quincy]

I still don't understand that if accurate information was made public by the husband and it was not slanderous how that could be harassment, but when a person wears a sandwich board saying "obama is a liar" is legal under the first amendment. Can anyone please chime in on that?

I mean, don't newspapers all the time print content like "Brad Pitt is a cheater" or other embarrassing, personal information about people? How come they can do that but that husband could not say true and non-slanderous things without being hit with a harassment protection order?

Thank you

Here is a link to the Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center site: http://www.newseuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/

You can explore the site and see what it has to offer.

Learning what speech is protected in our country (and why) and what speech is not protected in our country (and why) can help you avoid the same mistakes made by the husband who created the fake website to humiliate his wife.

Addressing your questions, in the order you asked them: Truth is not a defense to an invasion of a person's privacy/publication of private facts; The harassment statute in Washington includes acts designed to humiliate, coerce or intimidate another (RCW 9A.46.010); One test of freedom in a country is the ability of its citizens to go unpunished for criticizing those with or in political power (plus, "Obama is a liar" is an opinion); Public figures have less privacy rights than private figures (but Brad Pitt could still sue over defamatory comments published about him).

FreeAdvice is not a "discussion" site but rather a "legal advice" site (although sometimes we have discussions). The members of this site will address First Amendment issues as they relate to a poster's own legal situation - but I am sure you can find places on the internet where you can discuss First Amendment issues in general.

 

[Proserpina]

I still don't understand that if accurate information was made public by the husband and it was not slanderous how that could be harassment, but when a person wears a sandwich board saying "obama is a liar" is legal under the first amendment. Can anyone please chime in on that?

I mean, don't newspapers all the time print content like "Brad Pitt is a cheater" or other embarrassing, personal information about people? How come they can do that but that husband could not say true and non-slanderous things without being hit with a harassment protection order?

Thank you

Perhaps you can learn from reading this: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html. While you're at it, look up the word "hyperbole". It's clear that you don't understand. But here's your opportunity to learn.

There is nothing, physically, stopping a person from saying anything they wish to say.

The person simply deals with the consequences of such speech. These two elements are not the same. Agreed? This is a very simple concept.

Back to the example you gave. He should be very lucky they didn't have minor children together; the court would have likely stripped him of his custodial rights too (but allowed him to pay child support all the same).

Incidentally I doubt the Fist Amendment protects the speaker, either.

 

[ajkroy]

I am always amazed that so many people seem to quote the Constitution without reading it. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

OP, this means you have a right to publicly shame your government...not your wife.

 

[cbg]

Given the number of forums both up and down the street where he has posted this same question, trying desperately to get someone to tell him that because of free speech the husband is justified in what he did and will be able to face no penalties, the only conclusion I am able to draw is that he is the vengeful ex-husband.

 

[justalayman]

Many tabloids have been successfully sued for printing erroneous claims. I don't know if brad Pitt did cheat so I cannot comment on that specific statement but where is has been erroneous, tabloids have lost many dollars in the ensuing lawsuits.

Political figures actually lose some of the protections of law afforded the average citizen. As a political figure the populace is allowed a lot of latitude in what we say about them. Similarly even police lose some of the protections when engaged in their duties. It is simply how our laws have been interpreted.

Whether a statement is true or not has little to do with harassment. Untrue statements are the basis for other actions such as defamation. Even true statements can be the basis of a harassment suit if the actions are intended to....


Wait for it...


I know you think this is going to be silly but it really isn't...


Have you guessed it yet....



HARASS.



Yep. If a person's actions are intentionally designed to harass a person the law actually can take that and charge you criminally as well as the target suing you civilly.


Did you not see the recent prosecution where the owner of the website that was specifically designed to do exactly what "your friend" did resulted in him going to PRISON?

 

[Proserpina]

Given the number of forums both up and down the street where he has posted this same question, trying desperately to get someone to tell him that because of free speech the husband is justified in what he did and will be able to face no penalties, the only conclusion I am able to draw is that he is the vengeful ex-husband.

Oh you're KIDDING me.

It's...him?

Okay folks, move along, nothing to see here.