The Electronic Frontier Foundation attacked a second Washington state law it...
The Electronic Frontier Foundation attacked a second Washington state law it claims is unconstitutionally vague, following EFF’s argument last week in federal court against a law targeting Backpage.com’s adult classifieds section (WID July 24 p1). The new case concerns a…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“cyberstalking” law that the group told a Clark County district judge (http://bit.ly/Oj5CzS) could endanger critical comments posted in other contexts, such as a negative review on Yelp. “The idea that courts must police every inflammatory word spoken online not only chills freedom of speech, but is inconsistent with decades of First Amendment jurisprudence,” its friend-of-the-court brief said. The case concerns “two former friends having a very public brawl,” one the ex-wife of the other’s friend, EFF said. Brandy Edwards created a dating profile under a male pseudonym on Okcupid.com and started a “consensual series of communications” with Amanda Westmont, the ex-wife, who in turn sent nude photos of herself to Edwards. Months later when their online relationship ended, the pseudonymous Edwards left comments on Westmont’s blog calling her a “liar,” “nutcase” and “whack-job” and offered to send Westmont’s nude photos to other people. Then Westmont reported the posts to police. Edwards was charged a year later under Washington’s cyberstalking law for “harassing and embarrassing” Westmont and for using “obscene” language, which included vulgarities, to do so, EFF said. The law punishes anonymous speech and certain “prohibited words,” and “therefore fails to criminalize any conduct distinct and separate from the act of speaking,” the brief said. The blanket prohibition on “lewd, lascivious, indecent or obscene” words also captures protected speech, as does the criminalization of speech intended to “harass, intimidate, torment or embarrass,” EFF said. By failing to “inform a person what acts are criminal,” the law fails as well: It doesn’t define “repeatedly,” doesn’t differentiate between “separate independent events over time or a single event with multiple acts,” and doesn’t define the “harass” series of prohibited actions. “The statute must rely on the sensibilities of each individual victim,” and such subjectivity in a stalking law has been found unconstitutionally vague “routinely” in court, the brief said. “The way this law is written, it could end up criminalizing things like posting a negative review on a website like Yelp,” EFF staff attorney Hanni Fakhoury said separately.