EFF Fighting Cyberstalking Laws That Criminalize Protected Speech

Amendment." EFF said in a Wednesday blog post that it filed an amicus brief Dec. 7 in State of Washington v. John Andrew Boyajian, saying the law is "facially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment and vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment." EFF made the same assertion about the statute in a 2012 amicus brief filed in City of Vancouver v. Brandy L. Edwards, asking the same District Court of the State of Washington to dismiss charges against that defendant. In 2011, EFF filed an amicus brief with U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in U.S. v. William Lawrence Cassidy, arguing that the federal anti-stalking statute was vague and criminalized speech. In the Dec. 7 brief, which the group said was rejected by the trial judge, EFF said the Washington statute essentially bans any electronic communications -- emails, blogs, websites, social media, instant messages and others -- "with intent to embarrass (or harass, intimidate, or torment), if the communication is anonymous, repetitive, indecent, or threatening." EFF argued that the First Amendment protects an individual's "right to express messages that are intended to cause embarrassment, insult, and outrage." Among other arguments, it said key terms or phrases in the statute such as "repeated" as well as "harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass" are vague. EFF said such statutes could penalize protected speech such as a newspaper running editorials that elected officials "should be embarrassed because of their misconduct."