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 appearing to be her telling about her life 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 thinking as irrational. 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

 

[army judge]

Free speech isn't a duty owed from one citizen to the other. You, nor do I, can't be forced to endure the ravings and rankings of some schizophrenic looney.

On the other hand, the government owes you the duty to not censor your views, your rankings, and ramblings. That's why you can stand on the corner of Vine and Pumpkin wearing a sandwich board sign that reads: "Obama is a liar. Harry Reid is a klutz. Jen Bush wears pink 'manties'."

What the idiot is alleged to have done in your "hypo" isn't free speech. It's more akin to libel.

The first amendment protection doesn't allow you to taunt others. The privilege doesn't apply to an online forum, such as this one, which has its own rules.

All of the constitutional protections are to prevent government from running roughshod over anyone in this country: be it citizen, visitor, immigrant, or trespasser. The protections don't apply from person to person, or company to company.

 

[francero]

thank you for your reply
"What the idiot is alleged to have done in your "hypo" isn't free speech. It's more akin to libel. "
Is that true even if it is not slanderous but states the truth?

"You, nor do I, can't be forced to endure the ravings and rankings of some schizophrenic looney. "
"wearing a sandwich board sign that reads: "Obama is a liar. Harry Reid is a klutz"
These sound like contradicting statements. If the guy wears this sandwich board then Obama or Reid are exactly enduring the ravings of a looney. Aren't they? What is the difference?

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

 

[army judge]

thank you for your reply
"What the idiot is alleged to have done in your "hypo" isn't free speech. It's more akin to libel. "
Is that true even if it is not slanderous but states the truth?

"You, nor do I, can't be forced to endure the ravings and rankings of some schizophrenic looney. "
"wearing a sandwich board sign that reads: "Obama is a liar. Harry Reid is a klutz"
These sound like contradicting statements. If the guy wears this sandwich board then Obama or Reid are exactly enduring the ravings of a looney. Aren't they? What is the difference?

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

The people you named all have public persona's.
The woman named by the ijutt, wasn't a public person.

You'll have to do your own research going forward.
I did this in law school decades ago.
Its as boring today as it was then.

The difference being, I needed a grade in those days, and pretended to care.
These days, I'll be honest, I just don't care.
I earned my law degree, possess bar admissions up the ying yang, and would rather do lots of nuttin. LOL
Good luck, I wish you well.

 

[ElleMD]

This guy sounds incredibly unbalanced. Normal people just do not do what he did. If it is clear he is the author, then I'm betting the 350 friends are wondering what his problem is and probably believing little of what was posted, true or not. Still, the judge obviously saw this as the troublesome behavior that it is and took action. That is totally legal. I can't even begin to imagine how the lunatic husband could possibly justify this behavior. It serves no legitimate purpose except to embarrass and humiliate the wife, and to showcase his unsavory true nature.