Mass. High Court Rules Cyber-Harassment is Not Protected Speech
Ruling in a bizarre case involving lies posted on Craigslist that the court ultimately deemed harassing, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Tuesday that cyber-harassment is not protected by the First Amendment, The Boston Herald reports.
In 2011, William and Gail Johnson of Andover were convicted of criminal harassment after they arranged to post information on Craigslist indicating that their neighbors, Jim and Bernadette Lyons, had some stuff that they wanted to get rid of.
Like free golf carts and a Harley Davidson motorcycle they were willing to sell for a mere $300. The only problem is that the couple didn’t have golf carts or a motorcycle.
The posts, which were made by a friend of the Johnsons, contained the victims’ address and phone number, so naturally, they were bombarded with phone calls and strangers showing up at their door looking for items that didn’t exist.
The friend, Gerald Colton, who later testified against the Johnsons, also posed as Jim Lyons online and, among other things, signed him up to donate his body to science and join nudist and transsexual organizations, The Associated Press (via MassLive) reported in September.
Most egregiously, Lyons received a letter from a fake former employee who accused Lyons of molesting him as a teenager and threatened to press charges. That accusation brought state child protection workers to the victims’ home. The court found that the Johnsons also sent “ominous and hostile’’ messages directly, but anonymously, to the Lyonses, according to the Herald.
William Johnson served 18 months in jail for criminal harassment and falsely reporting child abuse. Gail Johnson served six months for criminal harassment. To give some context, starting in 2003, the Johnsons and Lyonses had previously feuded, to the point of litigation, over a disputed land development.
In court, the defendants argued that the state criminal harassment statute didn’t apply to them because they did not use “fighting words’’ and, they claimed, didn’t really harm the victims. The court disagreed, and found that:
“Their conduct served solely to harass the (victims) by luring numerous strangers and prompting incessant late-night telephone calls to their home by way of false representations, by overtly and aggressively threatening to misuse their personal identifying information, and by falsely accusing (the husband) of a serious crime.’’
The Lyonses are “very gratified’’ by the ruling, according to WCVB.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com